# Extreme Intuition?



## LostFavor

theredpanda said:


> Yeah, I see what you're saying. Does Ni stay on topic or bounce around because I might see something and get an insight or idea about it but that quickly formulates into another idea that I connect it to then another and another and it keeps going...


Hmm, good question. Depends a little on how you define bouncing around. In conversation, I can go off on an endlessly linking tangent (X leads to Y leads to Why leads to Questions leads to Q&A leads to FAQs), but each "topic" is somehow connected to the last one and it's a pretty steady digression from the original topic. Usually, in a long conversation, there probably aren't any more than 3-5 major tangents. Some of it depends on who I'm talking to and whether a particular train of thought leads to something dead-end conclusive (if it does, that can temporarily kill the whole conversation).

I haven't had a lot of free-flowing conversations with Ne-doms, so I'm not sure if there'd be a difference were I talking to one of them.



northerner said:


> Good lord this is hopeless. If people want to see N vs S as simply being complex vs being simplistic. Being creative vs uncreative. Being imaginative vs being unimaginative. Be my guest. You're not doing yourself any favors aside from pumping up your self esteem about how "N" you are. You're certainly not gaining any real insight into how you think.


I don't know where you're getting this from. I'm pretty sure no one in this thread took any of the positions that you just disagreed with.


----------



## theredpanda

LostFavor said:


> Hmm, good question. Depends a little on how you define bouncing around. In conversation, I can go off on an endlessly linking tangent (X leads to Y leads to Why leads to Questions leads to Q&A leads to FAQs), but each "topic" is somehow connected to the last one and it's a pretty steady digression from the original topic. Usually, in a long conversation, there probably aren't any more than 3-5 major tangents. Some of it depends on who I'm talking to and whether a particular train of thought leads to something dead-end conclusive (if it does, that can temporarily kill the whole conversation).
> 
> I haven't had a lot of free-flowing conversations with Ne-doms, so I'm not sure if there'd be a difference were I talking to one of them.


Ok. Yeah all of them are somewhat connected for me, although VERY abstractly connected...


----------



## reckful

northerner said:


> Good lord this is hopeless. If people want to see N vs S as simply being complex vs being simplistic. Being creative vs uncreative. Being imaginative vs being unimaginative. Be my guest. You're not doing yourself any favors aside from pumping up your self esteem about how "N" you are. You're certainly not gaining any real insight into how you think.


Hmmm. So... whether (in your words) "you see the big picture (supposedly N related) or ... you see details (supposedly S related)" and whether (in your words) "you think abstractly (supposedly N related) or concretely (supposedly S)" doesn't relate to (in your words) "how you think"? That's an interesting perspective.

The main point is that, as explained in that first post I linked to, if you think big picture vs. details and abstract vs. concrete have (as you put it) "nothing to do with S vs. N," then you're off in some theoretical world of your own, separate from Myers, Thomson, Berens, Nardi, Quenk and every other reasonably well-regarded MBTI theorist I've ever read.

Who's your theorist of choice? Or have you created a new MBTI of your own — where S/N has nothing to do with concrete/abstract and (as you also observed) "Extroversion/Introversion has nothing to do with how social/reclusive you are"?

And on that last point... if you're interested in a heavy dose of Jung's perspective on shy introverts and sociable extraverts, see the spoiler in this post. Jung certainly thought extraversion/introversion had a lot to do with how social/reclusive somebody was likely to be.


----------



## Quernus

Xtreme Intuition sounds like a really dangerous sport. 

I am not sure what I think of the fluid cognitive processes theory. Some believe there is only one order in which your cog processes can be, without any flexibility, due to "structural compatibility" issues. Some think there is some variation based on the person, with just common patterns based on type.

When I take the cognitive functions test, I usually get something like: Fi Ne Si Ni Te Ti Fe Se. 

Fi and Ne are always the first two (though the order can change), then there's some variation among the ordering of Si Ni Te and Ti... Fe and Se are always last. Lol. But according to stricter MBTI theory, that's not the correct order for an INFP.

But whether or not my Ni is more developed than it's "supposed" to be, I would still say it's definitely "works with" my Si more often. They're very compatible processes. Still, I am starting to relate more and more to a lot of Ni descriptions (not in a way where it would be anywhere near dominant, though). But this could be due to an issue with the descriptions, or just error in my self-perception.

Perhaps it's that way for you too. Also keep in mind that perhaps you're attributing certain things to the wrong functions, or misunderstanding the interplay between all the functions. I'm not saying that IS the case, just a possibility.


----------



## Kavik

@theredpanda
You might want to consider other types without N. I fought the idea of being an S since I always scored high INTJ/INTP and still do. Read the functions alone, root out the *cause* of how you are. The MBTI tests score you on your symptoms, the *effects*. if you look at from a medical standpoint...If you just treat the symptoms you'll feel slightly less nauseous but never get better, it's only when you kill the cause that you actually get well.

I'm ISTP from the function standpoint. I'm not a thrill seeking athletic junkie who skips school to do 'fun things' and lives only in the moment. I do sit back and absorb outside ideas before finding something to pounce on. Rules are malleable tools and I focus on things - tangible ideas even if I only see them in my head. I have a pliable internal framework that strives for consistency in the external world. I put new ideas through a trial by fire that incorporates challenging those who provided the new data after I have internally processed it. I have a romantic Se that's always being slapped in the face by my dominant, rational Ni.

Try looking at the functions from that standpoint. How do you interact with the outside and inside world?


----------



## theredpanda

Kavik said:


> @theredpanda
> You might want to consider other types without N. I fought the idea of being an S since I always scored high INTJ/INTP and still do. Read the functions alone, root out the *cause* of how you are. The MBTI tests score you on your symptoms, the *effects*. if you look at from a medical standpoint...If you just treat the symptoms you'll feel slightly less nauseous but never get better, it's only when you kill the cause that you actually get well.
> 
> I'm ISTP from the function standpoint. I'm not a thrill seeking athletic junkie who skips school to do 'fun things' and lives only in the moment. I sit back and absorb outside ideas before finding something to pounce on. Rules are malleable tools and I focus on things - tangible ideas even if I only see them in my head. I have a pliable internal framework that strives for consistency in the external world. I put new ideas through a trial by fire that incorporates challenging those who provided the new data after I have internally processed it. I have a romantic Se that's always being slapped in the face by my dominant, rational Ni.
> 
> Try looking at the functions from that standpoint. How do you interact with the outside and inside world?


How do I interact with the outside and inside world? I'm terribly out of touch with reality- I'm not a Sensor at all. I can't focus on details and the world bores me- I'm a dreamer at heart and I dwell in my own little world of possibilities and ideas about the future- I'm an idealist and a bit of a romantic. I hate reality. The only thing that keeps me from locking myself in my own little world is that I do need the external world of people to keep me from becoming restless. I also just don't care about the external world and reality.


----------



## reckful

@theredpanda —

It's not that uncommon to encounter MBTI internet forumites who'll tell you that they _consistently test N_ — sometimes high N! — on the official MBTI and other dichotomy-based tests but, by golly, after they watched SuperDuperDave's videos and came to understand that it's _all about your functions_, they realized that, while they might be N's if you're talking about those sillysuperficialdichotomies, they were really S's deep down inside.

There's a technical term for those people. They're called N's. :tongue:


----------



## theredpanda

reckful said:


> @theredpanda —
> 
> It's not that uncommon to encounter MBTI internet forumites who'll tell you that they _consistently test N_ — sometimes high N! — on the official MBTI and other dichotomy-based tests but, by golly, after they watched SuperDuperDave's videos and came to understand that it's _all about your functions_, they realized that, while they might be N's if you're talking about those sillysuperficialdichotomies, they were really S's deep down inside.
> 
> There's a technical term for those people. They're called N's. :tongue:


Yeah, I'm about 99.9% sure I'm an N.


----------



## Kavik

theredpanda said:


> How do I interact with the outside and inside world? I'm terribly out of touch with reality- I'm not a Sensor at all. I can't focus on details and the world bores me- I'm a dreamer at heart and I dwell in my own little world of possibilities and ideas about the future- I'm an idealist and a bit of a romantic. I hate reality. The only thing that keeps me from locking myself in my own little world is that I do need the external world of people to keep me from becoming restless. I also just don't care about the external world and reality.


Anyone can be out of touch with reality or bored with the world. I often block it because my internal worlds are much more interesting as well and eventually get restless if I can't use my internalizations on something external, such as people or things, and in my case it's things. I'm not an expert on MBTI so I don't want to give false information, but don't knock it until you try it or ruminate on it a bit.




reckful said:


> @theredpanda —
> 
> It's not that uncommon to encounter MBTI internet forumites who'll tell you that they _consistently test N_ — sometimes high N! — on the official MBTI and other dichotomy-based tests but, by golly, after they watched SuperDuperDave's videos and came to understand that it's _all about your functions_, they realized that, while they might be N's if you're talking about those sillysuperficialdichotomies, they were really S's deep down inside.
> 
> There's a technical term for those people. They're called N's. :tongue:


I haven’t seen any of those videos. I came to the conclusion of being an S after posting a ‘what is my type thread’ and having a long debate over whatever psudo science type I am. If you care to refute my type, have at it and prove me wrong.


----------



## theredpanda

Kavik said:


> Anyone can be out of touch with reality or bored with the world. I often block it because my internal worlds are much more interesting as well and eventually get restless if I can't use my internalizations on something external, such as people or things, and in my case it's things. I'm not an expert on MBTI so I don't want to give false information, but don't knock it until you try it or ruminate on it a bit.


I've been told by many others that I'm an ENTP. If you think otherwise please give me proof- I doubt myself a lot but I'm pretty sure of my type.


----------



## Kavik

theredpanda said:


> I've been told by many others that I'm an ENTP. If you think otherwise please give me proof- I doubt myself a lot but I'm pretty sure of my type.


I can't give you an in depth analysis, I'm too new to the process and would be fumbling with with the idea as if it were a lab rat and I had lots of toys at my disposal to experiment on it with while having only a vague idea of what I was doing. It would be messy and confuse the rat. Not that you are a rat. Only you can really type yourself and I hear you on the confusing part. MBTI is a theory, not a law, there really isn't a right answer, only lots speculation that's subject to change.


----------



## theredpanda

Kavik said:


> I can't give you an in depth analysis, I'm too new to the process and would be fumbling with with the idea as if it were a lab rat and I had lots of toys at my disposal to experiment on it with while having only a vague idea of what I was doing. It would be messy and confuse the rat. Not that you are a rat. Only you can really type yourself and I hear you on the confusing part. MBTI is a theory, not a law, there really isn't a right answer, only lots speculation that's subject to change.


 Yes, but I am still quite confident that I am an ENTP- unless proven otherwise


----------



## Kavik

theredpanda said:


> Yes, but I am still quite confident that I am an ENTP- unless proven otherwise


Fair enough.


----------



## 66393

theredpanda said:


> Pretty sure I'm not an "S"- I've never tested as anything but an N.


They say we test as what we want to be, rather than what we truly are... You cannot trust a self-diagnosis through a test. Just being realistic lol.


----------



## theredpanda

kev said:


> They say we test as what we want to be, rather than what we truly are... You cannot trust a self-diagnosis through a test. Just being realistic lol.


I know but I've also been typed several times as ENTP by other people.


----------



## 66393

theredpanda said:


> I know but I've also been typed several times as ENTP by other people.


I'll take it, I'll take it... Not trying to dis(type)prove you buddy. I'm still highly unsure of my type too, I feelz the pain  since you said you cant tell if you're an Ne or Ni dom


----------



## theredpanda

kev said:


> I'll take it, I'll take it... Not trying to dis(type)prove you buddy. I'm still highly unsure of my type too, I feelz the pain  since you said you cant tell if you're an Ne or Ni dom


No I'm an Ne-dom definitely, but I was saying I thought I used Ni more than the average ENTP did as well


----------



## 66393

theredpanda said:


> No I'm an Ne-dom definitely, but I was saying I thought I used Ni more than the average ENTP did as well


You could have easily developed it over the years.


----------



## reckful

Kavik said:


> I haven’t seen any of those videos. I came to the conclusion of being an S after posting a ‘what is my type thread’ and having a long debate over *whatever psudo science type I am*. If you care to refute my type, have at it and prove me wrong.


If you think the MBTI is a "pseudoscience," that could be part of the problem.

There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences and, unlike astrology (for example), temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs in the "soft science" category, and you can (if you're interested) read more about that in this post, which includes links that point to quite a lot of scientific support for the MBTI.

As McCrae and Costa (the most prominent Big Five psychologists) have noted, Jung's Psychological Types was something of a tangle in the sense that Jung's type categories — and, in particular, his very broad notions of what extraversion and introversion entailed — mistakenly lumped together a number of personality characteristics that subsequent studies (including Isabel Myers's decades of work) have shown don't actually co-vary.

Jung was a strong believer in the scientific approach, and Myers put Jung's type categories to the test in a way that he never had. When she was finished, the Myers-Briggs typology consisted of (in McCrae and Costa's words) "a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices." It turns out that Myers was effectively tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions over 50 years ago — long before there was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that _identical twins raised in separate households_ are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to _real_, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.

And the items on the official MBTI are there because they've been the survivors of a decades-long winnowing and adjustment process in which they've demonstrated respectable degrees of reliability by the statistical ("psychometric") standards applicable in the personality field.

None of which is to say that people don't sometimes end up mistyped on one or more of the dichotomies — and I suspect that the fact that it's pretty common (apparently) to be close to the middle on one or more of them is probably the single greatest contributor to that. (And note that Jung himself said he thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted.) But if you're someone who consistently tests N on MBTI dichotomy tests and also finds that, when you read typical MBTI characterizations of what the S/N _dichotomy_ is about, you feel like you belong on the N side, then I'd say the chances that you're an S — and, again, I'm talking about a _real_ S, not a they're-pseudotypes-so-you-can-call-yourself-anything-you-want S — are quite low, notwithstanding what any of the Cognitive Function Kids may have told you about your freaking "Ti" and your freaking "Se" in some type-me thread.


----------



## theredpanda

kev said:


> You could have easily developed it over the years.


I'm only 15 and have been through a crapload of changes but I know who I am now- for the most part


----------



## 66393

theredpanda said:


> I'm only 15 and have been through a crapload of changes but I know who I am now- for the most part


I was only 15 and I thought I knew who I was. Give it some time buddy and stay true to yourself and you'll see what you are. I'm[Redacted]and the amount of changes I've had since 15 are immense...


----------



## theredpanda

kev said:


> I was only 15 and I thought I knew who I was. Give it some time buddy and stay true to yourself and you'll see what you are. I'm 17 and the amount of changes I've had since 15 are immense...


I know that- a few years ago I thought I was an INTJ- but i know I'm an ENTP now. I might change some- DEFINITELY will because I want to become a better "me".


----------



## Entropic

I am going to pull a very unpopular opinion on this one but I was mentioned as an example so hey, why not: I'd say the OP is some kind of Fe dominant but I actually lean towards ESFJ. Feeling dominants but Fe doms in particular for some reason, very often mistake Fe for intuition, because Fe helps them to read people's emotional intents, motivations etc through their manifested behavior. In everyday speech yes, this is definitely a form of intuition but it is *not* Jungian intuition. The way the OP also rejects specific types because XYZ people think ABC about the OP/are DFG way the OP is not, is what indicates Fe dominance.

And by the way @reckful the OP posted this in the cognitive function threads that deals with Jungian theory and hence also Jungian understanding of the types, *not* the MBTI subforum, so pull that "anti-MBTI" crap somewhere else please. Go argue your beloved dichotomies somewhere else.

@Kavik good to see that you came around. Ti is a very abstract and reality-removed process. It's no wonder you don't relate to the MBTI profiles that (over)emphasize the sensing aspect of the ISTP type making them seem as if they are all uneducated and unintelligent blue collar people with no capability to have interest in theory etc. Blame Keirsey for that one.

@LostFavor sorry but you are incorrect. Intuition does indeed deal with primordial images. This is the very word Jung used to describe it, and specifically in relation to Ni also because Ni is more attuned to the collective unconsciousness than Ne is. By that he of course doesn't mean literal images or visual stimulus. That's not really how it works for me at all because I am a terrible visual thinker. Simple cognitive exercises like rotating an image in my mind takes a lot of conscious effort. I'm primarily intrapersonal/auditory. What matters is more that you get an impression of something. This impression is the image. You can't say that my immediate impression to the picture I saw in that thread where my post was copied from was of visual nature, because there's nothing visual about war as a concept. You can't even say that my follow-up description after that was particularly visual either. I can describe something of visual nature or use visual metaphors to clad my impression in something tangible but that's not what Jung means when he's talking about how intuition procures primordial images. It's that impression itself that is the image. It is intangible by definition being intuition. The Ni type is just going to clad this image in a specific way that may seem sensory when relying it to the outside world. Jung himself writes that intuition very often appears similar to sensation.

I also want to clarify the above that I am of course talking about *conscious* use of intuition. Unconscious intuition is something else that I have no direct experiential understanding of because it obviously doesn't apply to me.


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> For some clarification on N and S, see this post.


Only the spoiler at the end of that post attempts to actually clarify N and S, and only the first sentence of that engages it directly at all. The second sentence jumps right into Myers, by moving away from a theory of cognition, but one of preference (as in, 'that which you personally choose to be more desirable'). We are now, of course, completely outside of Jung... since at no point whatsoever does Jung even begin to approach this as a question of preference. In fact, Jung states that functions like Si are often not aware of their own operation or existence... and that certain functions are easily mistaken for others. This, of course, goes rather beyond a rejection of preference as a determining factor.

The rest of the clarification are quotations of people who all essentially reject Jung and supplant it with their own systems, which are specifically contradictory to it (and in many ways each other)... and on more wildly more profound levels than just aux/tert function ordering. For example, you state that it is an indication of N to dislike a job that involves repetitive tasks. Jung never said this at all (as far as I can recall) nor could it remotely be interpreted from his description of Se. In fact, the Se description fairly well contradicts it. Thus, it is not a clarification of N and S, but a promulgation of Myers', Keirseys, and presumably your own, perspective. I am not even sure that is true, as I doubt that Keirsey would agree that SP is any more at ease with repetition. Of course, this isn't true at all... as I am sure many intuitives can attest. Many intuitives might actually prefer a humdrum job, as their interests may rely on the paycheck, and the more mindless the job, the easier it is to focus on other interests. A certain famous patent officer comes to mind. I worked very happily at a clinical laboratory, mindlessly and repetitively pouring human fluids (mainly blood) from one tube into another, for years. I literally repeated a single action for 8 hours a day for YEARS and found it rather cathartic. I've told this to many very stereotypical S types, who typed S and stated even the most banal descriptions as their 'preference', who exclaimed that they could never do such a 'mindless' and 'repetitive' job. Applying such a thing to an ESxP, especially, is absurd. I am very confused that you would consider this a 'clarification' of N and S. It is nothing of the sort. 



reckful said:


> As for your high Ni and Ne: Dario Nardi's one of the leading cognitive functions guys (as you may know), and his test is arguably the most-linked-to cognitive functions test — but, as further discussed in this INTJforum post, INTJs typically get high Ni scores _and high Ne scores_ (with Ni not substantially favored over Ne), and high Te scores _and high Ti scores_ (with Te not substantially favored over Ti), when they take Nardi's test.


Its popularity is irrelevant, as a scrutiny of its methodology or algorithm is far far more meaningful. Perhaps this behavior is part of that methodology and algorithm. Or ambiguity in the questions, or an ambiguous or poor understanding of the functions, or the very nature of such questions, or X or Y or Z. You have proved nothing because a valid alternative hypothesis states that the results could be caused by other factors. Thus your conclusion is not cogent and should not be used. This, I assume, will not faze you. That this seems to indicate your preference for Te over Ti, rather than just Thinking, is serendipitous. 



reckful said:


> As I understand it, there isn't a single function-based test on or off the internet on which INTJs reliably get high Ni and Te scores and low Ti and Ne scores and INTPs reliably get high Ti and Ne scores and low Ni and Te scores — never mind scoring the third and fourth functions in a way that matches the model. I'm theoretically an "Ni-dom," but Te and Ti were my two highest scores on Nardi's test.


You have not proved the conclusion. That you use yourself as an example is itself a rather perfect example. You chose the conclusion that supported your position, rather than impartially considering the many other possible conclusions. You are 'theoretically' an Ni-dom, by whose estimation? Well, only you can type you, as you say, and yet you imply that the typing is spurious in a Jungian context. The same context that you reject. Rather basic logic would conclude that you are actually not an Ni-dom in that context, or at least might consider it as an alternative hypothesis. You have not. Why? 

What should we care at all that you would be theoretically an Ni-dom, which can very well be untrue... or that you identify as an INTJ, which is circular... or that Nardi's test is ambiguous or contradictory on the matter? This is logical failure after logical failure. At least in terms of internal consistency. I recognize that there is value in terms of external consistency, but I am not cognitively so inclined. It all rather continuously 'begs the question'.



reckful said:


> And what functions model should a good test be matching, anyway? Myers acknowledged that the majority of Jung scholars believed (rightly, IMHO) that Jung's model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary was Ti-Ni-Se-Fe. Myers' model was Ti-Ne-Se-Fe — although, as explained in my linked post (below), Myers, despite some lip service to the contrary, essentially abandoned the functions for the dichotomies. Harold Grant's model — followed by Berens and Nardi and most of the other modern functions theorists — was Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.


An important point to contextualize our view of the functions, yes... and a differing from Jung. It should be stated quite clearly as a deviation from the 'modern' view of typology from Jung. I believe it is, on the whole, the only one? 


-----

As you ponder your reply to me, realize that while any attacks on me or my previous statements or assertions are certainly welcome and likely quite accurate, they are no substitute for addressing my rebuttal. They are rather entirely irrelevant, as I am sure you know. An idiot and a liar, who has called the sky red in the past, can call the sky blue and blue it will remain. It is a terrible error in thinking to include them. Please clearly delineate such in your reply. 

Also, please dispense with name calling or jabs... which is how you have previously begun your replies.


----------



## VoodooDolls

Laxgort said:


> Ni is... Your best friend says you a plan to [ ] and you without a minimum of logical say: "That will not work" Friend: Why? You: I don't know, but that will not work!
> .


that really depends on the situation, for me it could be Fi, Si or even Ti


----------



## Wolfskralle

I'm bored so gonna nitpick a bit. :kitteh:


northerner said:


> I do too. Means you're an introvert.


Nah, it don't. I'm pretty sure most of famous ENTP physicists and philosophers were like that.



theredpanda said:


> But I pull people into my mind- I need people- I'm an extrovert.


ENTP 1st function is extraverted intuition which means it is attuned to external concepts, ideas, abstracts, etc. just like Se, the most difference is that Ne perceives objects without forms of time and space, as opposed to Se (means: completely without those forms, not like a generalization of some tangible stuff). This having said, Ne is likely to manifest in social extroversion (since people sometimes are really interesting and they can bring some brand new ideas), but it doesn't have to. 



theredpanda said:


> I think I use it because I get those random revelations a lot- where everything suddenly clicks-


This sounds like Ne + Ti or Ti + Ne. It "clicks" cause it fits Ti structure.



northerner said:


> Do you A)see physical objects subjectively, pulling them into your mind where you then assess the objective connections and possibilities linking them.
> A is indicative of Ne-Si


I would definetely say it is indicative of Se - Ti. Ne is not about seeing any physical object. Everyone sees subjectively.



theredpanda said:


> I do have those times of "just knowing" things all the time


Ne is also about hunches, I've noticed that many Ni users (especially lower order Ni) tend to see it like a "random idea generator".



theredpanda said:


> I'm a dreamer at heart and I dwell in my own little world of possibilities and *ideas about the future*


You mean your own future? "Where I want to be in 12 years?" If yeah, then it does sound a bit like Ni, at least typically.



theredpanda said:


> I'm out of touch with reality a lot- choosing fantasy instead


For what it's worth, but my ISTP buddy does same thing.



LostFavor said:


> "Seeing behind the reality of things" isn't mutually exclusive with connecting puzzle pieces. I can look at a picture like this:
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/david_...ore-2014-04-26
> 
> and see "a path leading into oblivion," where someone else might see "an escalator with a curving ceiling." I could then have that connect to something already in my brain, such that I go, "Going up stairs is a metaphor for dealing with tough circumstances in your life!" (It looks a lot stupider when I'm pretending like I had an insight, but hopefully you get the point.)


For me it looks like a some Si impression tbh, I was going to quote it as a example of Si but then I noticed you are an INTJ. But I dunno, it might be Ni trying to translate itself into human language via Se. 



theredpanda said:


> I also have "deja vu" a lot.


Inferior Si?



ephemereality said:


> I'd say the OP is some kind of Fe dominant but I actually lean towards ESFJ. Feeling dominants but Fe doms in particular for some reason, very often mistake Fe for intuition, because Fe helps them to read people's emotional intents, motivations etc through their manifested behavior.


But she didn't say much about reading people, did she?




To the point: 

I have no fcking clue why there is 7 pages going on topic if theredpanda is Sensor or Intuitive, while in fact she just asked if it's possible to use both Ni and Ne. I dunno why people put so much energy into proving someone is an S not an N, it looks like some serious insecurity lol.
@theredpanda maybe you should describe why exactly you think you use both Ni and Ne? I mean give us some more concrete examples of when you used Ne and when you used Ni. Because it might be some other functions, but there is not enough data to say it.
I personally think it is possible to use both Ni and Ne, in certain circumstances:
1. Your psyche has not differentiated into subjectivity or objectivity. In that case both forms of intuition remain undeveloped.
2. You somehow developed Ni and Ne independently. In that case you will be able to use both, but never simultaneously, since both functions require completely different "mind setup", and basically exclude each other.

A hunch about @theredpanda : maybe you are just developing your inferior function and take it as a Ni? :> I dunno though.


----------



## Entropic

wolf12345 said:


> For me it looks like a some Si impression tbh, I was going to quote it as a example of Si but then I noticed you are an INTJ. But I dunno, it might be Ni trying to translate itself into human language via Se.


Type labels only mean so much. I definitely didn't think that when I saw it anyway. 



> But she didn't say much about reading people, did she?


No, but she made other claims. In particular though, she definitely extroverts feeling. It's all over her posts. 



> To the point:
> 
> I have no fcking clue why there is 7 pages going on topic if theredpanda is Sensor or Intuitive, while in fact she just asked if it's possible to use both Ni and Ne. I dunno why people put so much energy into proving someone is an S not an N, it looks like some serious insecurity lol.


Because people don't think it's possible, quite clearly. She got her answers on the first page and she disagreed. She specifically disagreed in a way I strongly associate with ESFJs because only ESFJs really reject things not fitting their perception of themselves in this way. Since she asked because she wanted to make sense of her type, it's quite obvious it will turn into an S/N debate because her preference towards intuition and how it appears would depend on the orientation of her sensation and intuition. They do not appear the same, obviously.


> @theredpanda maybe you should describe why exactly you think you use both Ni and Ne? I mean give us some more concrete examples of when you used Ne and when you used Ni. Because it might be some other functions, but there is not enough data to say it.
> I personally think it is possible to use both Ni and Ne, in certain circumstances:
> *1. Your psyche has not differentiated into subjectivity or objectivity. In that case both forms of intuition remain undeveloped.*


But then it's not Ne or Ni but just intuition. Since it would also likely be of unconscious nature being an ambivert and all, it would also likely not really look like either form of intuition in the first place and would be difficult to identify from anyone else's everyday use of intuition that we are all capable of expressing because we are all in possession of all the functions. 



> 2. You somehow developed Ni and Ne independently. In that case you will be able to use both, but never simultaneously, since both functions require completely different "mind setup", and basically exclude each other.


How is that different from the above? Seems contradictory for a mind to be capable of changing between such entirely different mentalities. I might also argue, seems unhealthy. 



> A hunch about @theredpanda : maybe you are just developing your inferior function and take it as a Ni? :> I dunno though.


I honestly doubt the OP is an inferior Ni type.


----------



## Wolfskralle

ephemereality said:


> Type labels only mean so much. I definitely didn't think that when I saw it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but she made other claims. In particular though, she definitely extroverts feeling. *It's all over her posts.
> *


If it is, then point taken. I didn't read theredpandas posts.


ephemereality said:


> Because people don't think it's possible, quite clearly. She got her answers on the first page and she disagreed. *She specifically disagreed in a way I strongly associate with ESFJs because only ESFJs really reject things not fitting their perception of themselves in this way.* Since she asked because she wanted to make sense of her type, it's quite obvious it will turn into an S/N debate because her preference towards intuition and how it appears would depend on the orientation of her sensation and intuition. They do not appear the same, obviously.


My point is: She did not give any specific examples of "Ni" and "Ne" that could serve as a basis for a rational debate. Thus, it can be based solely on the simplifications and bias. Bolded text: see? That's what I mean. Take no offense, but I think you're only projecting bias over your conflicting type into other people. I do not see ESFJs in that way.

I also didn't see any answer here except "no because no". Perhaps only @reckful tried to give some more developed reply about Ni & Ne as coexisting functions. Althought I also have doubts about significance of cognitive tests results. :kitteh:



ephemereality said:


> But then it's not Ne or Ni but just intuition.


Obviously, agree.



ephemereality said:


> How is that different from the above? Seems contradictory for a mind to be capable of changing between such entirely different mentalities. I might also argue, seems unhealthy.


In first case you have one unfocused function, here you have 2 functions that cannot coexist at the same time. Practically speaking, it might be extremely difficult to utilize both Ni and Ne, but I think it is possible, at least theoretically. Dunno if it's unhelathy.



ephemereality said:


> I honestly doubt the OP is an inferior Ni type.


I meant she has inferior Si and takes it as a Ni.


----------



## VinnieBob

theredpanda said:


> Because I get random revelations and realizations that build up inside me and then "click" one day.


I do as well, almost like a premonition. my ''gut feelings'' have never been wrong


----------



## VoodooDolls

would it be safe to say that if you don't know someone and in a brief conversation *in a chat*, give it 1 minute long, at a normal pace, you type him and hit the bullseye, does this makes me a higher intuitive? it's just a matter of how you engage every piece in that little conversation? is it Ni? or for example a Ti-Si/any other process?


----------



## Word Dispenser

DonutsGalacticos said:


> would it be safe to say that if you don't know someone and in a brief conversation *in a chat*, give it 1 minute long, at a normal pace, you type him and hit the bullseye, does this makes me a higher intuitive? it's just a matter of how you engage every piece in that little conversation? is it Ni? or for example a Ti-Si/any other process?


I still believe you to be an ESFJ. What you're describing isn't necessarily indicative of cognition. roud:


----------



## VoodooDolls

Word Dispenser said:


> I still believe you to be an ESFJ. What you're describing isn't necessarily indicative of cognition. roud:


well that's weird cause nobody has ever typed me as an extroverted type, i always get typed as ISFP, ISFJ and ISTP, also remember language can be a wall when trying to explain yourself, i definitely think so.
It would be interesting to see people's typing in one and other languages, specially when they're not at a profiency level at english. That's why i asked that high iq linked to Ni, i think a lot of what we percieve from users comes from the way they writte, it could lead us to make false assumptions out it.


----------



## Laxgort

DonutsGalacticos said:


> that really depends on the situation, for me it could be Fi, Si or even Ti


This is only Ni or a human characteristic, but there's no comparison.


----------



## Entropic

wolf12345 said:


> My point is: She did not give any specific examples of "Ni" and "Ne" that could serve as a basis for a rational debate.


Exactly. Hence I think other options should be looked at as to why the OP thinks they are in possession of both Ne and Ni and can utilize both well in a conscious way. No matter how you twist and turn the theory, that's not possible. 



> Thus, it can be based solely on the simplifications and bias. Bolded text: see? That's what I mean. Take no offense, but I think you're only projecting bias over your conflicting type into other people. I do not see ESFJs in that way.


It is not a value judgement. That's on you. I was no in way trying to project a negative impression of the type and I fail to see anything of the sort in the description I provided. Are you going to deny empirical observation?

It is a behavior I have observed in several ESFJs which is to say, not every ESFJ is that way, but that very way to look for other options when it comes to self-image is something I have come to associate with the type because it's something that seems quite common in the type. Obviously my observation is also a reflection of my own type in what I observe and pick up on in terms of behavior etc, but I think that's beyond the point. If you are going to argue for that kind of type bias then you are as equally guilty of it because you can't escape the power your type has over your psyche unless you would render yourself typeless, which isn't necessarily any more objective in terms of perception than possessing a type would be. 



> In first case you have one unfocused function, here you have 2 functions that cannot coexist at the same time. Practically speaking, it might be extremely difficult to utilize both Ni and Ne, but I think it is possible, at least theoretically. Dunno if it's unhelathy.


That's the thing though, Ne and Ni are both one function which is intuition. The orientation varies depending on the psyche and the only way it would change would be unconscious vs conscious, but it seems odd that something that is already of largely unconscious nature which it must be in the case of someone who does not have dominant intuition because that is the only scenario that applies, would change direction in such a way. It doesn't make any sense. It means that you are introverted one moment and extroverted another. That seems pretty unhealthy to me, because it means that the ego is very unstable. 



> I meant she has inferior Si and takes it as a Ni.


Well, she hasn't really provided any reason for such a conclusion either. 



vinniebob said:


> I do as well, almost like a premonition. my ''gut feelings'' have never been wrong


Gut feelings may be the result of intuition but is not unique to intuition.


----------



## FePa

theredpanda said:


> Because I get random revelations and realizations that build up inside me and then "click" one day.


I have that too, all the time!
The ahm há!!! That's why... moments but I thought this was pure Ne


----------



## theredpanda

ephemereality said:


> I am going to pull a very unpopular opinion on this one but I was mentioned as an example so hey, why not: I'd say the OP is some kind of Fe dominant but I actually lean towards ESFJ. Feeling dominants but Fe doms in particular for some reason, very often mistake Fe for intuition, because Fe helps them to read people's emotional intents, motivations etc through their manifested behavior. In everyday speech yes, this is definitely a form of intuition but it is *not* Jungian intuition. The way the OP also rejects specific types because XYZ people think ABC about the OP/are DFG way the OP is not, is what indicates Fe dominance.
> 
> And by the way @reckful the OP posted this in the cognitive function threads that deals with Jungian theory and hence also Jungian understanding of the types, *not* the MBTI subforum, so pull that "anti-MBTI" crap somewhere else please. Go argue your beloved dichotomies somewhere else.
> 
> @Kavik good to see that you came around. Ti is a very abstract and reality-removed process. It's no wonder you don't relate to the MBTI profiles that (over)emphasize the sensing aspect of the ISTP type making them seem as if they are all uneducated and unintelligent blue collar people with no capability to have interest in theory etc. Blame Keirsey for that one.
> 
> @LostFavor sorry but you are incorrect. Intuition does indeed deal with primordial images. This is the very word Jung used to describe it, and specifically in relation to Ni also because Ni is more attuned to the collective unconsciousness than Ne is. By that he of course doesn't mean literal images or visual stimulus. That's not really how it works for me at all because I am a terrible visual thinker. Simple cognitive exercises like rotating an image in my mind takes a lot of conscious effort. I'm primarily intrapersonal/auditory. What matters is more that you get an impression of something. This impression is the image. You can't say that my immediate impression to the picture I saw in that thread where my post was copied from was of visual nature, because there's nothing visual about war as a concept. You can't even say that my follow-up description after that was particularly visual either. I can describe something of visual nature or use visual metaphors to clad my impression in something tangible but that's not what Jung means when he's talking about how intuition procures primordial images. It's that impression itself that is the image. It is intangible by definition being intuition. The Ni type is just going to clad this image in a specific way that may seem sensory when relying it to the outside world. Jung himself writes that intuition very often appears similar to sensation.
> 
> I also want to clarify the above that I am of course talking about *conscious* use of intuition. Unconscious intuition is something else that I have no direct experiential understanding of because it obviously doesn't apply to me.


Haha I am not an ESFJ- I know that for sure. Normally I'm more open minded to such claims because I have a lot of self doubt, but I'm trying to get over such self doubt and holy crap I had no idea people would take the thread this far. I know what my type is and I'm sticking with it for once instead of letting myself doubt. All I'm asking is if it is possible to use both intuitive functions and if anyone can relate to this. Yes, I use Fe- and it may read strongly in some of my threads because I like getting other people's opinions on things as well as my own before formulating a conclusion based on pure evidence as well as people's opinions.


----------



## VoodooDolls

imo "fear cuts deeper than swords" sounds pretty esfjish.


----------



## Entropic

theredpanda said:


> Haha I am not an ESFJ- I know that for sure.


How do you know? Can you logically explain why?



> Normally I'm more open minded to such claims because I have a lot of self doubt, but I'm trying to get over such self doubt and holy crap I had no idea people would take the thread this far. I know what my type is and I'm sticking with it for once instead of letting myself doubt. All I'm asking is if it is possible to use both intuitive functions and if anyone can relate to this.


And your question has been answered - no, it's not. The reason for that is because there is only one intuitive function called just that - intuition. It can then take either orientation of introversion or extroversion. If it is oriented in one way it cannot be oriented another way unless your psyche would change its overall orientation which I'd argue isn't possible unless you are very mentally unstable, anyway. 



> Yes, I use Fe- and it may read strongly in some of my threads because I like getting other people's opinions on things as well as my own before formulating a conclusion based on pure evidence as well as people's opinions.


What does it mean to formulate a conclusion based on "pure evidence" and how does that relate to people's opinions?


----------



## ENTrePreneur

Guys.

Panda isn't ESFJ to save her life. xD

First of all...

She's got no J.

And much more Ti than Fe. She's still learning Fe. I can tell. Some of our conversations are very.. er.. lacking.. while others have a little bit. There's definitely signs of her learning Fe, but she's stronger in Ti.

Also.. She might be Se... but I'm leaning much farther Ne than Se on her.


----------



## Entropic

ENTrePreneur said:


> Guys.
> 
> Panda isn't ESFJ to save her life. xD
> 
> First of all...
> 
> She's got no J.


What does it mean to have no J?


----------



## Entropic

reckful said:


> As a reminder, my "Jungian acolyte" criticism came in response to this...
> 
> ​It would have been one thing if @arkigos had simply disagreed with my characterizations of N and S. But what he said was that my characterizations didn't even qualify as an "attempt to clarify N and S" because those characterizations — which, as I noted, are similarly found in Thomson, Berens and Nardi — stray too far from Jung's original conceptions.
> 
> Thanks for playing, but I'm confident that my intellectual integrity remains intact.


Except he attacked your idea, not your character, but nice try. You on the other hand, made a blatant attack on his character and while he may be nice enough to refrain from such tactics even though you couldn't keep your part of his request I'm definitely not.


----------



## reckful

ephemereality said:


> Except he attacked your idea, not your character, but nice try. You on the other hand, made a blatant attack on his character and while he may be nice enough to refrain from such tactics even though you couldn't keep your part of his request I'm definitely not.


If my remarks about @arkigos's expressed attitude toward those who depart from Jung's ideas struck you as an unnaceptable "attack" on his "character," I think you need to rethink your notion of what constitutes an unacceptable character attack.


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> An author is popular because their views have popular appeal. Jung's Psychological Types is not unpopular because it is wrong, but because it is a pretty intense read without easy stereotypes to work from. The vast majority of people who read and 'get into' MBTI instead do not do so based on a careful intellectual consideration of both points. MBTI is, right or wrong, a gross simplification. That is why it is popular. ...


I don't have any interest in rehashing our disagreement about whether the differences between the MBTI and Jung mostly take the form of improvements that Myers and others have made to Jung (as I think) or mostly reflect the fact that the MBTI is essentially a whole different (and shallower) typology from the one Mr. Jung gave us (as you think).

On the depth vs. shallowness issue, and just in case anyone else is interested, I believe our most recent back-and-forth on that subject starts here.


----------



## Entropic

reckful said:


> If my remarks about @_arkigos_'s expressed attitude toward those who depart from Jung's ideas struck you as an unnaceptable "attack" on his "character," I think you need to rethink your notion of what constitutes an unacceptable character attack.


Let me play the Te game:



arkigos said:


> Also, please dispense with name calling or jabs... which is how you have previously begun your replies.





reckful said:


> @_arkigos_'s loyalty-to-Jung test?


*Ad hominem*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


_"Personal attacks" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks._

An _*ad hominem*_ (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[SUP][1][/SUP]), short for _*argumentum ad hominem*_, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[SUP][2][/SUP] Fallacious _Ad hominem_ reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[SUP][6][/SUP] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[SUP][7][/SUP] _Ad hominem_ reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.
_Ad hominem_ arguments are the converse of appeals to authority, and may be used in response to such appeals.
_Ad hominem_ as it is discussed in this article refers to the logical fallacy _argumentum ad hominem,_ and not to the literal Latin phrase _ad hominem._
*Guilt by association*

_Main article: Association fallacy_
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of _ad hominem_ fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.[SUP][9][/SUP]
This form of the argument is as follows:


Source S makes claim C.
Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
An example of this fallacy could be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"

Also, I couldn't care less about what's acceptable character attack or not. All you showcased is that you can't deal with the fact that someone criticized your thinking so therefore it justifies your need to attack arkigos, which given the context of being asked to not do so, is intellectual dishonest no matter how you look at it.


----------



## Abraxas

I'm not trying to pick sides here or anything, but I'd just like to say that I greatly appreciate the posts that @reckful makes here on PerC and I respect his intellectual integrity, as everything he's said that I've taken the time to double check has come up positive and helped me further my own understanding and opinions.

I hate to see this discussion fall into petty bickering, or for anyone to get ousted. Everyone involved in this thread is highly intelligent and admirable in their own way. Even if we disagree in general and passionately, I think we can all agree that nobody here is a fool.

Also, for the record, I have found Thomson's descriptions of the functions in "Personality Type" to be extremely helpful in refining my understanding of them. I hesitate to say, but I find them even more useful than Jung's descriptions. She makes them more accessible and I relate to them far more. They're more familiar.


----------



## RunForCover07

Let's focus on the big picture here.

It has been said many times that trying to use your "shadow functions" creates an unhealthy version of who you are. With that said, you have to remember that cognitive functions deal with the personality. People often forget that the personality is very hard to change, or else I'm sure at this point we would all be different versions of ourselves with a snap of a finger. It would be more realistic to say that you're unsure if you use Ni or Ne.

Well, why would this be unhealthy exactly? Introverted (subjective) and extroverted (objective) functions help balance each other to make us well-rounded. This is exactly why it's unhealthy to be stuck in your types loop for a long period of time. It would look something like this:

A normal ENTP:

Ne - Objective
Ti - Subjective
Fe - Objective
Si - Subjective

What you think you do:

Ni - Subjective
Ti - Subjective
Fe- Objective
Si - Subjective

At one point you would have an entirely subjective perception and judgement of the world, therefore making you a bit unhealthy. You would need an objective function to balance Ni to get proper feedback. There is reason why Ni-Ti-Fe-Si isn't a personality type!

The test results are not really there to tell you what you're balanced with equally between two opposing functions in my honest opinion, but rather a gauge to help you determine which one you lean towards more base on a series of factors, which there could also be an overflow between the two functions as well.

---

If you are an ENTP and what you think is Ni could very well be your inferior Si.


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> As a reminder, my "Jungian acolyte" criticism came in response to this...
> It would have been one thing if @_arkigos_ had simply disagreed with my characterizations of N and S. But what he said was that my characterizations didn't even qualify as an "attempt to clarify N and S" because those characterizations — which, as I noted, are similarly found in Thomson, Berens and Nardi — stray too far from Jung's original conceptions.
> 
> Thanks for playing, but I'm confident that my intellectual integrity remains intact.


That is not true, though certainly we must allow for some errors in interpretation in such a medium as this. I said that your characterizations of S and N are wrong. This is a statement alone, and answered on its own. 

Also, peripherally to that, they base their virtue upon their adherence to certain authorities. I noted that they were contradictory to Jung, and thus the basis of their virtue is flawed.

You may have seen this through your own lens... that as you would likely have intended such an argument (namely, that they were wrong because they were out of sync with X authority), such a thing is entirely alien to me.

The intended take-away from my statement is that if your view of what 'N and S' ACTUALLY are is entirely derived from the consensus of authorities, then the point that it contradicts (not just tangents from, but directly contradicts) Jung is significant within that framework.

It was thus an attack on your logical methodology, rather then your conclusion. I can see how this would be difficult to perceive, coming from your position of 'he said she said'. I do not operate within such cognitive strictures, as I stated. 



reckful said:


> I don't have any interest in rehashing our disagreement about whether the differences between the MBTI and Jung mostly take the form of improvements that Myers and others have made to Jung (as I think) or mostly reflect the fact that the MBTI is essentially a whole different (and shallower) typology from the one Mr. Jung gave us (as you think).
> 
> On the depth vs. shallowness issue, and just in case anyone else is interested, I believe our most recent back-and-forth on that subject starts here.


That post offers a fallacious reduction of the point. First, it implies that MBTI achieves such a depth and nuance that one must resort to the most intricate and convoluted depths of Jungian psychology in order to find any added virtue. This is not the case. This is not at all what is being argued. We are vastly short of such a necessity. I tell you that even the most intensely superficial 'whats' of Jung directly contradict the deepest 'whys' of Myers... and provide more insight, and are more observably true. 

Your argument in that post is wrong, logically, because it makes assumptions about the nature and scope of the argument. It relies on those assumptions to push itself forward, without proving them... it speaks for its opponent, in order to place its opponent in a seeming position of weakness. No, my attack on Myers is bolder than that. In failing to question 'why' in any meaningful sense, Myers creates a superficiality that is, Jung completely aside, spurious and arbitrary. It is ultimately entirely reliant on stereotyping, definitionally so, in the same manner as Keirsey. We can dismantle it on this basis alone. Taking the idea of 'why' vs 'what' to an absurd reductive extreme is no argument at all. 

I have already cited Jung's description of Se vs Myers description of S. The meaning of 'concrete' changed, the bounds of Sensation taken from a cognitive perception to concrete (in Myers' sense, I suppose, but also in a Jungian sense) generalizations. Let's take the battle there instead.


----------



## Modal Soul

solid posts on this thread 
i think OP is an ESFJ through and through


----------



## VoodooDolls

ENTrePreneur said:


> English is her native language.
> 
> What type are you again? Because they're accusing her of being Fe *dominant*.


I don't know my type, still looking for it, possibilities are: ISFP, INFP and INFJ, most likely ISFP, three of them are ace and will fucking destroy any entp at any time. Would you tell me somethime i don't know already?, Fe-dominant, probably, i didn't even took the time to read her posts.

HAHAHA sorry man i'm just joking.


----------



## ENTrePreneur

DonutsGalacticos said:


> I don't know my type, still looking for it, possibilities are: ISFP, INFP and INFJ, most likely ISFP, three of them are ace and will fucking destroy any entp at any time. Would you tell me somethime i don't know already?, Fe-dominant, probably, i didn't even took the time to read her posts.
> 
> HAHAHA sorry man i'm just joking.


:laughing: I can take a hit. I am an ENTP. xD

She's not Fe-dom. and only one of the types you listed is an Fe-dom. xD


----------



## disguise

northerner said:


> I do too. Means you're an introvert. Nothing to do with intuition.


Actually iNtuition is supposedly the one concerned with introspection rather than introversion:



> *(5): Confusing introspection (N) with introversion (I), or believing than introverts are more introspective than extroverts:*
> 
> “[Within Jung's typology] introversion is often confused with introspection.” – E.A. Bennet: What Jung Really Said, 1967
> 
> “An extravert’s [introspection] is especially genuine and and especially pure and deep. Extraverts are often so proud of this that they boast loudly about what great introverts they are. They try to make it a feather in their cap – which is [again] quite extraverted.” – Marie-Louise von Franz: Lectures on Jung’s Typology, 1971
> 
> “[In typology, there is an] error of confusing extraversion (E) with observation (S) and introversion (I) with introspection (N).” – David Keirsey, Please Understand Me II, 1998
> 
> Source


As to OP, @theredpanda, I have felt similarly about being an "extremely intuitive" person, and have recognized that I'd use both orientations of the iNtuitive function. I'm not sure that this is possible though. Ne might sound similar to Ni, but in practice they work quite differently (from what I've heard and read at least). As an intuitive dominant you'd probably heavily identify with everything that is described as intuition (all the dreaminess and especially imagination that is too often only attributed to Ni + neglecting sensation and body, i.e. inferior Si) because it* is *your dominant mode, after all, that you spend most of your time at '

(Oh, and haven't read any more than the first page of this thread, so pardon me if I repeat something.)


----------



## PaladinX

Dunno about extreme Ne, but here is an example of extreme Ni:



Jung said:


> People with an overdevelopment of intuition which leads them to scorn objective reality, and so finally to a conflict such as I have described above, have usually characteristic dreams. I once had as a patient a girl of the most extraordinary intuitive powers, and she had pushed the thing to such a point that her own body even was unreal to her. Once I asked her half jokingly if she had never noticed that she had a body, and she answered quite seriously that she had not--she bathed herself under a sheet! When she came to me she had ceased even to hear her steps when she walked--she was just floating through the world. Her first dream was that she was sitting on top of a balloon, not even in a balloon, if you please, but on top of one that was high up in the air, and she was leaning over peeping down at me. I had a gun and was shooting at the balloon which I finally brought down. Before she came to me she had been living in a house where she had been impressed with the charming girls. It was a brothel and she had been quite unaware of the fact. This shock brought her to analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot bring such a case down to a sense of reality through sensation directly, for to the intuitive, facts are mere air; so then, since thinking is her auxiliary function, I begin to reason with her in a very simple way till she becomes willing to strip from the fact the atmosphere she has projected upon it. Suppose I say to her, "Here is a green monkey." Immediately she will say, "No, it is red." Then I say, "A thousand people say this monkey is green, and if you make it red, it is only of your own imagination." The next step is to get her to the point where her feeling and thinking conflict. An intuitive does with her feelings very much the same thing she does with her thoughts; that is, if she gets a negative intuition about a person, then the person seems all evil, and what he really is matters not at all. But little by little such a patient begins to ask what the object is like after all, and to have the desire to experience the object directly. Then she is able to give sensation its proper value, and she stops looking at the object from around a corner; in a word, she is ready to sacrifice her overpowering desire to master by intuition.



This same person originally came to Jung about a snake in her belly(48m10s to ~54m):


----------



## Kavik

reckful said:


> If you think the MBTI is a "pseudoscience," that could be part of the problem.
> 
> There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences and, unlike astrology (for example), temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs in the "soft science" category, and you can (if you're interested) read more about that in this post, which includes links that point to quite a lot of scientific support for the MBTI.
> 
> As McCrae and Costa (the most prominent Big Five psychologists) have noted, Jung's Psychological Types was something of a tangle in the sense that Jung's type categories — and, in particular, his very broad notions of what extraversion and introversion entailed — mistakenly lumped together a number of personality characteristics that subsequent studies (including Isabel Myers's decades of work) have shown don't actually co-vary.
> 
> Jung was a strong believer in the scientific approach, and Myers put Jung's type categories to the test in a way that he never had. When she was finished, the Myers-Briggs typology consisted of (in McCrae and Costa's words) "a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices." It turns out that Myers was effectively tapping into four of the Big Five dimensions over 50 years ago — long before there was a Big Five. And twin studies have since shown that _identical twins raised in separate households_ are substantially more likely to match on those dimensions than genetically unrelated pairs, which is further (strong) confirmation that the MBTI dichotomies correspond to _real_, relatively hard-wired underlying dimensions of personality. They're a long way from being simply theoretical — or pseudoscientific — categories with no respectable evidence behind them.
> 
> And the items on the official MBTI are there because they've been the survivors of a decades-long winnowing and adjustment process in which they've demonstrated respectable degrees of reliability by the statistical ("psychometric") standards applicable in the personality field.
> 
> None of which is to say that people don't sometimes end up mistyped on one or more of the dichotomies — and I suspect that the fact that it's pretty common (apparently) to be close to the middle on one or more of them is probably the single greatest contributor to that. (And note that Jung himself said he thought more people were in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted.) But if you're someone who consistently tests N on MBTI dichotomy tests and also finds that, when you read typical MBTI characterizations of what the S/N _dichotomy_ is about, you feel like you belong on the N side, then I'd say the chances that you're an S — and, again, I'm talking about a _real_ S, not a they're-pseudotypes-so-you-can-call-yourself-anything-you-want S — are quite low, notwithstanding what any of the Cognitive Function Kids may have told you about your freaking "Ti" and your freaking "Se" in some type-me thread.


I tend to take psychology with a grain of salt. It’s interesting in theory and dubious in practice. The search to back it up scientifically is the right route in my opinion but psychology is something intangible and impossible to gain absolute concreteness. It exists, no doubt, I’m not calling all psychiatrists quacks. Mental disease and traumas are very real and the efforts to recognize and treat them correctly is a big step forward in medicine. I’ll be bookmarking that link to read later. 

If you want to get into the subsets like socionics or enneagram or some sort (haven’t looked into them yet) I would likely favor my intuitive function over what my S says though the S still holds some weight in providing information. I’m sure there’s a gray area or overlapping of functions, it can’t be all black and white. 



ephemereality;5839074
[USER=83946 said:


> @Kavik[/USER] good to see that you came around. Ti is a very abstract and reality-removed process. It's no wonder you don't relate to the MBTI profiles that (over)emphasize the sensing aspect of the ISTP type making them seem as if they are all uneducated and unintelligent blue collar people with no capability to have interest in theory etc. Blame Keirsey for that one.


Yes, most ISTP descriptions are uninformative and not very relatable. I don’t understand why it focuses so heavily on the sensor part when the thinking part is so much stronger for me, though that could be that gray area again. This link I found is the best description I’ve been able to find of ISTP and the one that makes the most sense from a descriptive standpoint: Socionics Description: The Best ISTP Guide Ever Written


----------



## O_o

This thread has been... very insightful. Certain things which were said have now inspired me to look into a few things. Many many interesting contributions (and then other contributions... which were honestly frustrating to read since they were -personal opinion here- largely arbitrary and simplistic replies to some very interesting points brought up). 
Once again, demonstration of how different levels of knowledge + preference of sources can lead to clashing view points. 

Think of how many people would be differently typed if there only existed one source + method of typing and everyone understood it to the same degree? Then again, even this would most likely branch off into something else with clashing views.


----------



## tanstaafl28

theredpanda said:


> I think my Ne and Ni are very high and very close to each other, though I definitely use Ne more. I guess that makes me extremely intuitive? Anyone else like that? I feel like I'm completely detached from the world and truly living in my own mind sometimes...


I'm so Ne I have regular conversations with my subconscious. I regularly have lucid dreams.


----------



## theredpanda

tanstaafl28 said:


> I'm so Ne I have regular conversations with my subconscious. I regularly have lucid dreams.


As do I


----------



## theredpanda

Yeah, I'm not an ESTP or an ESFJ due to the pure and simple fact that I just think too damn much. Wish I was an S but I'm not that lucky :/ My intuition is going to be the death of me.


----------



## O_o

^ Not denying you being ENTP (or anything. I don't know you enough nor cognitive functions. my opinion regarding your type is irrelevant, etceteceteececeettet)

But: "pre and simple fact that I just think too damn much" Caref.._carefulll._​ vagueness/lack of significant correlation to CF is such vague/lack of significant correlation. I'm sure you have many many more reasons to assume yourself to be an Ne. But this is... this is... p-value: .01. Cannot disprove null hypothesis (sensing>intuition)


----------



## theredpanda

O_o said:


> ^ Not denying you being ENTP (or anything. I don't know you enough nor cognitive functions. my opinion regarding your type is irrelevant, etceteceteececeettet)
> 
> But: "pre and simple fact that I just think too damn much" Caref.._carefulll._​ vagueness/lack of significant correlation to CF is such vague/lack of significant correlation. I'm sure you have many many more reasons to assume yourself to be an Ne. But this is... this is... p-value: .01. Cannot disprove null hypothesis (sensing>intuition)


I have other reasons- not really in the best state of mind to list them all out right now tho- I think I'm currently in one of my little loops :/


----------



## FePa

theredpanda said:


> I have other reasons- not really in the best state of mind to list them all out right now tho- I think I'm currently in one of my little loops :/


And which one should it be ?
Ne-Fe ?
:-(

never good to be in loops...


----------



## Entropic

theredpanda said:


> Um, ok. What I think is going on is that my Fe is developing and is way out of whack because I can't control it, honestly. But honestly, I feel no emotion- haven't felt any emotion all day today. I'm one of the most apathetic people you'll ever meet and honestly I'm just starting to not care at all about finding out who I am or whatever. Kinda pointless.


As i wrote before, fe.isn't about emotion but it's about feeling tones and being able to rationalize them logically. That's why you say you like to analyze people. Nts like entps, they like systems about people. Not necessarily people themselves. This is because inferior sf make them detached from the realness of people and the world in general and it's always approached from this theoretical nt perspective. I like understanding people too but I do so theoretically in a detached way. I don't see the person, I see a system that the person fits into that can explain the person like psychology for example. That's nt logic. 

You're not detached like that. Ti isn't egoic and I knew the moment you started talking about being a dreamer that you weren't and how keen you are to latch onto concepts to describe yourself as if concepts have a personal character to them that they are a part of you. That's fe in particular especially with si. It wants to personalize and even anthropomorphize theory. 

I know that it's not a part of your innate cognition to do that because fe doms have to personally relate to everyone and their mother and project themselves on these things as if were a part of them but you need to let go of descriptions. They suck even if you relate. They are not you. You are more than a type description that you latch onto. Perhaps @arkigos can put this in a way you actually understand because I'm fucking terrible at communicating with fe doms. I can't help but to think there's something wrong with what they are doing, always losing themselves like that in the object. My fi thinks it's absolutely horrific as a thing to do.


----------



## theredpanda

monemi said:


> How old are you? Because if you'd asked me about 9-5 jobs, husband and kids and all that, I couldn't relate when I was younger. I haven't settled for mainstream life although I do have a husband kids. If you'd asked me, a Se-dom at 15 about any of this, I couldn't understand anyone wanting it either. Most people looked superficial to me. You could hardly have called me practical at 18 years old.
> 
> I think you're reading the type descriptions for sensors and not relating because the type descriptions for sensors blow. Most people aren't going to be able to relate to them.


I'm 15. Yeah, I'm okay if I find out I'm a Sensor- I don't have anything against them. I just don't think I relate that much to Se-dom at it's most basic form, as in "living in the moment, being practical" but maybe I do. I don't know.


----------



## theredpanda

ephemereality said:


> As i wrote before, fe.isn't about emotion but it's about feeling tones and being able to rationalize them logically. That's why you say you like to analyze people. Nts like entps, they like systems about people. Not necessarily people themselves. This is because inferior sf make them detached from the realness of people and the world in general and it's always approached from this theoretical nt perspective. I like understanding people too but I do so theoretically in a detached way. I don't see the person, I see a system that the person fits into that can explain the person like psychology for example. That's nt logic.
> 
> You're not detached like that. Ti isn't egoic and I knew the moment you started talking about being a dreamer that you weren't and how keen you are to latch onto concepts to describe yourself as if concepts have a personal character to them that they are a part of you. That's fe in particular especially with si. It wants to personalize and even anthropomorphize theory.
> 
> I know that it's not a part of your innate cognition to do that because fe doms have to personally relate to everyone and their mother and project themselves on these things as if were a part of them but you need to let go of descriptions. They suck even if you relate. They are not you. You are more than a type description that you latch onto. Perhaps @arkigos can put this in a way you actually understand because I'm fucking terrible at communicating with fe doms. I can't help but to think there's something wrong with what they are doing, always losing themselves like that in the object. My fi thinks it's absolutely horrific as a thing to do.


I know I use Fe. Everyone uses all the cognitive functions. But reading about it, I know its not my dominant. Honestly, I think I'm just screwed up. I probably have some sort of personality disorder or something.
But I am not Fe-dom. I do not "feel" things.


----------



## monemi

theredpanda said:


> I'm 15. Yeah, I'm okay if I find out I'm a Sensor- I don't have anything against them. I just don't think I relate that much to Se-dom at it's most basic form, as in "living in the moment, being practical" but maybe I do. I don't know.


I don't know if you're N or S. But when someone says they don't relate to a sensor type description, that doesn't anything about your type. Really, don't bother reading the type descriptions of sensors to figure out your type IMO. Those are so not helpful. 

I am in the moment, but practical... I'm a practical problem solver. But I'd leave practical as personality type to Si. Se isn't particularly practical or detail oriented or any of that stuff.


----------



## theredpanda

monemi said:


> I don't know if you're N or S. But when someone says they don't relate to a sensor type description, that doesn't anything about your type. Really, don't bother reading the type descriptions of sensors to figure out your type IMO. Those are so not helpful.
> 
> I am in the moment, but practical... I'm a practical problem solver. But I'd leave practical as personality type to Si. Se isn't particularly practical or detail oriented or any of that stuff.


I'm just confused. Either I'm screwed up or all this stuff is a bunch of BS.


----------



## reckful

theredpanda said:


> I'm 15. Yeah, I'm okay if I find out I'm a Sensor- I don't have anything against them. I just don't think I relate that much to Se-dom at it's most basic form, as in "living in the moment, being practical" but maybe I do. I don't know.


The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 6,579 ENTPs and 5,114 ESTPs, so it was a _very large sample_.

In the spoiler are are the "Most Attractive Job Families" for ENTPs (job attraction scores above 70) and ESTPs (job attraction scores above 65).


* *




ENTPs
*Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media* [100]
— Artist, coach, musician, reporter
*Life, Physical and Social Sciences* [87]
— Biologist, chemist, economist, psychologist
*Business and Finance* [86]
— Operations, finance, marketing, human resources
*Computers and Mathematics* [83]
— Programmer, systems analyst, database administrator, mathematician
*Sales and Advertising* [81]
— Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
*Architecture and Engineering* [80]
— Architect, surveyor, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer
*Legal* [80]
— Lawyer, arbitrator, paralegal, court reporter

ESTPs
*Farming, Fishing, and Forestry* [100]
— Rancher, farmer, agricultural inspector, fisher
*Protective Services* [89]
— Firefighter, correctional officer, security guard, police officer
*Building and Grounds Maintenance* [79]
— Gardener, tree trimmer, housekeeping, lawn service supervisor
*Construction and Extraction* [78]
— Carpenter, plumber, electrician, stonemason
*Transportation and Materials Moving* [76]
— Pilot, air traffic controller, driver, freight handler
*Installation, Maintenance, and Repair* [71]
— Office machine repair, mechanic, line installer, electronics repair
*Military Specific* [70]
— Air crew officer, command & control, radar operator, infantry member
*Sales and Advertising* [67]
— Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
*Production and Manufacturing* [66]
— Machinist, cabinetmaker, inspector, power plant operator



Would you say one of those lists sounds significantly more like you than the other?


----------



## Psychopomp

theredpanda said:


> I know I use Fe. Everyone uses all the cognitive functions. But reading about it, I know its not my dominant. Honestly, I think I'm just screwed up. I probably have some sort of personality disorder or something.
> But I am not Fe-dom. I do not "feel" things.


Fe isn't feeling, it is Feeling, by which is meant value judgments. To Rationally call something agreeable or not, desirable or not, good or bad, worthy or unworthy. 

Calling yourself unworthy is Feeling. Calling yourself super awesome is Feeling. Being sad is very often related to Feeling, but isn't Feeling itself. 

Many Fe types claim not to 'feel' things. They say, I am indifferent. Jung, so importantly, said that 'indifference' is a Feeling judgment. Think about that. You can thus coldly and impassively Feel. Because it is simply a judgment of value and worth and agreeableness. This is so often tied to feeling, but needn't be at all. 

If it really really isn't, though? I'd suspect something is wrong. Probably some sort of ego defense thing? I am nowhere near equipped to say that... but I tend to suspect as much when such odd things manifest. I question them. I don't think Thinking types fail to "feel" things. I certainly don't. I "feel" everything. Too much.


---------

Those stats that @reckful posts, of course, are based on MBTI assessments, and not cognitive function ones. It's a whole different thing, and thus it's apples and oranges in a lot of ways. Obviously there will be overlap, but you get what I mean. If you want to go the MBTI route, I am just mentioning this so it doesn't get confused in the mind. They are distinctly separate... so ENTP there and ENTP here needn't be the same thing at all. Conflating the two 'factions' in the head will cause serious confusion. It is wise not to. 

I'd think of them as valid systems in their own rights. I have a long list of gripes with MBTI, but only in relation to its connection with cognitive functions... if there were no such comparison, I think I'd think that MBTI was pretty okay. 

I wonder how much the approach reckful represents will appeal to you....


----------



## Entropic

theredpanda said:


> I know I use Fe. Everyone uses all the cognitive functions. But reading about it, I know its not my dominant. Honestly, I think I'm just screwed up. I probably have some sort of personality disorder or something.
> But I am not Fe-dom. I do not "feel" things.


I don't use fe. If i.did i would actually not have a problem communicating with you and your perspective on reality wouldn't irk me out. I'm fi with se. I think of the personal and what experience means to me in a personal way. 

And again descriptions of fe suck and very few really do it justice. Fe is so much more than getting along with the group etc. That's not what fe really is about. It's just scratching the surface like ni would be about hunches and aha moments. Those may be ni but is definitely not all there's to ni.

Fe is about reading objective feeling tones. How that works idk though because I don't do that. The little I'm aware of feeling tones are subjective to me, not objective.


----------



## theredpanda

reckful said:


> The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 6,579 ENTPs and 5,114 ESTPs, so it was a _very large sample_.
> 
> In the spoiler are are the "Most Attractive Job Families" for ENTPs (job attraction scores above 70) and ESTPs (job attraction scores above 65).
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ENTPs
> *Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media* [100]
> — Artist, coach, musician, reporter
> *Life, Physical and Social Sciences* [87]
> — Biologist, chemist, economist, psychologist
> *Business and Finance* [86]
> — Operations, finance, marketing, human resources
> *Computers and Mathematics* [83]
> — Programmer, systems analyst, database administrator, mathematician
> *Sales and Advertising* [81]
> — Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
> *Architecture and Engineering* [80]
> — Architect, surveyor, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer
> *Legal* [80]
> — Lawyer, arbitrator, paralegal, court reporter
> 
> ESTPs
> *Farming, Fishing, and Forestry* [100]
> — Rancher, farmer, agricultural inspector, fisher
> *Protective Services* [89]
> — Firefighter, correctional officer, security guard, police officer
> *Building and Grounds Maintenance* [79]
> — Gardener, tree trimmer, housekeeping, lawn service supervisor
> *Construction and Extraction* [78]
> — Carpenter, plumber, electrician, stonemason
> *Transportation and Materials Moving* [76]
> — Pilot, air traffic controller, driver, freight handler
> *Installation, Maintenance, and Repair* [71]
> — Office machine repair, mechanic, line installer, electronics repair
> *Military Specific* [70]
> — Air crew officer, command & control, radar operator, infantry member
> *Sales and Advertising* [67]
> — Sales manager, real estate agent, insurance agent, salesperson
> *Production and Manufacturing* [66]
> — Machinist, cabinetmaker, inspector, power plant operator
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say one of those lists sounds significantly more like you than the other?


ENTP maybe SLIGHTLY more...I want to be a writer.


----------



## theredpanda

arkigos said:


> Fe isn't feeling, it is Feeling, by which is meant value judgments. To Rationally call something agreeable or not, desirable or not, good or bad, worthy or unworthy.
> 
> Calling yourself unworthy is Feeling. Calling yourself super awesome is Feeling. Being sad is very often related to Feeling, but isn't Feeling itself.
> 
> Many Fe types claim not to 'feel' things. They say, I am indifferent. Jung, so importantly, said that 'indifference' is a Feeling judgment. Think about that. You can thus coldly and impassively Feel. Because it is simply a judgment of value and worth and agreeableness. This is so often tied to feeling, but needn't be at all.
> 
> If it really really isn't, though? I'd suspect something is wrong. Probably some sort of ego defense thing? I am nowhere near equipped to say that... but I tend to suspect as much when such odd things manifest. I question them. I don't think Thinking types fail to "feel" things. I certainly don't. I "feel" everything. Too much.
> 
> 
> ---------
> 
> Those stats that @reckful posts, of course, are based on MBTI assessments, and not cognitive function ones. It's a whole different thing, and thus it's apples and oranges in a lot of ways. Obviously there will be overlap, but you get what I mean. If you want to go the MBTI route, I am just mentioning this so it doesn't get confused in the mind. They are distinctly separate... so ENTP there and ENTP here needn't be the same thing at all. Conflating the two 'factions' in the head will cause serious confusion. It is wise not to.
> 
> I'd think of them as valid systems in their own rights. I have a long list of gripes with MBTI, but only in relation to its connection with cognitive functions... if there were no such comparison, I think I'd think that MBTI was pretty okay.
> 
> I wonder how much the approach reckful represents will appeal to you....


I feel things but not that often and I have good control over my emotions.
But I don't make value judgments that often- honestly, I only make them on myself. My values always change so they are not reliable to base conclusions on. I see a huge area of grey, very few things are "good" or "bad"...


----------



## theredpanda

ephemereality said:


> I don't use fe. If i.did i would actually not have a problem communicating with you and your perspective on reality wouldn't irk me out. I'm fi with se. I think of the personal and what experience means to me in a personal way.
> 
> And again descriptions of fe suck and very few really do it justice. Fe is so much more than getting along with the group etc. That's not what fe really is about. It's just scratching the surface like ni would be about hunches and aha moments. Those may be ni but is definitely not all there's to ni.
> 
> Fe is about reading objective feeling tones. How that works idk though because I don't do that. The little I'm aware of feeling tones are subjective to me, not objective.


I'm still pretty sure I'm an ENTP, so I do use Fe, but not as much as an ENFJ or ESFJ. A lot of my family members are ESFJs and we don't think the same way at all. I know that I am not an Fe-dom, although some days I use it more than others due to an imbalance of functions.


----------



## Psychopomp

theredpanda said:


> I feel things but not that often and I have good control over my emotions.
> But I don't make value judgments that often- honestly, I only make them on myself. My values always change so they are not reliable to base conclusions on. I see a huge area of grey, very few things are "good" or "bad"...


Well, I tend to be frustrated by the idea of F as 'values'. Like, 'my Fi values'. That doesn't really make sense to me. I wonder if it is a mistake. Fi is just a judgment mechanism. I don't think it stores values in and of itself.... it just judges things. So, lacking a set array of values seems irrelevant to me. It seems like concreting value judgments into 'values' hints of ... well, I don't know. 

Again, it's a mechanism. I am not asking that you search your memory, but consider what happens moment to moment. I think it's really hard to get a handle on. I think we all agree you are clearly an Fe, though.


----------



## theredpanda

arkigos said:


> Well, I tend to be frustrated by the idea of F as 'values'. Like, 'my Fi values'. That doesn't really make sense to me. I wonder if it is a mistake. Fi is just a judgment mechanism. I don't think it stores values in and of itself.... it just judges things. So, lacking a set array of values seems irrelevant to me. It seems like concreting value judgments into 'values' hints of ... well, I don't know.
> 
> Again, it's a mechanism. I am not asking that you search your memory, but consider what happens moment to moment. I think it's really hard to get a handle on. I think we all agree you are clearly an Fe, though.


I know I use Fe because I use like absolutely no Te. I'm pretty sure I'm an ENTP still. Honestly though I'm questioning if my type really matters. I don't think I'm ever going to be satisfied or content with my life because I can't do anything I want due to limitations that have nothing to do with type and it sucks. I'm still going to try but I'm probably going to fail- I honestly just hate this world and I hate reality- I try so hard to just make life fun where I'm at but I'm just not content- I'm kind of in a really weird state right now and that's probably affecting my type or whatever and whatnot.


----------



## Knight of Ender

I know the feels, bro. I have horrible sensink (aka common sense) but Both of my main functions are intuition, so I barely know the difference between Ni and Ne. There are some moments when I get so meta with my thinking that I know how to solve a problem without knowing any details or facts. But there are other times when the facts all clearly point to a certain group of solutions.


----------



## Entropic

Another thing though - you don't really use functions more or less like i would se less than Ni. No. I se.as much as I ni. As long as i ni i use se as much because they are the same thing. So an intp uses fe as much as an esfj. What matters is what function is given more conscious weight and importance. Ti doms see logical.systems first, fe doms whatever feel thing they see. I won't pretend to understand because I don't. They in a sense very similar. That's why someone can often be mistaken for their inferior type.

And I can't speak for Fe but fi feeling tone is like it seems very nice so I decide it's nice. It feels nice this situation or i don't really like this it doesn't feel good. To a dominant type this is likely so innate they may not notice because it's so instantaneous. I often feel weirded out when it happens because it's not a part of how i normally think and it feels weird to.focus on it. Also often feels like some kind of gut feeling.


----------



## theredpanda

ephemereality said:


> Another thing though - you don't really use functions more or less like i would se less than Ni. No. I se.as much as I ni. As long as i ni i use se as much because they are the same thing. So an intp uses fe as much as an esfj. What matters is what function is given more conscious weight and importance. Ti doms see logical.systems first, fe doms whatever feel thing they see. I won't pretend to understand because I don't. They in a sense very similar. That's why someone can often be mistaken for their inferior type.
> 
> And I can't speak for Fe but fi feeling tone is like it seems very nice so I decide it's nice. It feels nice this situation or i don't really like this it doesn't feel good. To a dominant type this is likely so innate they may not notice because it's so instantaneous. I often feel weirded out when it happens because it's not a part of how i normally think and it feels weird to.focus on it. Also often feels like some kind of gut feeling.


Well then I'm definitely not Fe-dom because I don't usually trust gut feelings or what "feels good".


----------



## Knight of Ender

I don't think that the cognitive functions line up with MBTI types perfectly. If that were the case, I would be an ENTP, but I'm not.


----------



## theredpanda

Knight of Ender said:


> I don't think that the cognitive functions line up with MBTI types perfectly. If that were the case, I would be an ENTP, but I'm not.


I don't either, honestly I think everyone has differing functions but the first two determine your MBTI type.


----------



## tanstaafl28

theredpanda said:


> I'm just confused. Either I'm screwed up or all this stuff is a bunch of BS.


Some of it is, but not all of it. Figuring out which is which is part of the challenge we all face.


----------



## theredpanda

tanstaafl28 said:


> Some of it is, but not all of it. Figuring out which is which is part of the challenge we all face.


Yeah I guess. Pretty sure I'm an ENTP. Just getting a little depressed and I know why so I'm trying to fix it.


----------



## tanstaafl28

theredpanda said:


> Yeah I guess. Pretty sure I'm an ENTP. Just getting a little depressed and I know why so I'm trying to fix it.



Completely understandable, you're in a very unsettling place in your life right now. The ground doesn't quite feel solid under your feet yet. There will come a time in your life when being 15 won't seem quite as rough as it does right now.


----------



## theredpanda

tanstaafl28 said:


> Completely understandable, you're in a very unsettling place in your life right now. The ground doesn't quite feel solid under your feet yet. There will come a time in your life when being 15 won't seem quite as rough as it does right now.


If I make it that long. I just hate being so naive and pathetic.


----------



## tanstaafl28

theredpanda said:


> If I make it that long. I just hate being so naive and pathetic.


I thought the exact same thing when I was your age (29 years ago). It's been a wild ride. Try to hang on and keep learning everything you can.


----------



## reckful

@theredpanda —

If you've never taken the official "Step I" MBTI (and are otherwise interested), it's here.

There's now over 50 years of data, from hundreds of studies in peer-reviewed journals and so on, that pretty strongly suggests that there are a handful of human temperament dimensions that (1) are multifaceted (i.e., that involve multiple characteristics that tend to co-vary in a statistically meaningful way), (2) tend to be relatively stable through life, and (3) are substantially genetic (e.g., identical twins _raised in separate households_ have matching temperaments to a substantially greater degree than fraternal twins, non-twins, etc.). The "Big Five" is an umbrella term for several somewhat independently-developed typologies with respect to which respectable amounts of data have been gathered and that seem to basically involve the same five underlying dimensions (nothwithstanding some theoretical variations from typology to typology and from typologist to typologist), and the four MBTI dichotomies appear to be tapping into four of the Big Five factors — albeit, again, with various theoretical variations both between the MBTI and Big Five and among different MBTI theorists.

All of the items on the official MBTI test got there by a process of elimination that started decades ago and has involved hundreds of tested items, with the survivors being items that have been found to cluster, to a substantial degree — based on thousands of tests and the statistical standards applicable in the personality typology field — with the other items being scored for the same preference.

And it's maybe also worth noting that it's a common mistake — but a mistake nonetheless — to think there's something wrong with a two-choice personality test item if either both answers appeal to you (so you want to say, "Both, please!") or both answers seem too extreme or otherwise don't fit you. In those cases, you're supposed to do your best to pick the option that seems like the best fit (in the first case) or the _least poor fit_ (in the second). They don't call that kind of test "forced choice" for nothing.

Again, the items on the official MBTI are selected based on their proven statistical tendency (based on thousands of tests) to separate, e.g., S's from N's when the test-taker is _forced to choose_ one response or the other. And that's not to say that any particular item is likely to be chosen by anything like 90% or more of the appropriate type.

The MBTI Manual expressly acknowledges that, in many cases, both sides of a particular item are likely to have some appeal to any particular test-taker, and also that, in many cases, the alternative choices don't exactly make sense in terms of a _logical opposition_. As the Manual explains:



MBTI Manual said:


> In writing items, every effort was made to make the responses appeal to the appropriate types, for example, to make the perceptive response to a JP item as attractive to P people as the judging response is to J people. The result is that responses may be psychologically rather than logically opposed, a fact that annoys many thinking types. Item content is less important than that the words and form of the sentence should serve as a "stimulus to evoke a type response."


I often describe the MBTI preferences — at least in terms of many of their aspects — as "temperament tugs." In cases where you're conflicted and one side of the conflict is more the "gut level" or "natural inclination" you and the other side is a more rational/calculating side of you that, to some degree, wants to rein in (or thinks you _should_ rein in) your more natural inclinations for the sake of external results or for any other reason, your MBTI preference is more likely to correspond to the "natural inclination." In describing the right frame of mind for taking the official MBTI, the MBTI Manual explains:



MBTI Manual said:


> Some people have trouble finding the correct frame of mind for answering the MBTI. When reporting the results to some people, they say they reported their "work self," "school self," "ideal self," or some other self they now consider atypical. The frame of reference desired in respondents is what has been termed the "shoes-off self." The "shoes-off self" fosters an attitude in which one functions naturally, smoothly, and effortlessly, and in which one is not going "against one's grain." The function of the MBTI is to provide the first step toward understanding one's natural preferences.


As a final note: Jung himself said he thought more people are essentially in the middle on E/I than are significantly extraverted or introverted. I've been participating in internet forum type-me threads for over four years now, and I'd say the single most common source of typing uncertainty is being borderline on one or more of the dimensions. And I'd add that, as other posters have noted, a 15-year-old will typically not have "grown into their type" (for better or worse) to the same degree as they will have when they're somewhat older — although that's not to say that a 15-year-old isn't pretty likely to be able to figure out their type to the extent that they have relatively strong preferences.


----------



## tanstaafl28

I tend to be "ambiverted" more often than not.


----------



## theredpanda

reckful said:


> @theredpanda —
> 
> If you've never taken the official "Step I" MBTI (and are otherwise interested), it's here.
> 
> There's now over 50 years of data, from hundreds of studies in peer-reviewed journals and so on, that pretty strongly suggests that there are a handful of human temperament dimensions that (1) are multifaceted (i.e., that involve multiple characteristics that tend to co-vary in a statistically meaningful way), (2) tend to be relatively stable through life, and (3) are substantially genetic (e.g., identical twins _raised in separate households_ have matching temperaments to a substantially greater degree than fraternal twins, non-twins, etc.). The "Big Five" is an umbrella term for several somewhat independently-developed typologies with respect to which respectable amounts of data have been gathered and that seem to basically involve the same five underlying dimensions (nothwithstanding some theoretical variations from typology to typology and from typologist to typologist), and the four MBTI dichotomies appear to be tapping into four of the Big Five factors — albeit, again, with various theoretical variations both between the MBTI and Big Five and among different MBTI theorists.
> 
> All of the items on the official MBTI test got there by a process of elimination that started decades ago and has involved hundreds of tested items, with the survivors being items that have been found to cluster, to a substantial degree — based on thousands of tests and the statistical standards applicable in the personality typology field — with the other items being scored for the same preference.
> 
> And it's maybe also worth noting that it's a common mistake — but a mistake nonetheless — to think there's something wrong with a two-choice personality test item if either both answers appeal to you (so you want to say, "Both, please!") or both answers seem too extreme or otherwise don't fit you. In those cases, you're supposed to do your best to pick the option that seems like the best fit (in the first case) or the _least poor fit_ (in the second). They don't call that kind of test "forced choice" for nothing.
> 
> Again, the items on the official MBTI are selected based on their proven statistical tendency (based on thousands of tests) to separate, e.g., S's from N's when the test-taker is _forced to choose_ one response or the other. And that's not to say that any particular item is likely to be chosen by anything like 90% or more of the appropriate type.
> 
> The MBTI Manual expressly acknowledges that, in many cases, both sides of a particular item are likely to have some appeal to any particular test-taker, and also that, in many cases, the alternative choices don't exactly make sense in terms of a _logical opposition_. As the Manual explains:
> 
> 
> 
> I often describe the MBTI preferences — at least in terms of many of their aspects — as "temperament tugs." In cases where you're conflicted and one side of the conflict is more the "gut level" or "natural inclination" you and the other side is a more rational/calculating side of you that, to some degree, wants to rein in (or thinks you _should_ rein in) your more natural inclinations for the sake of external results or for any other reason, your MBTI preference is more likely to correspond to the "natural inclination." In describing the right frame of mind for taking the official MBTI, the MBTI Manual explains:
> 
> 
> 
> As a final note: Jung himself said he thought more people are essentially in the middle on E/I than are significantly extraverted or introverted. I've been participating in internet forum type-me threads for over four years now, and I'd say the single most common source of typing uncertainty is being borderline on one or more of the dimensions. And I'd add that, as other posters have noted, a 15-year-old will typically not have "grown into their type" (for better or worse) to the same degree as they will have when they're somewhat older — although that's not to say that a 15-year-old isn't pretty likely to be able to figure out their type to the extent that they have relatively strong preferences.


Just took the test and got ENTP. I'm pretty sure I am an ENTP because I've read about the developmental stages of the type and it seems pretty fitting.
These were the results:

Preference clarity
E	slight
N	clear
T	moderate
P	very clear


----------



## theredpanda

tanstaafl28 said:


> I tend to be "ambiverted" more often than not.


Same here


----------



## The Trollmaster

My best friend is an INTP.

I remember last year when someone hit him in the head with a football by accident, from like 20 ft away. The guy who hits him immediately ran up to him and apologizes, and my friend is like "wait why". I then proceeded to inform him about the football that hit him in the head earlier.


----------



## theredpanda

Yeah, I've been researching this stuff all day and I know I'm an ENTP. A very bored, very frustrated ENTP, but nonetheless an ENTP. I'm also a type 7 on enneagram so that probably contributes to why I may seem "Se-dom" at times.


----------



## ENTrePreneur

monemi said:


> I am pretty fucking charming. An ESTP could look at the descriptions and just cry. We're gods and goddesses. How can they not see this?


I see it.

ESTPs are pretty firking amazing. The type description nowhere near gives them the credit they deserve.


----------



## reckful

theredpanda said:


> Just took the test and got ENTP. I'm pretty sure I am an ENTP because I've read about the developmental stages of the type and it seems pretty fitting.
> These were the results:
> 
> Preference clarity
> E	slight
> N	clear
> T	moderate
> P	very clear


Because your E score was slight and you've sometimes tested as an introvert, and because I rarely pass up an opportunity to quote myself, here's a little recycled reckful for you, FWIW. It is _not_ intended to imply that I think you're more likely introverted than extraverted.



reckful said:


> Although, all other things being equal, an introverted child can certainly be expected to feel/act more introverted than an extraverted child, it's also quite typical for an introverted child, growing up in an untroubled family/school environment in which she excels (and which mostly involves interaction with familiar people), to feel/act significantly more extraverted than she will as an adult. That was true for me in spades. I'm pretty strongly introverted, but was something of a class clown in my school days, and significantly more gregarious than in my adult incarnation (while at the same time being significantly _less_ gregarious than my extraverted classmates).


----------



## theredpanda

reckful said:


> Because your E score was slight and you've sometimes tested as an introvert, and because I rarely pass up an opportunity to quote myself, here's a little recycled reckful for you, FWIW. It is _not_ intended to imply that I think you're more likely introverted than extraverted.


I'm pretty ambiverted, honestly. I was more introverted when I was younger but now I'm really not. I love being around people- but only interesting people that I like and that aren't boring.


----------



## tanstaafl28

theredpanda said:


> I'm pretty ambiverted, honestly. I was more introverted when I was younger but now I'm really not. I love being around people- but only interesting people that I like and that aren't boring.


Same here, I'm always on the look out for someone with juicy ideas I can play with.


----------



## theredpanda

tanstaafl28 said:


> Same here, I'm always on the look out for someone with juicy ideas I can play with.


Yep, exactly. I crave stimulation in various ways but nothing beats having my mind stimulated by another person's ideas!


----------



## tanstaafl28

theredpanda said:


> Yep, exactly. I crave stimulation in various ways but nothing beats having my mind stimulated by another person's ideas!


Sounds like ENTP. We like to take our ideas and mix them with ideas of others and come up with something novel. Do you sometimes like to test your ideas through debate?


----------



## theredpanda

tanstaafl28 said:


> Sounds like ENTP. We like to take our ideas and mix them with ideas of others and come up with something novel. Do you sometimes like to test your ideas through debate?


I love arguing  Arguing helps to test my ideas for truth and it's pretty fun- I provoke arguments a lot- as long as they're impersonal I love them, but I hate real conflict- it's annoying


----------



## Hoodeh

This is a cool thread.


----------



## Hoodeh

I like this thread.


----------



## Hoodeh

Yeah I agree with myself. This thread is really cool!


----------



## Hoodeh

Woah I am so right! I love this thread!


----------



## Psychopomp

Word Dispenser said:


> My ideas of anarchy were-- It didn't make sense. As I recall, there were a few discussions regarding this-- To which the ISFJ won time and again. Yes, xSFJs can be quite logical opponents in argumentation, and ENTPs can be confused and scattered in regards to how to execute their points. Si makes them quite worthy adversaries in this regard-- I didn't have the experience at that point to intelligibly define my reasoning. But, I think of losing as winning, when you're learning new ways to look at the world.


Yes, they can be quite logical... though the virtue of it is either borrowed from another person or from another function. I mean to say that ISFJ assimilates knowledge very well, it seems. Put into a punk rock scene, hearing anarchist rhetoric all the time, they would be the better to evangelize it in a consistent way. Tertiary Ti would serve them very well in this regard. I am constantly arguing on facebook (haha, I know) with an ISFJ about his subject of expertise, which is political theory and dietary health. He makes me bring more than just my 'A game'. This guy is not fucking around. He is copy pasting and linking like like a ninja assassin... and pulling it all together very solidly. He also beats me at chess. I hate that man. Haha. Painfully stereotypical ISFJ, by anyone's standards. 



Word Dispenser said:


> In some ways, you could think of me as being _stereotypically _an ExFJ, particularly in these diluted descriptions on the internet. I've always been straight edge-- Never drank alcohol, or smoked weed or took other more heavy drugs. Only just recently begun partaking in alcohol, as a supplement to a good meal. I never really partied or went out at all, preferring the internet, book-reading, and the like. These are just interests, and plenty of ExFJs are introverted (Culturally-speaking, and not psychologically-speaking).
> 
> But, the motivations for these interests were not Fe-related. It was logical cause-and-effect. I saw people around me, connected ideas, saw consequences, connected effects, and decided that the effects didn't make sense, and to approach the subject when it did. I'm more curious about these subjects now that I'm older and think I'm mature enough to handle the consequences.


That awkward and unconsciously 'archaic' relationship with sensory things and variables with that is precisely what I'd expect of an ENTP. Quite typical, I'd say. 



Word Dispenser said:


> I digress yet again, in actuality, _and_ if we look beyond the diluted descriptions, we'll see that ESFJs are quite deceptively unique. You will see a punk-rocker ESFJ, preaching anarchy, we'll see a preaching catholic, a humble professor Buddhist, a protestor, a business executive...


Strongly agreed. I have met and seen MANY ESFJs who were very counter-culture and still are. Nothing about ESFJ says anything at all about what they might do when introduced to something like that, or RAISED in something like that, or having a friend who was like that when young, or whatever. There are so many factors. Countless factors.... so many that only cognition can matter. 



Word Dispenser said:


> I see Fe as being dominant in you, @_theredpanda_. You're apathetic? That's great! I'm really _not. _Am I an ENTP? Probably. Feeling emotions doesn't make me less of a thinker, in Jungian terms. And thinking extremely eloquently, with logic up the yin-yang, doesn't make you less of a feeler, in Jungian terms.


Again, agreed. I am the opposite of apathetic. I am not sure I have met an apathetic ENTP, personally... though I am sure they exist. I HAVE met 'apathetic' Fe-doms. In fact, one of the most prevalent stereotypes of the evil ESFJ is the idea that they are uncaring for people outside their mindset. Another typology trope is that people who identify themselves as INFJs can see themselves or be seen as 'cold' and even apathetic. This is perfectly congruent with Fe self-perception. 



theredpanda said:


> Because I'm not that empathic- I don't recognize others moods that easily, I can't pick up on stuff like that subconsciously, I rely on logic and evidence rather than any sort of feeling- whether emotional or a form of thinking, I over step boundaries all the time due to failure to recognize when I'm taking things too far- I'm quite oblivious to these "feeling tones". I do have Fe...but I'm Ne- Ti- Fe


You are not strong with logic. I am going to be blunt. You don't use logic so much as you seem to fall back on it because the conversations demands it. I don't see your logic taking you anywhere but in a very small little circle. You're logic and concept, in this case is just a constant loop of Confirmation Bias. You see, literally all you have done is the same two things:

1) Identified with every single ENTP thing. You'd think that indicates that you are just really really an ENTP, but it actually does the opposite. *Can you figure out why? Use your Ne/Ti and tell me why identifying with every ENTP thing indicates against ENTP. It will be a fun exercise. For bonus points, come up with two opposing reasons.
*
2) State what you do off-screen through your own filter of perception. 



Word Dispenser said:


> I really think that you're trying to resist it by putting forth arguments based upon meager accumulated knowledge, hoping to come across as Ne-Ti-Fe simply based upon your insistence of it, and nothing logical that actually _supports _it.


...and, notably, engaging the concepts and ideas, abstractly (in the Jungian sense, but also in the idiomatic sense), not at all. 



Word Dispenser said:


> This entire quote of yours is filled with _what_ you do, in words, but you're not actually doing it. It's just words.


Happens all the time on this forum... it is such a red flag to me when people strongly insist they do something but then literally never do it. We can't help being what we are. There is no need at all to just insist we do something, or relay it as if we are talking about a third party. The whole time one is talking about what they are, they are simultaneously being what they are.... without thinking. I absolutely tune out the off-screen commentary, because what they are is standing right in front of me. Of course, the onus is on me to be very thoughtful, thorough, curious, insightful in determining what that is.... always exploring for how I might have seen it wrongly..... but this off-screen stuff is a huge waste of time. If there is one thing this forum proves, it is that people are the worst judges of themselves. Especially when the ego is involved. 



theredpanda said:


> All right, let's see- *I like* to write- because it is an outlet for my mind, my mind is always running, formulate new thoughts, ideas, *concepts that I have to try out* but I can't really except through stories. Although I run into issues with always getting *a better idea* and changing the story or starting a new one and I never end up finishing the original. *I also like* drawing and painting for this reason- it is an outlet for my thoughts. *I also love hiking because I love the adventure* of it and *I love nature* but it's also kinda for the same reason- exercise helps get my thoughts straight and helps me to work through stuff and let's me let my crazy mind work through all the ideas I get.


Apathy indeed. 

How does any of this show ENTP? It might seem like an odd question to you, but it is quite genuine. How does this show ENTP? 

Let's see if you can answer it abstractly. If not, then I suppose you have to prove that ISFJs cannot do these things? Maybe it is just that you are so extreme in them? If you are going to argue extremity, then why stories? Aren't stories fundamentally about human experience? If so, why would an Ne/Ti engage in that? If you say, "because of Ne/Fe", then your argument against ESFJ falls apart. If you say that you prefer Ne to Fe, then explain why we see no sudden new perspectives from you, but a ton of what you like and don't like, prefer and don't prefer. Why is everything anchored to your personal experiences? 90% of what you have written is what you do and what you like... logically shunted into a justification for ENTP. But, does ENTP primarily talk about what they do and what they like? 

If so, why? The typical answer is because they are typing themselves... but that is spurious, of course, because if the subject controls the attitude, then wouldn't ISFJs manifest as Ne/Ti when the subject turned creative or abstract? If ENTP focuses primarily on what they do and what they prefer, given the subject, why can't ISFJ focus on their ideas and logic, given the subject? 

As we get into a stronger logical place, a more abstract place, we see that our logic before was not really pure logic at all.. that our ideas were not pure ideas at all... but perhaps just so in context. How can we determine that context? How can we know its bounds? How can we be certain of our own interpretations? 

For example... 










How do you know that other people don't think like you do? You see their exterior and make an assumption. You see yourself as different. How do you know how you come across? 

You say you are into ideas and concepts... but are you certain that SFJs never are? Think about why you think these things mean ENTP. Now, capture that thought and analyze it. How much of it deals with 'abstracts'... how much of it is a vision of an ideal... of what could be but is not? Now, question the answer. Reframe it. Split it in half and show me both sides. 

Let's do some NTP!


----------



## PaladinX

@Raawx

I was not (and still not) sure about being typed as an ISTP. I don't feel like I'm a rational dominant. I am open to being one though. I switched my type to unknown because people were making assumptions based on my indicated type and I did not want to give them the wrong impression about ISTPs in case I wasn't actually one. Then a good friend of mine seemed to think that I was an ISTP (as well as arkigos suggesting it) so I figured maybe I really am an ISTP and switched my type back. True story.

The problem I have is that even though I understand Myers and Jung very well, I do not understand myself well enough to identify where I fit. I have developmental problems, of which is a poor self-concept. It is hard to see myself in a general way.



arkigos said:


> Ah! An excellent point... and this is a good moment, then, to consider you. When you blurt out the words, "Let's ditch the office..." why do you do it? *Is it because it makes sense to do so, or is it a Vision of the Ideal.* Can you call it rational? If not, then what sort of irrationality is it? Does your blood boil to see the world shift around, or did a vision come to you of a more supernal sort?
> 
> Also, what happens when they say 'No'?


The bolded line makes me laugh. Why wouldn't the vision or ideal make sense (to me)? 

The ideas don't seem to make sense to others though, or rather, seems unrealistic to them, as you put it. People question or argue my idea, but I feel like they are getting hung up on the details.

I cannot call it rational. It is just something I "see." I don't really know of a better way to describe it than "seeing." It is not deducing, deriving, inferring, etc. 

I don't quite understand what you are getting at with the question in red. 

When people disagree with my grand ideas, I handle it differently at times. Usually I will first try to get them to see what I am seeing. When they don't I get frustrated. I tend to get angry when they start throwing out their reasons that seem to be hung up on what I think are inconsequential details. I'm not saying that the change would be easy, but I think they think that's how I see it. Very rarely is someone able to provide with a show-stopping reason. Most of the time they provide obstacles that can be overcome, some more easily than others, but still not show-stopping reasons. It makes me feel like I'm trapped in an asylum or something. Like I'm the crazy one (maybe I am? :O). Why can't they just see what I see?


----------



## Word Dispenser

arkigos said:


> Happens all the time on this forum... it is such a red flag to me when people strongly insist they do something but then literally never do it. We can't help being what we are. There is no need at all to just insist we do something, or relay it as if we are talking about a third party. The whole time one is talking about what they are, they are simultaneously being what they are.... without thinking. I absolutely tune out the off-screen commentary, because what they are is standing right in front of me. Of course, the onus is on me to be very thoughtful, thorough, curious, insightful in determining what that is.... always exploring for how I might have seen it wrongly..... but this off-screen stuff is a huge waste of time. If there is one thing this forum proves, it is that people are the worst judges of themselves. Especially when the ego is involved.


That's very true, unfortunately. 

As much as an individual might resist and insist what they are (And it's usually based upon behavioural traits) they're usually just trying to throw out red herrings to hide their true selves, and to warrant them being their perceived ideal selves, instead. Sadly, they don't seem to realize that there are 'cool' people in all types, and the 'ideal' is on a pedestal which doesn't exist. :kitteh:


----------



## Entropic

Oh god, sometimes you just need to leave certain explanations to xNTPs. When I don't get the results from people that I seek I get blunt and forceful. If they don't give it to me I will make them. From experience this may work with Fi types but not so much Fe types. But a few things I wanted to comment on:



> In some ways, you could think of me as being stereotypically an ExFJ, particularly in these diluted descriptions on the internet. I've always been straight edge-- Never drank alcohol, or smoked weed or took other more heavy drugs. Only just recently begun partaking in alcohol, as a supplement to a good meal. I never really partied or went out at all, preferring the internet, book-reading, and the like. These are just interests, and plenty of ExFJs are introverted (Culturally-speaking, and not psychologically-speaking).
> 
> But, the motivations for these interests were not Fe-related. It was logical cause-and-effect. I saw people around me, connected ideas, saw consequences, connected effects, and decided that the effects didn't make sense, and to approach the subject when it did. I'm more curious about these subjects now that I'm older and think I'm mature enough to handle the consequences.


I was the same as a teen. I even shunned the idea of getting drunk, going out to have sex etc. I found it shallow and to a large degree when it comes to that party culture in particular I still do. I was far more concerned about intellectual depth. I was trying to understand string theory when I was 15 and I remember that the quantum mechanics part of theoretical physics spoke strongly to me as a child. I was also very observant and I liked learning about things. I loved psychology for example, and took a class in it in high school, and I read my aunt's psych books written for university students when I was 13-14. I remember I read this book about body language and how body language denotes psychological and emotional distance between people. This is what my mind picked up on because I could not understand why some people annoyed me and why some people didn't. I can only really understand people interpersonally through theory, but understanding people themselves is not something that comes naturally. Asking questions about who they are in a personal rather than theoretical sense is not something I readily grasp and I still don't. 

I mean, why did I come back to the MBTI in the first place? It explains people theoretically. Why some people are the they way are, why some people like my grandmother likes to express like in the form of physical touch even when I do not feel psychologically comfortable with it. That's how I understand people. Not because she does it because she cares, has feelings or whatever. I was actually discussing this with the GF some time ago after coming back from a visit and I declared that how can someone like her even know what love is? Real love. If she really loved me she would understand me better, yes? Girlfriend had to explain to me that she feels the way she does despite my lack of reciprocation and my mind cannot compute that. How does that even work? My immediate inclination would be to google theories on attachment because that's the only way I could fully rationalize and accept that she is just like that. Being an NT is such a derp thing really. You're so interpersonally retarded. 



> Strongly agreed. I have met and seen MANY ESFJs who were very counter-culture and still are. Nothing about ESFJ says anything at all about what they might do when introduced to something like that, or RAISED in something like that, or having a friend who was like that when young, or whatever. There are so many factors. Countless factors.... so many that only cognition can matter.


Fairly sure one of my childhood friends is an xSFJ of some sort, that's why I felt the need to break up the friendship eventually I think, but she was very counter-culture and strongly into the arts. Not theoretical but she wanted to create. Very kinaesthetic. Got into some acting during high school. People may at first glance easily mistype her as an xSFP because of that artist stereotype that is being thrown around. 



> Again, agreed. I am the opposite of apathetic. I am not sure I have met an apathetic ENTP, personally... though I am sure they exist. I HAVE met 'apathetic' Fe-doms. In fact, one of the most prevalent stereotypes of the evil ESFJ is the idea that they are uncaring for people outside their mindset. Another typology trope is that people who identify themselves as INFJs can see themselves or be seen as 'cold' and even apathetic. This is perfectly congruent with Fe self-perception.


Jung himself says that when feeling is dominant it will take on such a rational form that it will be completely removed from actual feelings/emotions and be experienced as extremely logical. It is only when feeling is unconscious that it starts blurring with actual feelings/emotions because when projected externally it will also be mixed up with various forms of unconscious content that the thinking type represses, and hence associate the feeling function itself with feelings. So I think our relationship with feelings is what really matters that is, do we feel awkward and out of control with ourselves when we suddenly express our feelings or have emotional outbursts? Because that's what you see especially in inferior feeling types as opposed to tertiary. They have a hard time dealing with this complete breakdown of their persona created in relation to their ego identity, which of course is linked to the thinking function first, not feeling. 



> Happens all the time on this forum... it is such a red flag to me when people strongly insist they do something but then literally never do it. We can't help being what we are. There is no need at all to just insist we do something, or relay it as if we are talking about a third party. The whole time one is talking about what they are, they are simultaneously being what they are.... without thinking. I absolutely tune out the off-screen commentary, because what they are is standing right in front of me. Of course, the onus is on me to be very thoughtful, thorough, curious, insightful in determining what that is.... always exploring for how I might have seen it wrongly..... but this off-screen stuff is a huge waste of time. If there is one thing this forum proves, it is that people are the worst judges of themselves. Especially when the ego is involved.


A-fucking-men. Which is to say that yes, of course people know themselves the best, but it doesn't mean that an outside observer can't also bring insight or a detached point of view that may be as valuable when it comes to understanding oneself because even if we also know ourselves the best, we also have a lot of defense mechanisms set in place to protect ourselves from seeing parts of ourselves we do not wish were there even though they are. We deny, project and introject. Of course accepting ourselves is something only we can do and others can only point in the direction where to look, there was a certain point in time where I was very certain I was an INFP lol as honest was that typing originally was, but that's the nice part about typology in that it can help us to grow and letting go of certain flawed self-perceptions we carry. That leads to personality growth and that's a kind of growth no self-help book in the word can offer to be honest. It's not that quick fix people think MBTI should be because it requires genuine introspection, but it's definitely more valuable than knowing what kind of future job you'll be good at. If you were truly introspective you would know this in the first place without having to take a self-help test to tell you that. 

I think especially American culture is suffering from this particular symptom where introspection is being replaced by quick happiness fixes even though there is no such thing. It's quite ironic actually, in how that all works out.



PaladinX said:


> When people disagree with my grand ideas, I handle it differently at times. Usually I will first try to get them to see what I am seeing. When they don't I get frustrated. I tend to get angry when they start throwing out their reasons that seem to be hung up on what I think are inconsequential details. I'm not saying that the change would be easy, but I think they think that's how I see it. Very rarely is someone able to provide with a show-stopping reason. Most of the time they provide obstacles that can be overcome, some more easily than others, but still not show-stopping reasons. It makes me feel like I'm trapped in an asylum or something. Like I'm the crazy one (maybe I am? :O). Why can't they just see what I see?


I really think this is the bane of irrationality. People start demanding you to actually make sense (assuming they are themselves rationals) where it's all so obvious to me. I see it. Literally. It's there, right in front of you, so why can't they see it too? Because seeing isn't as important as rationalizing is. I also get kind of annoyed when people start nitpicking my ideas in this very way, trying to poke logical holes in it or put it into neat little categorical boxes. It's like they are taking it apart, literally so, cutting away at it instead of seeing beauty in how it is already shaped in its origin. No, instead they must form it according to indeed, an ideal, that they have decided is more desirable than seeing it for what it is. Infuriating, truly so.


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> Punk-rock anarchist ESFJs!
> W00t! They're all the rage these days...


I have a paradox for you, reckful, and I'd like you to answer it. 

Given what, say, Myers, says about ESFJ.... what would an ESFJ who was raised by, lets say, anarchist hippies, look like... and what would they act like, and what would they think like?

See, this is a flaw in thinking, as well as perception. It is failing to look outside of context. You meet a punk rock anarchist and think, "well, clearly not an ESFJ" ... but why does a conservative Christian pounding the bible at punk rock anarchists mean ESFJ, when punk rock anarchists pounding Marx at conservative Christians mean ENTP?

They are both the products of their environment, externalizing their judgments. I am asking you, straight up, what would an ESFJ raised in a hippie commune look like? Or by punk rockers in a community of punk rockers? Your answer will be illuminating, no doubt. 

What about a little ESFJ girl following her older brother around Anaheim in the early 80s at the height of the punk rock scene? Watching her brother light up as he listens to the Clash? What is that child, knowing nothing else, going to do? Going to think?




Octavarium said:


> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you really saying that INTPs/Ti-doms and ESFJs/Fe-doms are similar because they use the same functions?


That is exactly what I am saying. I mean in terms of how they think. Yes. Quite similar, in fact. Though, the INTP will be quite frustrated with the ESFJs logic... and the ESFJ will probably get annoyed at the INTPs excessive abstraction. They will connect in lots of ways and identify in lots of ways. Yes, of course. 

My sister is a make-up slathered housewife whose main concern is giving hugs and taking ridiculous family pictures, and is pretty gossipy. Stereotypical ESFJ. When I talk to her... we talk about the concepts of typology and approach it roughly the same way... though my preference for the abstract parts (no, not preference.. she LIKES it just the same as me, if not more, but I am more.... well, I am better at it for lack of a better explanation.. more natural, more conscious) is very apparent... we talk about her neighbors and how funny and weird they are, though her awareness of it is much stronger.... we discuss philosophy, we discuss our kids, we talk about religious theology... I chide her for her reliance on astrology... she talks about how she spent the day jamming out to Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson and Skinny Puppy. She is nothing if not nostalgic... until she puts on Lil Wayne. We talk about how she lets the kids listen to Nirvana because it doesn't talk about sex or swear. We both find that so fascinating and talk about why that might be from a typological standpoint. 

Yes, I am cognitively a great deal like her. It is old news. She typed herself, correctly, ESFJ. I typed myself, correctly, INTP. 

I don't know what system you're using, but it's not the MBTI (because even if you're using the functions, the tert/inf are rejected functions or nonpreferences, which correspond to weaknesses) and it's not Jungian, because the dominant represses the inferior.[/QUOTE]

It is Jungian, because Jung stated that inferior functions can exist by default in the conscious (which I asked @_reckful_ to clarify for me, but I don't think he ever did) and that they are quite prone, even if the above is rejected, of entering consciousness or of affecting it quite a bit. It is rather a misunderstanding of Jung to consider it a binary... and a rather awful view of people in general to consider it that way. Our imagination, I think, or our natural biases? run away from us a bit. 



Octavarium said:


> I'm not saying you should treat Jung (or any other source) as an authority, but your critique of @_reckful_'s S/N descriptions pointed out that the quotes from Myers ETC were "completely outside of Jung" and were " quotations of people who all essentially reject Jung". To be fair, you did then say, "Using Jung as a weapon, of sorts, always feels somewhat distasteful to me, but it appears to be necessary to connect with your mode of thinking and, in a sense, speak in a language you can understand." I took that to mean that your views are essentially Jungian, but you disagree with him on some of the details. Is that an unreasonable interpretation of your posts?


I reserve the right to disagree with him, yes, but I don't think I ultimately do... though I might suffer the occasional 'private interpretation'. I am open to being corrected on this. I think everyone does it. I also tend to allow myself dalliances into theorizing.... which I think is sometimes uncomfortable for Te / Pi folks? It seems to be. I don't like the idea of being an authority, or of authority on a subject in general. I think of us all as peers, including Jung, though I also happen to think he was quite correct. I think that sort of 'common law union' approach is my natural state. I think of the truth of typology as a thing unto itself, which I follow around... Jung didn't own it, he couldn't have. He simply offered the best elucidation of it. Jung is peripheral to that in and of itself. 

Kind of an alien way of thinking to yours, then? It seems that way, given what folks of your ilk tend to say to me. 



Octavarium said:


> @_theredpanda_'s post, which showed "a lot of Fe" according to you, said, "I refuse to settle for what so many settle for. The whole 9-5 job, husband and kids life just doesn't seem like the ideal life for me, though it is for so many and I can't understand it. I can't relate to most people- they seem so superficial to me- I'm not concerned with things like money and security, and most people can't understand me either. I question why everything is the way it is and want to be a symbol against all the mundaneness of what is known as reality, even if that makes me unrealistic."


Right, but that is rhetoric. My sister says the same, essentially. See, I say stuff like this all the time:

"People are so cold. I hate it. The world suffers from discompassionate people who never think for a moment that love is the answer to everything. It's just love. If everyone just turned to each other, touched hands, opened their minds for a half second to see themselves in each other... rather, to see that the other person is SOMEBODY... a beating heart, fears, mistakes, hopes, dreams, longing.... and just embrace one another for what we really are, which is brothers and sisters.... I mean spirits of the same nature... we could be done with all this pettiness and sorrow and violence and loneliness and self-doubt."

What would you type me? That, above, is raging through my head at all times. I'd say it defines me. If I came on here with that rhetoric, yet was me.... what would you type me and why? Because INTP cannot think in such a way, because the dominant suppresses the inferior? In an ideal, yes, but @_theredpanda_ herself states she is in a desperate crisis of the self. If I were in such a dark place, and I have been, I can tell you exactly what I would do... and it is a much more SFJ version of that rhetoric above. Pleas for compassion, co-dependent neediness, ostentatious judgments of others for their actions... all that stuff. It is my inferior, and it absolutely CAN spend a great deal of time in the conscious. According to me, and according to Jung. 

So, where does that leave us? We have to judge the quality of the expression (not in terms of worth, per se, but the, er, properties)... and we have to observe what the person is doing when they aren't thinking about what they are doing. See, that inferior Fe I describe has a certain quality... it comes from the unconscious, it is neurotic, it is adolescent, it is phobic.... it is inferior. Yet, I might make an eloquent and impassioned speech expressing and exploring empathy... or I might write a whole novel on the intricacies of morality and right and wrong, and of the human soul (which I have). Yet, it is clear to anyone with any clarity that I am an INTP.



Octavarium;5910610Or have you got your own said:


> Nope, I think my view of Fe is fairly in sync with Jung. Objective value judgment... or however you want to say it.


----------



## Raawx

@arkigos, sheesh. How fast do you type? I swear, you churn out mini-essays so quickly...


----------



## Entropic

@arkigos 

"People are so cold. I hate it. The world suffers from discompassionate people who never think for a moment that love is the answer to everything. It's just love. If everyone just turned to each other, touched hands, opened their minds for a half second to see themselves in each other... rather, to see that the other person is SOMEBODY... a beating heart, fears, mistakes, hopes, dreams, longing.... and just embrace one another for what we really are, which is brothers and sisters.... I mean spirits of the same nature... we could be done with all this pettiness and sorrow and violence and loneliness and self-doubt."

lol, my ESFJ grandmother in a nutshell. Except to her this logic is her default state of mind, it's her first "go to" solution. I don't think I have ever seen her really stressed out so I can't comment on how inferior xNTP would look like in an xSFJ. To me action is my ultimate solution to everything if nothing else works. We just need to try to beat it a little harder next time. It's a little bit like this guy who I am very sure is some kind of xSFP, I lean ESFP:


----------



## reckful

ephemereality said:


> Jung himself says that when feeling is dominant it will take on such a rational form that it will be completely removed from actual feelings/emotions and be experienced as extremely logical. It is only when feeling is unconscious that it starts blurring with actual feelings/emotions because when projected externally it will also be mixed up with various forms of unconscious content that the thinking type represses, and hence associate the feeling function itself with feelings.


 @theredpanda —

Here's Jung, introducing his audience to Thinkers and Feelers in a 1923 lecture that was published in 1925 and later included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types:



Jung said:


> Take a thinking type, for example: most of the conscious material he presents for observation consists of thoughts, conclusions, reflections, as well as actions, affects, valuations, and perceptions of an intellectual nature, or at least the material is directly dependent on intellectual premises. ... The material presented by a feeling type will be of a different kind, that is, *feelings and emotional contents of all sorts*, thoughts, reflections, and *perceptions dependent on emotional premises*. Only from the peculiar nature of his feelings shall we be able to tell to which of the attitude-types he belongs.


And here he is introducing another audience to Thinkers and Feelers in a 1928 lecture that was published in 1931 and also included in the _Collected Works_ edition of Psychological Types:



Jung said:


> I was struck by the fact that many people habitually do more thinking than others, and accordingly give more weight to thought when making important decisions. They also use their thinking in order to understand the world and adapt to it, and whatever happens to them is subjected to consideration and reflection or at least subordinated to some principle sanctioned by thought. Other people conspicuously neglect thinking in favour of *emotional factors*, that is, of feeling. They invariably follow a policy dictated by feeling, and *it takes an extraordinary situation to make them reflect*. They form an unmistakable contrast to the other type, and the difference is most striking when the two are business partners or are married to each other.


And the point of this post is not to uncritically endorse the views in those Jung quotes, but rather to correct the record on what Jung's view of feeling entailed. His statements on the subject over the years are not what most people would call a model of consistency. At one point in Psychological Types, for example, he says, "_Thinking_ and _feeling_ are rational functions in so far as they are decisively influenced by _reflection_." But, as already noted, in 1928 he said it takes "an extraordinary situation" to make an F-dom "reflect"; and in 1936 he said, "Thinking is opposed to feeling, because thinking should not be influenced or deflected from its purpose by feeling values, just as *feeling is usually vitiated by too much reflection*." Similarly, on the subject of _logic_, Jung says at one point in Psychological Types that "feeling values and feeling judgments — indeed, feelings in general — are not only rational but can also be as logical, consistent and discriminating as thinking." But, in Chapter 10, he has this to say about the "infantile" logic of the Fe-dom:



Jung said:


> We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type suppresses thinking most of all because this is the function most liable to disturb feeling. ... But, as I have said, though the thinking of the extraverted feeling type is repressed as an independent function, ... *it is repressed only so far as its inexorable logic drives it to conclusions that are incompatible with feeling*. It is suffered to exist as a servant of feeling, or rather as its slave. Its backbone is broken; *it may not operate ... in accordance with its own laws*. But since logic nevertheless exists and enforces its inexorable conclusions, this ... takes place ... in the unconscious. *Accordingly the unconscious of this type contains ... a thinking that is infantile, archaic, negative*.


In Jung's defense, he confessed in 1931, "I freely admit that this problem of feeling has been one that has caused me much brain-racking."


----------



## Entropic

@reckful I have no fucking clue why you provided those quotes since I was talking about emotional affects caused by the eruption of the inferior function in the thinking type. So something entirely different from what you quoted.


----------



## O_o

ugh. I know I keep posting such useless things in this thread and coming back to it but it's absolutely fascinating how certain you guys seem to be.,, How you've managed to organize the information in such a way where it makes sense with you... enlightened. and feel you have enough information to not only apply this knowledge to yourself but recognize it. Differentiate it, know which details to zoom in on and zoom away from,


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> I have a paradox for you, reckful, and I'd like you to answer it.
> 
> Given what, say, Myers, says about ESFJ.... what would an ESFJ who was raised by, lets say, anarchist hippies, look like... and what would they act like, and what would they think like?


Where's the paradox? Both Jung and Myers believed that type was essentially inborn, but that environmental factors could also have a strong influence on someone, even to the point of essentially "falsifying" their type — and both Jung and Myers believed that significant negative consequences could potentially follow from falsifications of type.

And for that reason and more, and as I'm always saying, and even in cases where a person has relatively strong preferences, the MBTI is still about _tendencies and probabilities_. So the existence of particular individuals whose beliefs/attitudes/etc. seem to run counter to what you'd expect just from their type isn't really inconsistent with the typology (properly viewed).

Both Jung's and Myers's portraits of ESFJ's are of people with a relatively strong (and inborn) tendency to adopt the mainstream values and perspectives of their cultures — in striking contrast to other types with a relatively strong natural tendency to be independent and go their own way.
@theredpanda doesn't see herself as a "natural born" ESFJ from that perspective and, just based on her posts in this thread, she doesn't sound that way to me, either.

Are you saying she doesn't sound that way to you, either, but you think maybe her natural type has been falsified by the rebellious influence of her family and/or peers?


----------



## reckful

ephemereality said:


> @reckful I have no fucking clue why you provided those quotes since I was talking about emotional affects caused by the eruption of the inferior function in the thinking type. So something entirely different from what you quoted.


Well, I can't read your mind, @ephemereality. I can only react to what you actually post. And what you _actually posted_ is that "Jung himself says that *when feeling is dominant* it will take on such a rational form that it will be completely removed from actual feelings/emotions and be experienced as extremely logical."

And I responded to that by pointing out that it was an oversimplified (to say the least) characterization of Jung's view of the way feeling _in F-doms_ relates to (1) emotions and (2) logic.


----------



## theredpanda

Octavarium said:


> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you really saying that INTPs/Ti-doms and ESFJs/Fe-doms are similar because they use the same functions? I don't know what system you're using, but it's not the MBTI (because even if you're using the functions, the tert/inf are rejected functions or nonpreferences, which correspond to weaknesses) and it's not Jungian, because the dominant represses the inferior. I'm not saying you should treat Jung (or any other source) as an authority, but your critique of @reckful's S/N descriptions pointed out that the quotes from Myers ETC were "completely outside of Jung" and were " quotations of people who all essentially reject Jung". To be fair, you did then say, "Using Jung as a weapon, of sorts, always feels somewhat distasteful to me, but it appears to be necessary to connect with your mode of thinking and, in a sense, speak in a language you can understand." I took that to mean that your views are essentially Jungian, but you disagree with him on some of the details. Is that an unreasonable interpretation of your posts?
> 
> @theredpanda's post, which showed "a lot of Fe" according to you, said, "I refuse to settle for what so many settle for. The whole 9-5 job, husband and kids life just doesn't seem like the ideal life for me, though it is for so many and I can't understand it. I can't relate to most people- they seem so superficial to me- I'm not concerned with things like money and security, and most people can't understand me either. I question why everything is the way it is and want to be a symbol against all the mundaneness of what is known as reality, even if that makes me unrealistic." But Jung said this about
> the Fe function and Fe-doms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there's loads of Fe in theredpanda's posts.
> 
> Or have you got your own, non-Jungian definition of Fe? If so, would you be kind enough to share it, so theredpanda can decide whether she's an Fe-dom under your system? Because it seems like your system is as "completely outside of Jung" as reckful's S/N descriptions. Again, I'm not saying you should treat any source as an authority, but how can anyone decide whether they agree with your typings of them if they don't know which system your using, or how you're defining the types?


Thank you! Seriously- I've considered many types for myself and after much research and evidence I have come to the conclusion that I am an ENTP- but even if I'm not there is no way that I am Fe-Dom.


----------



## theredpanda

arkigos said:


> Yes, they can be quite logical... though the virtue of it is either borrowed from another person or from another function. I mean to say that ISFJ assimilates knowledge very well, it seems. Put into a punk rock scene, hearing anarchist rhetoric all the time, they would be the better to evangelize it in a consistent way. Tertiary Ti would serve them very well in this regard. I am constantly arguing on facebook (haha, I know) with an ISFJ about his subject of expertise, which is political theory and dietary health. He makes me bring more than just my 'A game'. This guy is not fucking around. He is copy pasting and linking like like a ninja assassin... and pulling it all together very solidly. He also beats me at chess. I hate that man. Haha. Painfully stereotypical ISFJ, by anyone's standards.
> 
> 
> 
> That awkward and unconsciously 'archaic' relationship with sensory things and variables with that is precisely what I'd expect of an ENTP. Quite typical, I'd say.
> 
> 
> 
> Strongly agreed. I have met and seen MANY ESFJs who were very counter-culture and still are. Nothing about ESFJ says anything at all about what they might do when introduced to something like that, or RAISED in something like that, or having a friend who was like that when young, or whatever. There are so many factors. Countless factors.... so many that only cognition can matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, agreed. I am the opposite of apathetic. I am not sure I have met an apathetic ENTP, personally... though I am sure they exist. I HAVE met 'apathetic' Fe-doms. In fact, one of the most prevalent stereotypes of the evil ESFJ is the idea that they are uncaring for people outside their mindset. Another typology trope is that people who identify themselves as INFJs can see themselves or be seen as 'cold' and even apathetic. This is perfectly congruent with Fe self-perception.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not strong with logic. I am going to be blunt. You don't use logic so much as you seem to fall back on it because the conversations demands it. I don't see your logic taking you anywhere but in a very small little circle. You're logic and concept, in this case is just a constant loop of Confirmation Bias. You see, literally all you have done is the same two things:
> 
> 1) Identified with every single ENTP thing. You'd think that indicates that you are just really really an ENTP, but it actually does the opposite. *Can you figure out why? Use your Ne/Ti and tell me why identifying with every ENTP thing indicates against ENTP. It will be a fun exercise. For bonus points, come up with two opposing reasons.
> *
> 2) State what you do off-screen through your own filter of perception.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and, notably, engaging the concepts and ideas, abstractly (in the Jungian sense, but also in the idiomatic sense), not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Happens all the time on this forum... it is such a red flag to me when people strongly insist they do something but then literally never do it. We can't help being what we are. There is no need at all to just insist we do something, or relay it as if we are talking about a third party. The whole time one is talking about what they are, they are simultaneously being what they are.... without thinking. I absolutely tune out the off-screen commentary, because what they are is standing right in front of me. Of course, the onus is on me to be very thoughtful, thorough, curious, insightful in determining what that is.... always exploring for how I might have seen it wrongly..... but this off-screen stuff is a huge waste of time. If there is one thing this forum proves, it is that people are the worst judges of themselves. Especially when the ego is involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Apathy indeed.
> 
> How does any of this show ENTP? It might seem like an odd question to you, but it is quite genuine. How does this show ENTP?
> 
> Let's see if you can answer it abstractly. If not, then I suppose you have to prove that ISFJs cannot do these things? Maybe it is just that you are so extreme in them? If you are going to argue extremity, then why stories? Aren't stories fundamentally about human experience? If so, why would an Ne/Ti engage in that? If you say, "because of Ne/Fe", then your argument against ESFJ falls apart. If you say that you prefer Ne to Fe, then explain why we see no sudden new perspectives from you, but a ton of what you like and don't like, prefer and don't prefer. Why is everything anchored to your personal experiences? 90% of what you have written is what you do and what you like... logically shunted into a justification for ENTP. But, does ENTP primarily talk about what they do and what they like?
> 
> If so, why? The typical answer is because they are typing themselves... but that is spurious, of course, because if the subject controls the attitude, then wouldn't ISFJs manifest as Ne/Ti when the subject turned creative or abstract? If ENTP focuses primarily on what they do and what they prefer, given the subject, why can't ISFJ focus on their ideas and logic, given the subject?
> 
> As we get into a stronger logical place, a more abstract place, we see that our logic before was not really pure logic at all.. that our ideas were not pure ideas at all... but perhaps just so in context. How can we determine that context? How can we know its bounds? How can we be certain of our own interpretations?
> 
> For example...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that other people don't think like you do? You see their exterior and make an assumption. You see yourself as different. How do you know how you come across?
> 
> You say you are into ideas and concepts... but are you certain that SFJs never are? Think about why you think these things mean ENTP. Now, capture that thought and analyze it. How much of it deals with 'abstracts'... how much of it is a vision of an ideal... of what could be but is not? Now, question the answer. Reframe it. Split it in half and show me both sides.
> 
> Let's do some NTP!


Actually, I haven't even given my argument as to why I am an ENTP- I've simply been responding to and answering questions so far because I've been too apathetic and admittedly a bit lazy to explain my reasoning and show you the evidence. I know I am an ENTP and I see people's points for being ESTP however there is no way I am ESFJ or even ENFJ. I am at school currently and cannot formulate my counter argument to what everyone has been saying however if you will give me a few hours, when I get home from school I will synthesize my evidence and come up with an argument. I'm getting tired of all this- it's really boring and annoying actually and honestly it seems everyone is just acting according to their own theories and logic so might I give you mine? I know I haven't been given everyone what they've been asking for and I think it's time I did to end this- although it has been fun watching you all come up with your brilliant arguments  shows how much variance there is in the mbti/jungian system. It's been very interesting to watch and I purposefully have been giving little- though honest data and answers to your questions but I realize that all games must come to an end so I will give in and give you what you all want


----------



## theredpanda

reckful said:


> Where's the paradox? Both Jung and Myers believed that type was essentially inborn, but that environmental factors could also have a strong influence on someone, even to the point of essentially "falsifying" their type — and both Jung and Myers believed that significant negative consequences could potentially follow from falsifications of type.
> 
> And for that reason and more, and as I'm always saying, and even in cases where a person has relatively strong preferences, the MBTI is still about _tendencies and probabilities_. So the existence of particular individuals whose beliefs/attitudes/etc. seem to run counter to what you'd expect just from their type isn't really inconsistent with the typology (properly viewed).
> 
> Both Jung's and Myers's portraits of ESFJ's are of people with a relatively strong (and inborn) tendency to adopt the mainstream values and perspectives of their cultures — in striking contrast to other types with a relatively strong natural tendency to be independent and go their own way.
> 
> @theredpanda doesn't see herself as a "natural born" ESFJ from that perspective and, just based on her posts in this thread, she doesn't sound that way to me, either.
> 
> Are you saying she doesn't sound that way to you, either, but you think maybe her natural type has been falsified by the rebellious influence of her family and/or peers?


Thank you. I think everyone has taken my "anarchy" comment a bit too far- my family are all SJ's actually, very conservative and Christian. This should be evidence that I am not in fact an ESFJ because I do not have most of the same values my family/friends do. I am a Christian but only because I have found my own way- though I often have doubts and questions that my family simply says to accept, but I just can't. Honestly, right now I've come to be a bit of a deist compared to my family who believes god controls everything. I haven't seen that myself and have my own beliefs about God. I have to think for myself in every way. I'm an independent thinker and must find my own truth and my own way with everything. I refuse to accept anything just because someone says it or because it is accepted by most but rather must do everything and come up with my own conclusions and views on my own.


----------



## Entropic

reckful said:


> Well, I can't read your mind, @ephemereality. I can only react to what you actually post. And what you _actually posted_ is that "Jung himself says that *when feeling is dominant* it will take on such a rational form that it will be completely removed from actual feelings/emotions and be experienced as extremely logical."
> 
> And I responded to that by pointing out that it was an oversimplified (to say the least) characterization of Jung's view of the way feeling _in F-doms_ relates to (1) emotions and (2) logic.


Except I never for example mentioned anything about logic. You took that out of context entirely.


----------



## Word Dispenser

theredpanda said:


> *I know I am an ENTP and I see people's points for being ESTP however there is no way I am ESFJ or even ENFJ.*


I think you went into this thinking you were an ENTP, and you wanted validation for it. There was no real self-searching here.

There have been a lot of good points made, and people clarifying _why_ you _could _be another type. But, you didn't really reply, or seem to absorb any of that information-- You only absorbed information which supported your hypothesis. That's fairly flawed reasoning. 

I think that if you were _truly_ open to self-discovery, you would approach your type from the platform of all of this wonderful, new found information... But, you're shut off from it. That's a shame.


----------



## reckful

ephemereality said:


> Except *I never for example mentioned anything about logic*. You took that out of context entirely.


Since you said that Jung said that dominant feeling would "take on such a rational form" that it would be "*experienced as extremely logical*" (as well as being "completely removed from actual feelings/emotions"), I'd hardly say that my follow-up clarifications on Jung's views on dominant feeling and logic were "out of context entirely."

What's more, regardless of what your precise intention may have been, it's certainly not hard to imagine a reader of your post taking your sentence to mean that Jung essentially viewed feeling in F-doms as "extremely logical" (nothwithstanding your "experienced by" qualifier) and "completely removed from ... emotions." So, regardless of the extent to which you think you were in need of any correction, my posts are often made with the thread readers as a whole in mind, and I'm always happy to seize an opportunity to give them my understanding of what Jung thought about whatever issue is under discussion — and especially when one or more other posters have already offered what purport to be descriptions of Jung's views on the issue.

If that bothers you, rest assured that it pains me to my very soul.


----------



## O_o

Word Dispenser said:


> I think you went into this thinking you were an ENTP, and you wanted validation for it. There was no real self-searching here.





Word Dispenser said:


> There have been a lot of good points made, and people clarifying _why_ you _could _be another type. But, you didn't really reply, or seem to absorb any of that information-- You only absorbed information which supported your hypothesis. That's fairly flawed reasoning.
> 
> I think that if you were _truly_ open to self-discovery, you would approach your type from the platform of all of this wonderful, new found information... But, you're shut off from it. That's a shame.


 "You've shut off from it": This sounds like an assumption. I'd argue that it may not be... "shut off"... perhaps it's the way this information has been worded, the way it has been presented in a way which may have not clearly... set out the path towards it's proper analyzation... (not as "user-friendly" as it could be). Perhaps presented in a way not useful for her to take and analyze considering circumstances? There are certain core differences in perspective I've noted here. This needs to be zoomed in on first, where that road block is (both sides do) and then go from there. This doesn't seem to have been done. There have been a lot of assumptions going on back and forth due to this road block. 

Her vagueness certainly hasn't helped, but neither have all the assumptions made based on mere, vague, samples from her posts consisting on a few sentences.


----------



## theredpanda

Word Dispenser said:


> I think you went into this thinking you were an ENTP, and you wanted validation for it. There was no real self-searching here.
> 
> There have been a lot of good points made, and people clarifying _why_ you _could _be another type. But, you didn't really reply, or seem to absorb any of that information-- You only absorbed information which supported your hypothesis. That's fairly flawed reasoning.
> 
> I think that if you were _truly_ open to self-discovery, you would approach your type from the platform of all of this wonderful, new found information... But, you're shut off from it. That's a shame.


I am not shut off for it- I spent yesterday researching other types and I still know I am an ENTP. I also didn't start this thread to validate that but to find out if it was possible to have equal or near equal ni and ne.


----------



## Kabosu

^^^but there's like 7 other types that don't value Fi, either.


----------



## kitsu

theredpanda said:


> I am energized by making things more effective, definitely. *I'm in biology class right now and just went into a rant about how it would be more effective and easier if females laid eggs then kept them in an incubator until the baby hatched.* Also- I don't get emotional over babies or death or anything (unless the death is someone I really really cared about- but when my grandpa died I didn't care).


The bolded is so obviously low order Ne....

Conscious Ne does not have completely random and uncorrelated ideas like this, it doesn't bother with "what if" situations unless they're going to provide juicy insight into the workings of things.

A characteristic of Ne, especially Ne-Ti, is having a huge amount of stored correlations between things, a 'network' of ideas if you will. Everything encountered gets sifted through a system. It studies the recurring patterns in reality, and can easily link all its findings together into a unifying theory. "what if" is only used to understand the implications that a hypothetical situation might have on causality.
To use your example, a Ne user might ask themselves what the impact would be on foetus development IF we were to put the eggs in an incubator. Which might then help you understand how to engineer better incubators, or help you gain better understanding of the role of the womb, or make you marvel at the fact that biology is so complex that, with all our technological advancement, we are still incapable of creating something that comes even remotely close to reproducing it. "what if" is always used towards a purpose, to achieve greater and greater conceptual awareness, it has a domino effect on understanding, strings of one insight leading to another.
If you can't see that this is quite the opposite of all the examples you've provided, it's going to be hard for you to really type yourself.

Also, Fe doesn't mean you get emotional over "babies or death" (??) it means you give importance to how you're seen by the group, which you clearly do.
And also, being a Je dom does happen to make you energized by effectiveness. Yup yup.


----------



## Doctor Freude

I am only asking you some more questions to see if I can be more helpful, not because I think your assessment is wrong. In truth I think whatever someone says, is, and you can also have a hand in your own direction to some extent by choosing one or the other. 

1. In terms of social groups, do you adhere to one, or do you find it interesting to hang out with different groups at different times? 

2. Does your main social group try to outwit each other and gain dominance for the most interesting ideas? Do you tend to agree with their assessments of what the most dominant/interesting idea is, even as you try to outwit it?

3. Do you appreciate people who seem to make friends easily and attract lots of social interaction, or people who are clever that you can learn from and not necessarily popular?

4. When you "need people", what do you need them for?

5. What is your dream job and how do you imagine your role in it playing out? Does it make you happy? Why?


----------



## Kathy Kane

reckful said:


> So I'd say the set of "traditional" and "generally accepted" values that Jung thought Fe-doms (and extraverts generally) tended to adopt and introverts tended to reject must be a more _non-universal_ (and presumably culture-specific) set that an introvert like Jung could decide not to subscribe to without becoming a moral monster.


I agree with that. If you look at things like recycling, man-made global warming, anti-gambling, or anti-low level drugs. None of those are universal or even dire to humans in general (though some could argue the opposite case for any of those I listed.) 

Introverts would need compelling reasons to accept/reject those things, besides the majority saying they're good or bad. Using examples like religion or physical abuse are better suited for topic specific debates.


----------



## theredpanda

Erin.M said:


> I am only asking you some more questions to see if I can be more helpful, not because I think your assessment is wrong. In truth I think whatever someone says, is, and you can also have a hand in your own direction to some extent by choosing one or the other.
> 
> 1. In terms of social groups, do you adhere to one, or do you find it interesting to hang out with different groups at different times?
> 
> 2. Does your main social group try to outwit each other and gain dominance for the most interesting ideas? Do you tend to agree with their assessments of what the most dominant/interesting idea is, even as you try to outwit it?
> 
> 3. Do you appreciate people who seem to make friends easily and attract lots of social interaction, or people who are clever that you can learn from and not necessarily popular?
> 
> 4. When you "need people", what do you need them for?
> 
> 5. What is your dream job and how do you imagine your role in it playing out? Does it make you happy? Why?


1. Different groups but I do have a favorite 2.no- I'm the crazy one in my group always saying weird things to get people's reactions and coming up with interesting ideas- people say I'm annoying and some hate me because of it but I'm ok with that- I still love getting their reactions 3. Clever that I can learn from 4. Stimulation 5. I'd love to have an adventurous and exciting job- maybe a criminal psychologist because it would've interesting to see inside the mind of a serial killer or something, but I also really want to be a writer to impact the world through my ideas and leave a legacy- yes my dream job makes me happy because I don't like things that don't (I'm a type 7)


----------



## theredpanda

Hurricane said:


> The bolded is so obviously low order Ne....
> 
> Conscious Ne does not have completely random and uncorrelated ideas like this, it doesn't bother with "what if" situations unless they're going to provide juicy insight into the workings of things.
> 
> A characteristic of Ne, especially Ne-Ti, is having a huge amount of stored correlations between things, a 'network' of ideas if you will. Everything encountered gets sifted through a system. It studies the recurring patterns in reality, and can easily link all its findings together into a unifying theory. "what if" is only used to understand the implications that a hypothetical situation might have on causality.
> To use your example, a Ne user might ask themselves what the impact would be on foetus development IF we were to put the eggs in an incubator. Which might then help you understand how to engineer better incubators, or help you gain better understanding of the role of the womb, or make you marvel at the fact that biology so complex that, with all our technological advancement, we are still incapable of creating something that comes even remotely close to reproducing it. "what if" is always used towards a purpose, to achieve greater and greater conceptual awareness, it has a domino effect on understanding, strings of one insight leading to another.
> If you can't see that this is quite the opposite of all the examples you've provided, it's going to be hard for you to really type yourself.
> 
> Also, Fe doesn't mean you get emotional over "babies or death" (??) it means you give importance to how you're seen by the group, which you clearly do.
> And also, being a Je dom does happen to make you energized by effectiveness. Yup yup.


Funny, because once I said the initial idea my mind started going and thinking if that could ever work, if you could extract eggs and fertilize them outside the human body and if it could what the effects would be. I just didn't voice them


----------



## Doctor Freude

Could you elaborate on "stimulation"? What's going through your head right before you call someone? What's the first thing you say?


----------



## Word Dispenser

ENTrePreneur said:


> In other words,
> 
> The girl has no Fi.
> 
> XD
> 
> She's ENTP.


Either that, or she misunderstands what Fi is, or she simply wants to state her Fi is low. They're just words. But, what is shown with her cognition?

Anyway, I'm just stalking this thread, but I have no new insights. I think we should all pack up the caravans and head out to a different country, where the land is fresh, and the people are open. :kitteh:


----------



## ENTrePreneur

Word Dispenser said:


> Either that, or she misunderstands what Fi is, or she simply wants to state her Fi is low. They're just words. But, what is shown with her cognition?


Naw. I've talked to the girl. She has no Fi. Same as me. xD



> Anyway, I'm just stalking this thread, but I have no new insights. I think we should all pack up the caravans and head out to a different country, where the land is fresh, and the people are open. :kitteh:


Agreed.


----------



## theredpanda

Erin.M said:


> Could you elaborate on "stimulation"? What's going through your head right before you call someone? What's the first thing you say?


"I'm bored. I need to talk to someone about something interesting. This person has interesting ideas, I wonder what they'd have to say about...(insert topic/question here)...I'll ask them and the that could possibly lead to more ideas to expand my knowledge and views of the world...maybe it'll even start an argument which will stimulates mind and help me to challenge what I know and discover more about this topic..."


----------



## theredpanda

Or sometimes it's simply..."I'm bored. Let's just say something random that comes up in my mind and see how people react...could lead to a fun argument or mind game"


----------



## Raawx

Hurricane said:


> The bolded is so obviously low order Ne....
> 
> Conscious Ne does not have completely random and uncorrelated ideas like this, it doesn't bother with "what if" situations unless they're going to provide juicy insight into the workings of things.
> 
> A characteristic of Ne, especially Ne-Ti, is having a huge amount of stored correlations between things, a 'network' of ideas if you will. Everything encountered gets sifted through a system. It studies the recurring patterns in reality, and can easily link all its findings together into a unifying theory. "what if" is only used to understand the implications that a hypothetical situation might have on causality.
> To use your example, a Ne user might ask themselves what the impact would be on foetus development IF we were to put the eggs in an incubator. Which might then help you understand how to engineer better incubators, or help you gain better understanding of the role of the womb, or make you marvel at the fact that biology so complex that, with all our technological advancement, we are still incapable of creating something that comes even remotely close to reproducing it. "what if" is always used towards a purpose, to achieve greater and greater conceptual awareness, it has a domino effect on understanding, strings of one insight leading to another.
> If you can't see that this is quite the opposite of all the examples you've provided, it's going to be hard for you to really type yourself.
> 
> Also, Fe doesn't mean you get emotional over "babies or death" (??) it means you give importance to how you're seen by the group, which you clearly do.
> And also, being a Je dom does happen to make you energized by effectiveness. Yup yup.


Oooooh. That all makes sense. One of cousins at dinner kept throwing out these "what if" scenarios, and it annoyed me. I responded to him saying that there was no direct purpose or reason to explore the "what if's" that he provided. 

God, do I hate Zombie Apocalypse speculation. It's just...meh. Contagion and mass plague on the other hand? 

And @arkigos, now that I think of it, I can see how Ne/Si will be much more grounded in the "potential reality" than Se/Ni would. (Thinking about your example of the ISTP/INTP divide, something about the Turkish empire or whatever). When I imagine anything, it has to be realistic and applicable; I would also conduct all that research in order to accurately represent the way the environment was like. It's also why history annoys me; it isn't accurate enough, and so I can't make any real or concrete speculations about what it was like. I need to experience that myself to complete the picture.

Related, I also can't stand games like GTA or whatever. Any of that simulated reality nonsense. To me, if one is going to attempt to simulate reality, they should do so 100% accurately. Otherwise, it's just a waste. It's often why I prefer games that provide imagined worlds and whatever to concrete ones.


----------



## theredpanda

Raawx said:


> Oooooh. That all makes sense. One of cousins at dinner kept throwing out these "what if" scenarios, and it annoyed me. I responded to him saying that there was no direct purpose or reason to explore the "what if's" that he provided.
> 
> God, do I hate Zombie Apocalypse speculation. It's just...meh. Contagion and mass plague on the other hand?
> 
> And @arkigos, now that I think of it, I can see how Ne/Si will be much more grounded in the "potential reality" than Se/Ni would. (Thinking about your example of the ISTP/INTP divide, something about the Turkish empire or whatever). When I imagine anything, it has to be realistic and applicable; I would also conduct all that research in order to accurately represent the way the environment was like. It's also why history annoys me; it isn't accurate enough, and so I can't make any real or concrete speculations about what it was like. I need to experience that myself to complete the picture.
> 
> Related, I also can't stand games like GTA or whatever. Any of that simulated reality nonsense. To me, if one is going to attempt to simulate reality, they should do so 100% accurately. Otherwise, it's just a waste. It's often why I prefer games that provide imagined worlds and whatever to concrete ones.


The zombie apocalypse could happen ifa virus mutated and cause mass contagion. Zombies could never exist, but "zombies" could- as in people infected by a virus that caused them to act extremely strangely and kill...just saying.


----------



## kitsu

theredpanda said:


> Funny, because once I said the initial idea my mind started going and thinking if that could ever work, if you could extract eggs and fertilize them outside the human body and if it could what the effects would be. I just didn't voice them


I was just trying to give you a sense of how the patterns might work, not to imply that's _literally_ what an ENTP would think.

Science has already figured out that you can extract eggs and fertilize them outside the human body, that's what artificial insemination is. If you have enough competency in biology to figure out what the effects of extracting a foetus would be (unless you were just wondering without looking for an answer, in which case, it's not Ne), shouldn't you already know it's been done before?


----------



## Vermillion

Word Dispenser said:


> Anyway, I'm just stalking this thread, but I have no new insights. I think we should all pack up the caravans and head out to a different country, where the land is fresh, and the people are open. :kitteh:


Called that first, baby. Some things are just not worth pursuing beyond a certain point; they're shut cases. And I suppose this one's end point was right at the beginning.

Maybe one day someone will read this thread long into the future and go "aah... the willful days of my youth when being intuitive was all the rage..."


----------



## theredpanda

Hurricane said:


> I was just trying to give you a sense of how the patterns might work, not to imply that's _literally_ what an ENTP would think.
> 
> Science has already figured out that you can extract eggs and fertilize them outside the human body, that's what artificial insemination is. If you have enough competency in biology to figure out what the effects of extracting a foetus would be (unless you were just wondering without looking for an answer, in which case, it's not Ne), shouldn't you already know it's been done before?


I hadn't researched any of it yet. I'm only in 10th grade LOL, was gonna look it up when I got home.


----------



## Entropic

Raawx said:


> Oooooh. That all makes sense. One of cousins at dinner kept throwing out these "what if" scenarios, and it annoyed me. I responded to him saying that there was no direct purpose or reason to explore the "what if's" that he provided.
> 
> God, do I hate Zombie Apocalypse speculation. It's just...meh. Contagion and mass plague on the other hand?
> 
> And @arkigos, now that I think of it, I can see how Ne/Si will be much more grounded in the "potential reality" than Se/Ni would. (Thinking about your example of the ISTP/INTP divide, something about the Turkish empire or whatever). When I imagine anything, it has to be realistic and applicable; I would also conduct all that research in order to accurately represent the way the environment was like. It's also why history annoys me; it isn't accurate enough, and so I can't make any real or concrete speculations about what it was like. I need to experience that myself to complete the picture.
> 
> Related, I also can't stand games like GTA or whatever. Any of that simulated reality nonsense. To me, if one is going to attempt to simulate reality, they should do so 100% accurately. Otherwise, it's just a waste. It's often why I prefer games that provide imagined worlds and whatever to concrete ones.


To be quite fair though, a lot of what you express here in terms of realism seems Te-heavy, not so much Ne-Si necessarily. Essentially you are saying something along the lines of when it comes to history for example, if general X did Y but history is unclear on what Y is, then it is pointless because we don't know whether Y is Y or in fact X or even A. Te doesn't like this kind of ambiguity, because Te seeks to strive towards where Y is Y. That's realistic because it's logically consistent with reality itself. 

Games like GTA strike me as very SeFe in nature and I'm not too fond of GTA as a franchise myself. The Se obviously speaks to me (any kind of dumb mindless violence does really), but GTA clearly seeks to have a grander emotional impact with its violence. It is not self-contained like games such as Diabo III. GTA also wants to be a social commentary about the grander social scheme of things. That speaks of Fe logos especially with Ni, not so much Te in my opinion. Hence GTA isn't a realistic game though it in a sense tries to be, because it hyperboles for the sake of its commentary, to leave an impact on the player. In contrast, Diablo III is all about how much you can enjoy the violence of the game. I suppose even its overall aesthetic that is, it's supposed to be physically pleasing, actually speaks more for how Se is connected with Fi over Fe. It's seeking a specific aesthetic. SF of any combination really, can be quite artsy because S + F lends itself to a strong awareness of what's aesthetically pleasing in various ways. You can bet on that a lot of the people who appear in these interior design TV shows are all SFs of sorts, sometimes STs though they tend to be more commonly building things rather than designing. 

I want to add that realism isn't only something Se strives towards, obviously, just to clarify.


----------



## kitsu

theredpanda said:


> I hadn't researched any of it yet. I'm only in 10th grade LOL, was gonna look it up when I got home.


You're really too young to be typing yourself in that case


----------



## theredpanda

Hurricane said:


> You're really too young to be typing yourself in that case


Actually, personality types are usually prevalent by the time someone reaches the age of 13- though they may not be fully developed


----------



## O_o

Hurricane said:


> The bolded is so obviously low order Ne....
> 
> Conscious Ne does not have completely random and uncorrelated ideas like this, it doesn't bother with "what if" situations unless they're going to provide juicy insight into the workings of things.
> 
> A characteristic of Ne, especially Ne-Ti, is having a huge amount of stored correlations between things, a 'network' of ideas if you will. Everything encountered gets sifted through a system. It studies the recurring patterns in reality, and can easily link all its findings together into a unifying theory. "what if" is only used to understand the implications that a hypothetical situation might have on causality.
> To use your example, a Ne user might ask themselves what the impact would be on foetus development IF we were to put the eggs in an incubator. Which might then help you understand how to engineer better incubators, or help you gain better understanding of the role of the womb, or make you marvel at the fact that biology so complex that, with all our technological advancement, we are still incapable of creating something that comes even remotely close to reproducing it. "what if" is always used towards a purpose, to achieve greater and greater conceptual awareness, it has a domino effect on understanding, strings of one insight leading to another.
> If you can't see that this is quite the opposite of all the examples you've provided, it's going to be hard for you to really type yourself.
> 
> Also, Fe doesn't mean you get emotional over "babies or death" (??) it means you give importance to how you're seen by the group, which you clearly do.
> And also, being a Je dom does happen to make you energized by effectiveness. Yup yup.



Very informative and helpful summarization. Thanks


----------



## Vermillion

Hurricane said:


> You're really too young to be typing yourself in that case


Not necessarily, I'm not much older myself and neither are several other intelligent, self-aware people on this forum.

Note I said self-aware, though. _That_, clearly, isn't something every youth can add to their PerC portfolio.


----------



## Raawx

ephemereality said:


> To be quite fair though, a lot of what you express here in terms of realism seems Te-heavy, not so much Ne-Si necessarily. Essentially you are saying something along the lines of when it comes to history for example, if general X did Y but history is unclear on what Y is, then it is pointless because we don't know whether Y is Y or in fact X or even A. Te doesn't like this kind of ambiguity, because Te seeks to strive towards where Y is Y. That's realistic because it's logically consistent with reality itself.


brb. Let me to cry about my type. 

I'm basically that little flag in the middle of the rope that you and arkigos are tugging. It's no fun, because I'm quite fond of you both.


----------



## kitsu

theredpanda said:


> Actually, personality types are usually prevalent by the time someone reaches the age of 13- though they may not be fully developed


You're not even allowed to take the official MBTI test until you're 22, I don't know what your sources are


----------



## Serpent

One thing that strikes me about OP's posts is how perfectly similar their content is to the ENTP descriptions (which I could barely relate to) found on the internet. It's almost as if the aforementioned descriptions were designed in view of her personality (from what we can gather from her self-descriptions).


----------



## Doctor Freude

Okay, so I am going to conclude that you are an ENFP for the following reasons, but this does not mean you are not able to choose a different mode of cognition if you want. Although, I only wanted to ask because as an older person, I am finding the distinction between F and T to be huge, especially since for me it is Fi.

When you go to call someone, you examine your inner feeling state, and then reach for Ne/Te. My friends that are ENT's seem to be in Ti, then reach out to get Fe or Se from the interaction. For example, I am bored means your goal is to change your emotional state. My ENTP friend might call you up because he thought of a way to a. prank you or b. tell you about something that he expects only positive reaction to (in other words, I might hurt his feelings if I comment using Fi). My ENTJ friend only calls when he has an Ni plan to get some Se accomplished.

Your ideal career involves studying people. This is not necessarily T or F, since you can't place any one detail in any category, but as I grew up, I found that if I wasn't studying people's behavior (ie crazy reactions from your friends), I wasn't really interested in the problem. If you gave me a pile of problems to solve, and they all involved concrete things like making a *xshipx* bigger than any other *xshipx* there is, without any consideration for the impact (humane considerations) of it, I'd get pretty bored and restless, like, "what's the point of making this huge *xshipx* since no one even cares when I talk about it they all think it's stupid and a waste of resources?" Right now, your life is very social, and can continue to be so, so it might not impact your Fi that much, but even "not caring" that someone died might not be a lack of Fi, but instead a lack of historical Fi that you can pull from to create an emotion.

I can't say for sure, since I am not you. But T or F can make a huge difference in long term happiness. Especially at fifteen, you might be able to choose one or the other.

Going back to Ne Ni, teamtechnology.co.uk/myers-briggs/entp.gif shows that you do use both. I think if you introvert more than you extrovert, you shift the bubbles to the right proportionally.


----------



## Vermillion

Raawx said:


> brb. Let me to cry about my type.
> 
> I'm basically that little flag in the middle of the rope that you and arkigos are tugging. It's no fun, because I'm quite fond of you both.


I love watching Ne-Si types describe themselves. I would never ever say I'm something that's under the control of someone else. That's just anathema to me. 

I mean, I'd probably say (and think) "Wow, I love the attention I'm getting from the two of you. Keep the spotlight fixated on me " See the difference? (Fuck I love my type.)


----------



## Word Dispenser

Amaterasu said:


> Called that first, baby. Some things are just not worth pursuing beyond a certain point; they're shut cases. And I suppose this one's end point was right at the beginning.
> 
> Maybe one day someone will read this thread long into the future and go "aah... the willful days of my youth when being intuitive was all the rage..."


I've been meaning to join that closet ESFJ group on the forums.


----------



## theredpanda

ScarrDragon said:


> One thing that strikes me about OP's posts is how perfectly similar their content is to the ENTP descriptions found on the internet. It's almost as if the aforementioned descriptions were designed in view of her personality (from what we can gather from her self-descriptions).


Hm, well then I have a confession to make. I'm actually a computer- I do not have a personality type because I don't have a personality- I simply have knowledge


----------



## kitsu

Amaterasu said:


> Not necessarily, I'm not much older myself and neither are several other intelligent, self-aware people on this forum.
> 
> Note I said self-aware, though. _That_, clearly, isn't something every youth can add to their PerC portfolio.


Well sure it always depends, if your functions are clearly differentiated, then yeah there's no reason not to  but I think in OP's case there's no clear outline of much, she should wait a bit

I'm quite young myself (but not conclusive on my type) so evidently I'm in no position to speak


----------



## theredpanda

Erin.M said:


> Okay, so I am going to conclude that you are an ENFP for the following reasons, but this does not mean you are not able to choose a different mode of cognition if you want. Although, I only wanted to ask because as an older person, I am finding the distinction between F and T to be huge, especially since for me it is Fi.
> 
> When you go to call someone, you examine your inner feeling state, and then reach for Ne/Te. My friends that are ENT's seem to be in Ti, then reach out to get Fe or Se from the interaction. For example, I am bored means your goal is to change your emotional state. My ENTP friend might call you up because he thought of a way to a. prank you or b. tell you about something that he expects only positive reaction to (in other words, I might hurt his feelings if I comment using Fi). My ENTJ friend only calls when he has an Ni plan to get some Se accomplished.
> 
> Your ideal career involves studying people. This is not necessarily T or F, since you can't place any one detail in any category, but as I grew up, I found that if I wasn't studying people's behavior (ie crazy reactions from your friends), I wasn't really interested in the problem. If you gave me a pile of problems to solve, and they all involved concrete things like making a *xshipx* bigger than any other *xshipx* there is, without any consideration for the impact (humane considerations) of it, I'd get pretty bored and restless, like, "what's the point of making this huge *xshipx* since no one even cares when I talk about it they all think it's stupid and a waste of resources?" Right now, your life is very social, and can continue to be so, so it might not impact your Fi that much, but even "not caring" that someone died might not be a lack of Fi, but instead a lack of historical Fi that you can pull from to create an emotion.
> 
> I can't say for sure, since I am not you. But T or F can make a huge difference in long term happiness. Especially at fifteen, you might be able to choose one or the other.
> 
> Going back to Ne Ni, teamtechnology.co.uk/myers-briggs/entp.gif shows that you do use both. I think if you introvert more than you extrovert, you shift the bubbles to the right proportionally.


Only a little while ago I was contemplating ENFP but I honestly don't know if I have that much Fi. I could see either way, honestly- whether I prefer Ti or Fi. But I am a pretty impersonal person- even of myself. I analyze myself like I'm an object- honestly I don't know if I see myself as a person sometimes.


----------



## Vermillion

Hurricane said:


> Well sure it always depends, if your functions are clearly differentiated, then yeah there's no reason not to  but I think in OP's case there's no clear outline of much, she should wait a bit


Yeah OP is special. Think we can all agree to that. 



> I'm quite young myself (but not conclusive on my type) so evidently I'm in no position to speak


It's often harder to type yourself than it is to type others, so I wouldn't worry as long as you understand the theory well.



Word Dispenser said:


> I've been meaning to join that closet ESFJ group on the forums.


Join the sensor side, fuck yeah. We have sex, drugs, rock and roll and COOKIES.


----------



## theredpanda

Hurricane said:


> Well sure it always depends, if your functions are clearly differentiated, then yeah there's no reason not to  but I think in OP's case there's no clear outline of much, she should wait a bit
> 
> I'm quite young myself (but not conclusive on my type) so evidently I'm in no position to speak


I know who I am as in how my mind works- I'm self aware. However I may or may not be using the right words/labels to explain my mind process.


----------



## Entropic

theredpanda said:


> I know who I am as in how my mind works- I'm self aware. However I may or may not be using the right words/labels to explain my mind process.


If I got a penny for every Fe dom that says this I'd be fucking rich now. Honey, without sounding like a jackass (though I will anyway and I won't regret it a single bit), you aren't as self-aware as you think you are and you are clearly not as open when it comes to seeing yourself for who you are as you think you are either, and frankly, that's ok, you got many years to develop that, but don't think you're fooling anyone in here because you frankly aren't. 

The problem isn't that you aren't using the right words (I don't know why inferior Ti types always think the problem lies in their ability to pick the right wording), but the problem is that you being you, are showing yourself for who you are whenever you state who you claim to be. It's oozing and you are likely so used to this that you are blind to it. That's ok, it's quite common in typology to not see one's dominant because we're so accustomed to it. 

Think of it as a simple analogy really, so we have two dolls. Both dolls are you, but they look differently. One doll has this label ENTP written on it, another doll has this label YOU written on it. Whenever you are telling us that you are an ENTP, you, the doll who has the word YOU written on it, takes the other doll that says ENTP on it and waves it around and tells us I am ENTP! Can't you see how ENTP I am? I have this doll version of myself here, it says ENTP on it. That's me! The problem is that the audience can clearly see that you are holding this ENTP doll in your hands and none of us are buying it because it's too obvious. Dressing like a punk rocker when you are a country girl won't a punk rocker make because punk rock is a lifestyle choice, not a fashion statement. 

You're not now but One Day in the Future™ I'm quite sure you can actually learn to appreciate yourself and your strengths for what they are rather than what you believe they are. Perhaps then you'd be more willing to see yourself in another light and not cling so tightly to that ENTP doll of yours. Identity search is a part of youth but you need to learn to let go of ego personas, especially when they don't clad you well. 



> I analyze myself like I'm an object- honestly I don't know if I see myself as a person sometimes.


Also, this is such an Fe thing to say too, especially dominance, losing the subject experience over the collective.


----------



## theredpanda

ephemereality said:


> If I got a penny for every Fe dom that says this I'd be fucking rich now.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, this is such an Fe thing to say too, especially dominance, losing the subject experience over the collective.


Then I have Fe- obviously. But It is not dominant- trust me on that. Pretty sure the guy I'm in a relationship with right now is Fe- Dom and we are not alike in that sense- at all.


----------



## O_o

You know... when you kind of look at it all, 

So many folk gathered around their technology discussing personality categories and which apply to someone else using some other piece of technology somewhere god knows. Certainly it's knowledge of a sort, tons of insight regarding the matter can be picked up on etc and it stimulating. But there's something humorous about all of it. 

How something which can be viewed as incredibly trivial to some can bring such enjoyment or stimulation. Not that I view anything wrong with this at all, but it is kind of... funny. I imagine someone completely foreign to all of this coming and seeing this. How subject matters have changed throughout the years. **** sapiens have gotten so far.


----------



## Serpent

The constant validation though the affirmation of anecdotes and personality tests is particularly suggestive. ESFJ does fit.


----------



## Entropic

theredpanda said:


> Then I have Fe- obviously. But It is not dominant- trust me on that. Pretty sure the guy I'm in a relationship with right now is Fe- Dom and we are not alike in that sense- at all.


Go reread my much lengthier edited post. It *is* a dominant Fe thing to say. Clearly. I could ask every xNTP I have interacted with on this site with and I am quite sure is an xNTP and I can swear that none of them will say this as a naturally occurring thing because it is not a naturally occurring thing to them.


----------



## Serpent

O_o said:


> You know... when you kind of look at it all,
> 
> So many folk gathered around their technology discussing personality categories and which apply to someone else using some other piece of technology somewhere god knows. Certainly it's knowledge of a sort, tons of insight regarding the matter can be picked up on etc and it stimulating. But there's something humorous about all of it.
> 
> How something which can be viewed as incredibly trivial to some can bring such enjoyment or stimulation. Not that I view anything wrong with this at all, but it is kind of... funny. I imagine someone completely foreign to all of this coming and seeing this. How subject matters have changed throughout the years. **** sapiens have gotten so far.


This is what I alluded to in my other thread. It's a great time to be interested in typology, especially if your first stop is PersonalityCafe.


----------



## Vermillion

ephemereality said:


> One Day in the Future™


Fucking unbelievable.


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> Fucking unbelievable.


Are you butthurt darling?


----------



## theredpanda

ephemereality said:


> Go reread my much lengthier edited post. It *is* a dominant Fe thing to say. Clearly. I could ask every xNTP I have interacted with on this site with and I am quite sure is an xNTP and I can swear that none of them will say this as a naturally occurring thing because it is not a naturally occurring thing to them.


I have read Jung's description of Fe and I can relate to parts but then there are parts that I don't relate to at all. I have Fe- but it isn't dominant. Go ahead and think I'm an ESFJ- I don't really care how you see me. People see me all kinda of ways but that doesn't change who I really am


----------



## Kathy Kane

theredpanda said:


> I have read Jung's description of Fe and I can relate to parts but then there are parts that I don't relate to at all. I have Fe- but it isn't dominant. Go ahead and think I'm an ESFJ- I don't really care how you see me. People see me all kinda of ways but that doesn't change who I really am


You are young, so you shouldn't worry about all the mistyping crap. Standing up for yourself is a good step to figuring everything out.


----------



## theredpanda

Kathy Kane said:


> You are young, so you shouldn't worry about all the mistyping crap. Standing up for yourself is a good step to figuring everything out.


I've been mistyped so many times. I'm sticking with ENTP- I think. Although I could see ENFP and ESTP in myself as well. But I'm not Fe dominant and it's pointless to argue why when I already know this because I've spent over a year studying myself.


----------



## Entropic

theredpanda said:


> I have read Jung's description of Fe and *I can relate to parts but then there are parts that I don't relate to at all. *I have Fe- but it isn't dominant. Go ahead and think I'm an ESFJ- I don't really care how you see me. People see me all kinda of ways but that doesn't change who I really am


That's the problem. You relate. Always. It must personally jive with you, these theories and ideas, these descriptions. You aren't approaching it analytically and in a detached theoretical way. That's what an NT would do. They would ask "so what does Fe mean? How can we make sense of it, observe it, understand it?" Once such an understanding is garnered, then they would go ahead and apply it to themselves but still in a detached way. Not so much how they relate to Fe but how can Fe be properly applied in a logical context based on how it is understood? See, I don't relate much to Jung's Ni profile either, I actually relate more to his Fi one, perhaps quite ironically so. I'm not an Fi dom, I know this now. 

As I wrote, there is too much discrepancy in behavior and what you claim you do. That's a problem. Just because you think you see doesn't mean that you actually see. We think we see so many things but what we see can never be fully trusted. But anyway, I don't really care that much about you and your type but do realize that it's glaring to anyone with good understanding of the system.


----------



## O_o

ScarrDragon said:


> This is what I alluded to in my other thread. It's a great time to be interested in typology, especially if your first stop is PersonalityCafe.


While... on the topic (and I won't stay on it for all that long. I have a habit of derailing just about any thread I start snuggling in). But great time indeed... and clearly folk from different countries are participating too. Yet then you think of all those secluded tribes out there who would possibly look at all this as incredibly "wtf-ish" material. Would they find it helpful differentiating between Fe and Fi in themselves and others? I mean the whole system is probably not meant to be "helpful" in that sense as it is meant to be... "insightful". But in such secluded tribes which have stuck around together for so long, I wonder if there is a clear dominant type.... I mean, is there any information out there regarding type preference and genetics? I'm assuming it has more to do with ... environment? Are our personality preferences somehow tied to the idea of Darwin. That's probably a stretch. But I wonder if any conclusions could come out of that, observing individuals in such a secluded environment... idk.


----------



## Vermillion

ephemereality said:


> Are you butthurt darling?


--deadpans out into the sunset--
fyi, no.



O_o said:


> How something which can be viewed as incredibly trivial to some can bring such enjoyment or stimulation. Not that I view anything wrong with this at all, but it is kind of... funny. I imagine someone completely foreign to all of this coming and seeing this. How subject matters have changed throughout the years. **** sapiens have gotten so far.


Oh god, you sound 50 years older than you probably are. Why does someone always feel the need to add a nostalgia pinch to every presently enjoyable situation? XD

But yeah I understand what you mean. If someone doesn't understand what goes on here, who cares? They're missing out, frankly 

Also, I like how when looooong threads reach the ~beginning of the end~ they all derail into informal discussion. It's like we're all one big group hanging out in a cafe and enjoying ourselves after a long day at work. (Even if some of us didn't do much work.)

edit: wait, I said cafe. That's where we are anyway.


----------



## theredpanda

ephemereality said:


> That's the problem. You relate. Always. It must personally jive with you, these theories and ideas, these descriptions. You aren't approaching it analytically and in a detached theoretical way. That's what an NT would do. They would ask "so what does Fe mean? How can we make sense of it, observe it, understand it?"
> 
> As I wrote, there is too much discrepancy in behavior and what you claim you do. That's a problem. But anyway, I don't really care that much but do realize that it's glaring to anyone with good understanding of the system.


Of course. I've done my research before this thread and at the beginning of my "discovery of my type" that's how I saw everything then I began narrowing the options down. Took me forever to decide. Also, everyone can relate in some way to everything because everyone has all the functions. I also said I did not relate to everything- you're ignoring that part of my statement.


----------



## Kathy Kane

theredpanda said:


> I've been mistyped so many times. I'm sticking with ENTP- I think. Although I could see ENFP and ESTP in myself as well. But I'm not Fe dominant and it's pointless to argue why when I already know this because I've spent over a year studying myself.


If you find the debates are helping you learn more about functions, then it might be worth it. But, if it's bothering you, then you don't have to engage them. They will just move along without your participation. You don't have to feel obliged to continue. Though, if you're enjoying it then keep it up. :wink:


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> --deadpans out into the sunset--
> fyi, no.


Too bad you just ruined that beautiful sunset.


----------



## O_o

Amaterasu said:


> Oh god, you sound 50 years older than you probably are. Why does someone always feel the need to add a nostalgia pinch to every presently enjoyable situation? XD


Wahhh >< what nostalgic pinch? lol. So forcing the focus away from the topic ruins it's vibe? Is that the implication lol


----------



## Entropic

theredpanda said:


> Also, everyone can relate in some way to everything because everyone has all the functions.


No. I have to decidedly disagree. I've always known what descriptions are more applicable to me in a quantitative sense and those that aren't. I do not fit the Fe profile for example. At all. 



> I also said I did not relate to everything- you're ignoring that part of my statement.


And you misunderstood my entire point that I just made. It has nothing to do with a quantitative amount of how much you relate to X object. That says nothing about your type at the end of your day aside more than you relating to said type description anyway. The point of reading Jung's Fe profile is to get a conceptual and theoretical idea of the Fe dom, not personally relate to it. His type descriptions are taken to their extreme so few are very applicable on real life people.


----------



## Serpent

theredpanda said:


> Of course. I've done my research before this thread and at the beginning of my "discovery of my type" that's how I saw everything then I began narrowing the options down. Took me forever to decide. Also, everyone can relate in some way to everything because everyone has all the functions. *I also said I did not relate to everything- you're ignoring that part of my statement.*


He was talking about the action of relating, I think.


----------



## O_o

theredpanda said:


> I have read Jung's description of Fe and I can relate to parts but then there are parts that I don't relate to at all. I have Fe- but it isn't dominant. Go ahead and think I'm an ESFJ- I don't really care how you see me. People see me all kinda of ways but that doesn't change who I really am


I'm actually very impressed with your confidence on this despite all which everyone is saying, though I personally don't know where this confidence is coming from. But reaching a point where you are that confident in your typing is impressive. In your situation, I would have probably cracked down on the "ENTP" right after the first good reasoning disproving it despite all my previous research and conclusions.


----------



## theredpanda

Kathy Kane said:


> If you find the debates are helping you learn more about functions, then it might be worth it. But, if it's bothering you, then you don't have to engage them. They will just move along without your participation. You don't have to feel obliged to continue. Though, if you're enjoying it then keep it up. :wink:


Eh. Kinda interesting to see the debates.


----------



## kitsu

O_o said:


> While... on the topic (and I won't stay on it for all that long. I have a habit of derailing just about any thread I start snuggling in). But great time indeed... and clearly folk from different countries are participating too. Yet then you think of all those secluded tribes out there who would possibly look at all this as incredibly "wtf-ish" material. Would they find it helpful differentiating between Fe and Fi in themselves and others? I mean the whole system is probably not meant to be "helpful" in that sense as it is meant to be... "insightful". But in such secluded tribes which have stuck around together for so long, I wonder if there is a clear dominant type.... I mean, is there any information other out there regarding type preference and genetics? I'm assuming it has more to do with ... environment? Are our personality preferences somehow tied to the idea of Darwin. That's probably a stretch. But I wonder is any conclusions could come out of that, observing individuals in such a secluded environment... idk.


I study anthropology at the moment - hopefully I'll be working with indigenous cultures later on. What you're describing is something I've been thinking of looking into !

Since they're very traditionalist/high context cultures they might all resemble SJ's at first glance, it'd be interesting to see how the other functions might adapt within such a collectivist mindset.


----------



## theredpanda

ephemereality said:


> No. I have to decidedly disagree. I've always known what descriptions are more applicable to me in a quantitative sense and those that aren't. I do not fit the Fe profile for example. At all.
> 
> 
> 
> And you misunderstood my entire point that I just made. It has nothing to do with a quantitative amount of how much you relate to X object. That says nothing about your type at the end of your day aside more than you relating to said type description anyway. The point of reading Jung's Fe profile is to get a conceptual and theoretical idea of the Fe dom, not personally relate to it. His type descriptions are taken to their extreme so few are very applicable on real life people.


Then what's the point of the descriptions? In actuality "Fe" is not a thing- it is not an object, it cannot be measured. It's a theory- only existing in the concept of personality theory. If a description is not accurate then how are you supposed to know which functions you use? Makes no sense. And I also know what I relate to and what I don't- but I still say people CAN relate I some way, however small to any description- even if everything else said about it overrides the connection. (Like in my case...)


----------



## theredpanda

O_o said:


> I'm actually very impressed with your confidence on this despite all which everyone is saying, though I personally don't know where this confidence is coming from. But reaching a point where you are that confident in your typing is impressive. In your situation, I would have probably cracked down on the "ENTP" right after the first good reasoning disproving it despite all my previous research and conclusions.


Because I've researched all this before and know I'm not Fe-Dom. I'm also not a Jungian purist...


----------



## reckful

Hurricane said:


> You're not even allowed to take the official MBTI test until you're 22, I don't know what your sources are


As I understand it, the official MBTI is quite commonly administered to high school students, often as part of an introductory psychology course.

In Gifts Differing, Myers explained: "By the time children reach seventh grade, their types can be identified with a useful degree of accuracy by the Type Indicator."

The MBTI Manual explains: "When the MBTI is used with high school students and adults who can read at least at the eighth grade level, a counselor can be reasonably confident of the reported type for individual guidance, provided that the reported type never be used as an established fact, but rather as a hypothesis for verification."

What are _your_ sources?


----------



## Kathy Kane

theredpanda said:


> Eh. Kinda interesting to see the debates.


Yeah, no doubt. That's why I've been lurking more than posting.


----------



## theredpanda

reckful said:


> As I understand it, the official MBTI is quite commonly administered to high school students, often as part of an introductory psychology course.
> 
> In Gifts Differing, Myers explained: "By the time children reach seventh grade, their types can be identified with a useful degree of accuracy by the Type Indicator."
> 
> The MBTI Manual explains: "When the MBTI is used with high school students and adults who can read at least at the eighth grade level, a counselor can be reasonably confident of the reported type for individual guidance, provided that the reported type never be used as an established fact, but rather as a hypothesis for verification."
> 
> What are _your_ sources?


Yep- also this year we took the mbti test at my high school. Got INTP actually


----------



## Entropic

Hurricane said:


> Haha, I see what you mean. I'm concerned too much might turn me into a misanthrope. Then I'd be a misanthropologist !
> 
> I'm not positive it'll lead me to work either, I do worry about the rare amount of implementations there are. UNESCO/protection of cultural diversity, mostly, but you have to be damn good to earn a living with it


lol, misanthropologist. 

I care, but the problem is that I care theoretically, not so much practically. Let me go out and observe people and I can come up with various zany theories as to why they are the way they are but just don't make me interact too much with them? I would prefer working in a university environment but there's very little demand for anthro knowledge, and if there is you need a master minimum to teach. I do have a master in global studies so idk. Sweden can't offer me any employment though. Maybe in the USA if I were to apply to a bunch of colleges.


----------



## reckful

ephemereality said:


> So please tell me, how many Fe doms IRL have you observed that fit Jung's Fe dom portrait to a T?


Whether Jung intended the non-neurotic sections of his portraits to portray the "common" and "typical" characteristics of his types — as he explicitly said he did — and the extent to which his portraits are _accurate_ are two entirely separate issues, as I suspect you already know. And you certainly already know that I think Myers and others have pointed up a large number of shortcomings, both large and small, in Jung's original conceptions of the types.



> Even Jung himself, in quite a few of his descriptions, in fact make it explicitly clear that he's talking about extremes. Someone for example posted this description of Si recently and was asking for advice of how to understand it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although *his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact*. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. *If his tendency is to reason objectively, he will sense this difference as morbid*; but if, on the other hand, he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is prepared to grant his sensation reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-belief and a comedy. *Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached*. As a rule, the individual acquiesces in his isolation and in the banality of the reality, which, however, he unconsciously treats archaically.
> 
> 
> 
> Here Jung mentions the importance of the auxiliary to bring some sense of realism into the Si dom and also mentions that full differentiation of Si without an auxiliary is "extreme".
Click to expand...

Your quote supports my view, not yours. As I noted in my previous post, his general approach in the eight type portraits is to describe _both_ the more-or-less ordinary version of the type, and _also_ (and especially in the last part of the portrait) the _neurotic_ version of the type that results if the unconscious functions are overly suppressed and end up wreaking havoc. The passage you quoted explicitly distinguishes between what Si-doms are like "as a rule" and what happens "in extreme cases." And, for better and worse (his Si descriptions were far from Jung's finest moment), _most_ of that passage you quoted is in the former category. The reason that Si-doms end up "acquiescing in their isolation" *"as a rule"* is that, *"as a rule"* (as Jung saw it), their view of the world is sufficiently "archaic" and "estranged from ... reality" that — as Jung explains earlier in the portrait — they find it all but impossible to effectively communicate their perspective to others.

You talk about "full differentiation of Si without an auxiliary," but Jung expressly addresses that issue in the Si-dom portrait and notes that, _even with a developed T or F auxiliary_, the auxiliary functions of Si-doms typically "have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression" — and are therefore incapable of effectively capturing the Si-dom's strange perspectives.


----------



## kitsu

ephemereality said:


> lol, misanthropologist.
> 
> I care, but the problem is that I care theoretically, not so much practically. Let me go out and observe people and I can come up with various zany theories as to why they are the way they are but just don't make me interact too much with them? I would prefer working in a university environment but there's very little demand for anthro knowledge, and if there is you need a master minimum to teach. I do have a master in global studies so idk. Sweden can't offer me any employment though. Maybe in the USA if I were to apply to a bunch of colleges.


Lucky Ni, I need a lot of practical exposure before I can expose any theories. Understanding is a long and churny process for me.

Did you transfer directly from an anthropology undergrad to a global studies major? If you don't mind my asking, do you have any use for either of those now?

(This is a derail a thread-thread now.. You can answer that in a message if you prefer)


----------



## Psychopomp

Kathy Kane said:


> I agree with that. If you look at things like recycling, man-made global warming, anti-gambling, or anti-low level drugs. None of those are universal or even dire to humans in general (though some could argue the opposite case for any of those I listed.)
> 
> Introverts would need compelling reasons to accept/reject those things, besides the majority saying they're good or bad. Using examples like religion or physical abuse are better suited for topic specific debates.


And herein lies the value of Jung delineating extra/introverted types as a thing unto itself. Regardless of my being a Ti dom, or @ephemereality being Ni dom, or someone else being Fi dom or Si dom... we nevertheless tend to reject things without introverting on them IN SOME WAY. We are generally subjective people. The flavor is different. I use logic to remain within the subject... ephemereality uses, presumably, his intuition. Yet, we remain, on the whole, in the subject and, on the whole, resistant to the object. Thus, that we are 'introverted types' is meaningful in and of itself. 

What I did just then was a subjective and abstract and intuitive and logical consideration of Jung's choice to do this. For a literal, concrete interpretation, see @reckful. 



Raawx said:


> And @_arkigos_, now that I think of it, I can see how Ne/Si will be much more grounded in the "potential reality" than Se/Ni would. (Thinking about your example of the ISTP/INTP divide, something about the Turkish empire or whatever). When I imagine anything, it has to be realistic and applicable; I would also conduct all that research in order to accurately represent the way the environment was like. It's also why history annoys me; it isn't accurate enough, and so I can't make any real or concrete speculations about what it was like. I need to experience that myself to complete the picture.
> 
> Related, I also can't stand games like GTA or whatever. Any of that simulated reality nonsense. To me, if one is going to attempt to simulate reality, they should do so 100% accurately. Otherwise, it's just a waste. It's often why I prefer games that provide imagined worlds and whatever to concrete ones.


I agree. Unreal reality is very uncomfortable for me. It loses my interest, and fails to resonate. If it isn't real in whatever context it is, I don't like it. It just so happens that I am primarily concerned with discerning new context, consciously, without the slightest concrete limitation.



theredpanda said:


> Actually, personality types are usually prevalent by the time someone reaches the age of 13- though they may not be fully developed


So much certainty!

I think differentiated judging functions are pretty apparent by 4-5. I've made moves to type children, and over several years, the really clear ones have remained pretty true. I typed a girl ESFJ when she was... 4? She is almost 10 and I was definitely right. My own two children are Fi and Fe and that is very clear. Perceiving functions are much less clear, though I know I am looking for Pe in one and Pi in the other, as that much is discernable. However, I can never utterly say more than that... since intro/extraversion is ambiguous, as well as S vs N (you always wonder how much bias creeps in, or lack of context). They are 4 and 7, again respectively. 

However, I suspect there are a lot of people, children especially, that are super ambiguous and not typeable even by the most discerning of observers. Thus, no universal statement can apply. It is POSSIBLE to discern function traits in a child when quite young, but unless it is very clear, don't jump to conclusions, and even then... why bother? It is meaningful to study, if curious, but I'd keep in the 'observational' stage... make a hypothesis and see how it plays out. Whenever we make an assertion, our effort must then shift entirely not to proving our assertion right.. but to proving it wrong. 



Raawx said:


> brb. Let me to cry about my type.
> 
> I'm basically that little flag in the middle of the rope that you and arkigos are tugging. It's no fun, because I'm quite fond of you both.


For what it is worth, the only thing I am pretty sure of is that you aren't an ENFP. I don't know what type @ephemereality has for you, but I would be quite resistant to it if it involves a conscious or differentiated Fi. 



O_o said:


> While... on the topic (and I won't stay on it for all that long. I have a habit of derailing just about any thread I start snuggling in). But great time indeed... and clearly folk from different countries are participating too. Yet then you think of all those secluded tribes out there who would possibly look at all this as incredibly "wtf-ish" material. Would they find it helpful differentiating between Fe and Fi in themselves and others? I mean the whole system is probably not meant to be "helpful" in that sense as it is meant to be... "insightful". But in such secluded tribes which have stuck around together for so long, I wonder if there is a clear dominant type.... I mean, is there any information out there regarding type preference and genetics? I'm assuming it has more to do with ... environment? Are our personality preferences somehow tied to the idea of Darwin. That's probably a stretch. But I wonder if any conclusions could come out of that, observing individuals in such a secluded environment... idk.


We can't really know... but I suspect that with most things, it is a very natural organic thing. In a sense, it is because in order for this to be, it must have been. That is a weird little bit of circular logic, but it can be profound. If it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be what we are. A balance of survival instinct and perspective, of concrete and abstract. Practicality and fancy. For what ever reason, this worked itself as the most organically optimal eventuality. I suspect this all happened, in essentials, very early on in our development as a species. How it LOOKS has changed, but what it IS was probably rather central to us existing as we do at all, from its foundation in some primal form. Thus, I suspect that cognition variables are fairly consistent across the species. Just speculation. 



theredpanda said:


> Then what's the point of the descriptions? In actuality "Fe" is not a thing- it is not an object, it cannot be measured. It's a theory- only existing in the concept of personality theory. If a description is not accurate then how are you supposed to know which functions you use? Makes no sense. And I also know what I relate to and what I don't- but I still say people CAN relate I some way, however small to any description- even if everything else said about it overrides the connection. (Like in my case...)


I wonder who is still thinking ENTP after this. Peculiar.



O_o said:


> Definitely. It is such an... environmental thing, the outcome of it. Showing how the descriptions on their own are so circumstantial.
> But then a third scenario. Where a person hasn't been socialized and away from other individuals for their whole life. How would cognitive functions apply to them, then? Could it even apply?


I don't think it would change. I can't imagine why or how. It, like so much else, would be all but unrecognizable. 



reckful said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Another day, another slew of posts from @_ephemereality_ packed with misinformation about Jung.
> 
> One of the canards that pops up from time to time in internet forum posts is the one that says that Jung's type descriptions in Chapter 10 of Psychological Types were "extreme" (or "unhealthy") portraits that wouldn't much resemble typical people of the applicable type. And really, when you think about it, WTF sense would that have made? Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about the things he saw as common to _all introverts_ and _all extraverts_. Chapter 10 is the _only_ place where he gave us anything like in-depth descriptions of his eight functions. Why on earth would he not have described what he viewed as the more or less _typical_ characteristics of his types?


To isolate them and make them more clear in the mind. He then says that most people are more ambiverted, as you tend to repeat, and that differentiation of one or more unconscious function would have notable effect. Seems pretty clear to me. Inasmuch as X function operates alone in consciousness and in strong differentiation, then the descriptions apply. He assumed his readers were capable of what he called Abstraction.


----------



## O_o

arkigos said:


> We can't really know... but I suspect that with most things, it is a very natural organic thing. In a sense, it is because in order for this to be, it must have been. That is a weird little bit of circular logic, but it can be profound. If it wasn't this way, we wouldn't be what we are. A balance of survival instinct and perspective, of concrete and abstract. Practicality and fancy. For what ever reason, this worked itself as the most organically optimal eventuality. I suspect this all happened, in essentials, very early on in our development as a species. How it LOOKS has changed, but what it IS was probably rather central to us existing as we do at all, from its foundation in some primal form. Thus, I suspect that cognition variables are fairly consistent across the species. Just speculation.
> 
> I don't think it would change. I can't imagine why or how. It, like so much else, would be all but unrecognizable.


I agree that it did occur very early in our development and that the way it looks has changed, etc. 
But I actually think that possibly... it may have come as some sort of split, really. But this kind of ties into my view that nothing about our personality is really a "preference (whether subconscious or not) or resulting from free will", everything... somewhere down the line is cellular and a combination of things. So I believe the functions may have evolved out of other ones possibly? When they did start to develop I don't think they all did at the same time... perhaps they are still evolving.


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> He then says that most people are more ambiverted, as you tend to repeat, and that differentiation of one or more unconscious function would have notable effect. Seems pretty clear to me. Inasmuch as X function operates alone in consciousness and in strong differentiation, then the descriptions apply.


Nope. Jung was saying that his Te-dom portrait (for example) was intended to describe the characteristics of Te-doms that he viewed as "common" and "typical" _regardless of whether the Te-dom was an N-aux or an S-aux_. He was emphatically _not_ saying that if a person had an auxiliary function — which Jung said was the usual case for his types — then those "common" and "typical" characteristics wouldn't be there.

His point was that his "Galtonesque" portraits were incomplete in the sense that his Te portrait generally omits characterstics that are found in Te-doms with an N-aux but not Te-doms with an S-aux (and _vice versa_) and instead limits itself to the characteristics that all Te-doms "typically" and "commonly" exhibit.


----------



## Entropic

reckful said:


> Whether Jung intended the non-neurotic sections of his portraits to portray the "common" and "typical" characteristics of his types — as he explicitly said he did — and the extent to which his portraits are _accurate_ are two entirely separate issues, as I suspect you already know. And you certainly already know that I think Myers and others have pointed up a large number of shortcomings, both large and small, in Jung's original conceptions of the types.


You should be utterly aware by now that I have little to no faith in your beloved Myers. I think she fucked the theory up instead of improving it. She made it concrete, she made it simplistic, she made it watered down and something of a lesser quality than the original. Her intent may have been a good one but I don't give a fuck. The MBTI theory as it stands when derived from Myers, is pure fucking horseshit and that's just the way it is to anyone who is capable of discerning the differences between what Myers took from Jung and what Jung actually claimed. 



> Your quote supports my view, not yours. As I noted in my previous post, his general approach in the eight type portraits is to describe _both_ the more-or-less ordinary version of the type, and _also_ (and especially in the last part of the portrait) the _neurotic_ version of the type that results if the unconscious functions are overly suppressed and end up wreaking havoc. The passage you quoted explicitly distinguishes between what Si-doms are like "as a rule" and what happens "in extreme cases." And, for better and worse (his Si descriptions were far from Jung's finest moment), _most_ of that passage you quoted is in the former category. The reason that Si-doms end up "acquiescing in their isolation" *as a rule* is that, *as a rule* (as Jung saw it), their view of the world is sufficiently "archaic" and "estranged from ... reality" that — as Jung explains earlier in the portrait — they find it all but impossible to effectively communicate their perspective to others.
> 
> You talk about "full differentiation of Si without an auxiliary," but Jung expressly addresses that issue in the Si-dom portrait and notes that, _even with a developed T or F auxiliary_, the auxiliary functions of Si-doms typically "have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression" — and are therefore incapable of effectively capturing the Si-dom's strange perspectives.


You're so fucking literal it HURTS. Of course Jung means that but he also means MORE. You can't see, it's so fucking painful I rather bash my head into a brick wall. Of course they are like that because you know duh, for stating the fucking obvious, if they did not to one degree or another do that, they would in fact not be Si doms. That's what Si is. But to quote arkigos further above me, Jung has also made it explicitly clear that to find such an individual with such a differentiated Si dom preference is rare because a) ambiverts are more plentiful b) most Si doms will also come with an auxiliary that *will* bring a sense of reality into their subjective sensation. An auxiliary does not make it worse. Jung's dilemma as is described is precisely that - to go rational or irrational. If rational, then more objectivity is brought into consciousness. However, as he in fact alludes in the beginning of the passage, the Si dom needs an auxiliary in order to help them make sense of their subjective experience and to ground them a bit into actual reality. It doesn't mean they are entirely grounded, no, that's not what an auxiliary does in the first place. If that's true then they would be rational doms. 

Does your mind ever think in terms of nuance at all? Apparently not. It's not A or B. It's A aaaaa .... bbbb B. For some reason you seem to have an incredibly difficult time actually grasping this very simple truth of life that things are not either/or. There's a wide spectrum inbetween. 



Hurricane said:


> Lucky Ni, I need a lot of practical exposure before I can expose any theories. Understanding is a long and churny process for me.
> 
> Did you transfer directly from an anthropology undergrad to a global studies major? If you don't mind my asking, do you have any use for either of those now?
> 
> (This is a derail a thread-thread now.. You can answer that in a message if you prefer)


Isn't that more of a T vs F thing, to grasp theory easily? 

And I went straight from undergrad to grad. Undergrad would be bachelor ye? And well, this thread's been derailed since page 1 lol.


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> Nope. Jung was saying that his Te-dom portrait (for example) was intended to describe the characteristics of Te-doms that he viewed as "common" and "typical" _regardless of whether the Te-dom was an N-aux or an S-aux_. He was emphatically _not_ saying that if a person had an auxiliary function — which Jung said was the usual case for his types — then those "common" and "typical" characteristics wouldn't be there.
> 
> His point was that his "Galtonesque" portraits were incomplete in the sense that his Te portrait generally omits characterstics that are found in Te-doms with an N-aux but not Te-doms with an S-aux (and _vice versa_) and instead limits itself to the characteristics that all Te-doms "typically" and "commonly" exhibit.


Inasmuch as Te remains, effectively, the sole conscious function at any given moment. I agree. He was quite clear that such would not always be the case. For example, someone might, for one reason or another, find an inferior function either acting from the unconscious or becoming conscious in some degree. Inasmuch as this is the case, the descriptions become blurry and ambiguous, or even contradictory in ways, for that individual. 

Like, for example, if someone having an identity crisis used a lot of 'inferior' Ne. Jung absolutely allowed for this... such as in the case of therapy. He once said it would lead to grief and in another place, I think, spoke of it more positively.

So, no, inasmuch as the consciousness of the individual is disturbed by inferior and neurotic things, or, say, a psychological crisis... or even stress, or mental illness, or X or Y or Z... the descriptions would not effectively apply. Because of the prevalence of such things, ambiversion primarily, those descriptions only apply to a certain subset of people without caveat... and even with those, not without notable exceptions in specific scenarios. Very few people if any go through life just with one function or description applying at all times, alone. Most people don't go 5 minutes. To determine them, one must consider the 'quality' (conscious/unconscious, mature/neurotic) of the manifestation, and any other circumstances involved... also, the longer and more diverse the observation, the better a picture one can gain. 

Perhaps I misunderstand you? I do think that one's dominant function remains in an observable conscious state almost all of the time in a normal person in normal circumstances... and that the person will identify with the descriptions inasmuch as they are capable of objective consideration of themselves.




O_o said:


> I agree that it did occur very early in our development and that the way it looks has changed, etc.
> But I actually think that possibly... it may have come as some sort of split, really. But this kind of ties into my view that nothing about our personality is really a "preference (whether subconscious or not) or resulting from free will", everything... somewhere down the line is cellular and a combination of things. So I believe the functions may have evolved out of other ones possibly? When they did start to develop I don't think they all did at the same time... perhaps they are still evolving.


I actually think that Ne/Si are not two functions, but, in a sense, one. Rather, they are inextricably bound, and result from one another. Same with Se/Ni... Te/Fi and Fe/Ti. 

Applying a little logic to this, it is most likely that they all developed essentially together. It does not seem plausible that you could have any with any of the others. Their implications are more profound than we might think... for example, one might say feeling was not necessary early on (just as a random example) ... but one does not consider that all judgments require the ability Rationally comprehend value. All mammals exhibit some crude version of this... to smell something and judge it, even in the most primitive and base of ways, undesirable. 

Intuition is an interesting one, and I certainly believe that the means with which to comprehend archetypes and also potentials and ideals in the nature of things would have been prerequisite to any sort of ascendance above animal cognition. There is a greater interdependence than we naturally realize in the functions. There is no Rationality without Perception. 

I suppose one might argue that Perception came first? Nah. Animals can reason in very very primitive ways. 

I really think the whole thing starts at the absolute beginning, and its coming about is nothing short of a story of our species as it is. I think that there was never a time that there was human and that there was not, in some form or capacity, the functions entirely.... though obviously unrecognizable in manifestation, unless very discerningly Abstracted and reapplied. 

I don't think we can know that until we get a much much better idea of the workings of the brain... and even then.... this is just wild speculation, but I don't see how it could be another way.


----------



## reckful

ephemereality said:


> You're so fucking literal it HURTS. Of course Jung means that but he also means MORE. You can't see, it's so fucking painful I rather bash my head into a brick wall. Of course they are like that because you know duh, for stating the fucking obvious, if they did not to one degree or another do that, they would in fact not be Si doms. That's what Si is. But to quote arkigos further above me, Jung has also made it explicitly clear that to find such an individual with such a differentiated Si dom preference is rare because a) ambiverts are more plentiful b) most Si doms will also come with an auxiliary that *will* bring a sense of reality into their subjective sensation. An auxiliary does not make it worse. Jung's dilemma as is described is precisely that - to go rational or irrational. If rational, then more objectivity is brought into consciousness. However, as he in fact alludes in the beginning of the passage, the Si dom needs an auxiliary in order to help them make sense of their subjective experience and to ground them a bit into actual reality. It doesn't mean they are entirely grounded, no, that's not what an auxiliary does in the first place. If that's true then they would be rational doms.
> 
> Does your mind ever think in terms of nuance at all? Apparently not. It's not A or B. It's A aaaaa .... bbbb B. For some reason you seem to have an incredibly difficult time actually grasping this very simple truth of life that things are not either/or. There's a wide spectrum inbetween.


You told @theredpanda that Jung's "type descriptions are taken to their extreme so few are very applicable on real life people." I pointed out that, on the contrary, Jung intended his descriptions (ignoring the neurotic parts) to capture what he viewed as the "typical" and "common" characteristics of the types.

You followed up with a post that gave us a Jung quote that supported my view rather than yours, and I pointed that out.

And now the gist of your latest post seems to be:



> Waaah, reckful, why are you so fucking literal? Why didn't you take my assertion that Jung's portraits are so "extreme" that "few are very applicable on real life people" and read enough "nuance" between the lines to make my assertion consistent with the idea that Jung was describing the qualities that he saw as "typical" and "characteristic" of the types?


Well, I'll have you know that I have Nuance on the phone as I type this and they say you're asking way too much.


----------



## kitsu

ephemereality said:


> Isn't that more of a T vs F thing, to grasp theory easily?


Not when it concerns the human element, imo. T vs F would be logical vs ethical, both can be theories (N). Human sciences combine both (if you're trying to understand cultural norms/what people value, ethics are just as good)

So yeah, I think it's a Ni-Ne thing

Something Nardi described about Ni explains it pretty well:


> Their whole-brain, zen-like pattern occurs when all regions of the neocortex are in sync and dominated by brain waves that are medium-low frequency and very high-amplitude. Other types only show this pattern when they engage in their specific area of expertise, unlike Ni-ers, who also show it when tackling a new problem.


Where Ne is the opposite


> Find it difficult to get "in the zone," and can do so only after practicing and internalizing an activity over weeks, months, or years.


Since it's becoming something new in every moment it takes it longer to get to the core of things. I don't think either is more qualified to do so, in the end, they just have different rhythms



> Undergrad would be bachelor ye?


Yup


----------



## theredpanda

O_o said:


> It's pretty irrelevant what others may call it lol. But I'm not really certain whether thinking independently actually plays a roll here.
> See, that's the thing which you mentioned kind of what I find interesting: "I have what I believe and I'm a mix of mbti and Jung" this sort of conclusion is what I find interesting. It seems like you think you have enough knowledge as is (not implying that to be a good or bad thing, that's also irrelevant). That's what I'm impressed with. I could never come to such a conclusion because I aways have a sneaking doubt that I'm missing something... it's always very fluid and I can never come to a conclusion that is an actual conclusion (even if this conclusion is "there is no clear conclusion") because it... sticks until something out of somewhere goes against it in anyway or adds some other knowledge to it. Then I feel an urge to squish that in there in hopes that some day... that actual conclusion will come.


See I used to be exactly like that and still am, but to a much lesser extent with this stuff anyway. It's all theory anyways- which is awesome because it allows you to believe and think for yourself more.


----------



## theredpanda

dinkytown said:


> You see, this is the type of thing I expect to read from an ENTP.
> 
> Taking this wonderful thread going on and then out of the blue, extrapolating it to what exotic tribes would think of this discussion, pondering this discussions effect on our view of evolution, and wondering how type fits into genetics. She just abstractly pulled all these connections out of thin air. And presented it all with a sort of self-deprecating humor. Textbook ENTP.
> 
> I haven't got that sense at all from the OP, nor most of the self-proclaimed ENTPs on this site. Instead you get diatribes about "look how different and wacky and creative I am, lol, I'm such an ENTP".


Have you ever seen any of my posts on any other thread? LOL


----------



## theredpanda

@arkigos then what do you say I am? I'm curious. I am reconsidering my type- but I know I am not fe- Dom- I know many Fe-doms and Have researched the types and can accurately say I am not one. I am however considering ENFP and ESTP, although I'm leaning more towards ENFP. Being independent is my highest value and I'm wondering if it could possibly be due to Fi....even tho I was pretty sure I had low Fi- but I'll consider anything.


----------



## Entropic

Hurricane said:


> Not when it concerns the human element, imo. T vs F would be logical vs ethical, both can be theories (N). Human sciences combine both (if you're trying to understand cultural norms/what people value, ethics are just as good)


I forgot the context that we were discussing lol. I thought you meant learning about people in a theoretical way or something. 



> So yeah, I think it's a Ni-Ne thing
> 
> Something Nardi described about Ni explains it pretty well:
> 
> 
> Where Ne is the opposite


Seems more like an Si thing, this need to experience first and master experience? I don't think Ne doms would be any less "jump into experience" in that kind of sense, though on a more theoretical level of course. 



> Since it's becoming something new in every moment it takes it longer to get to the core of things. I don't think either is more qualified to do so, in the end, they just have different rhythms


Yeah, I definitely don't think "newness" has any specific bearing on my ability to pick up new information.


----------



## The Trollmaster

If you twist definitions around and misinterpret things slightly you'll notice that INFPs are actually more rational than INTJs.

I just broke logic didn't I.


----------



## reckful

^ Here's my favored "twist": Jung largely associated MBTI J characteristics with J-doms and MBTI P characteristics with P-doms. A-a-and the functions model that really corresponds to Jung's view (according to the majority of Jung scholars, and I think it's the only fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole) says an Ni-dom with a T-aux (for example) is Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.

So if you're asking which type is more "rational" and you want to be Jungian in terms of how you're using "rational" and in all other relevant respects, an MBTI INFP (by which I mean someone who'd come out INFP on the official MBTI test) would be a Jungian Ni-Fi-Te-Se and an MBTI INTJ would be a Jungian Ti-Ni-Fe-Se — so the INFP would be "irrational" (i.e., a P-dom) and the INTJ would be "rational" (i.e., a J-dom).


----------



## dinkytown

reckful said:


> ^ Here's my favored "twist": Jung largely associated MBTI J characteristics with J-doms and MBTI P characteristics with P-doms. A-a-and the functions model that really corresponds to Jung's view (according to the majority of Jung scholars, and I think it's the only fair reading of Psychological Types as a whole) says an Ni-dom with a T-aux (for example) is Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.
> 
> So if you're asking which type is more "rational" and you want to be Jungian in terms of how you're using "rational" and in all other relevant respects, an MBTI INFP (by which I mean someone who'd come out INFP on the official MBTI test) would be a Jungian Ni-Fi-Te-Se and an MBTI INTJ would be a Jungian Ti-Ni-Fe-Se — so the INFP would be "irrational" (i.e., a P-dom) and the INTJ would be "rational" (i.e., a J-dom).


Funny, I disagree with almost all your posts. But this post really made me stop and pause; I think you might be on to something with this. I tested ISTP for years almost everywhere. If going just by dichotomies, I am clearly an I, S, T, and P. There's no question about that. ISTP descriptions always seemed to fit. So much so that I always identified as an ISTP until recently when I began to explore things deeper.

There was one big kicker. I don't identify with Se at all. My foray into socionics really made this clear. However I identify very much with almost every definition of Si; in fact I'm quite certain it's my dominant function. Reading Jung further confirmed this.

If an mbti ISTP is really a Jungian Si-Ti-Fe-Ne (with Ti mildly differentiated and the last two mostly undifferentiated and practically unconscious), that would have saved me a hell of a lot of time trying to reconcile my type with the functions.

-------

To put things in a broader perspective, I think the mbti use of P and J was ass-backwards for introverted types and practically renders the system incompatible with Jung's functions. Attempting to fit an mbti type into the modern function model may be an exercise in futility.


----------



## O_o

arkigos said:


> I actually think that Ne/Si are not two functions, but, in a sense, one. Rather, they are inextricably bound, and result from one another. Same with Se/Ni... Te/Fi and Fe/Ti.
> 
> Applying a little logic to this, it is most likely that they all developed essentially together. It does not seem plausible that you could have any with any of the others. Their implications are more profound than we might think... for example, one might say feeling was not necessary early on (just as a random example) ... but one does not consider that all judgments require the ability Rationally comprehend value. All mammals exhibit some crude version of this... to smell something and judge it, even in the most primitive and base of ways, undesirable.
> 
> Intuition is an interesting one, and I certainly believe that the means with which to comprehend archetypes and also potentials and ideals in the nature of things would have been prerequisite to any sort of ascendance above animal cognition. There is a greater interdependence than we naturally realize in the functions. There is no Rationality without Perception.
> 
> I suppose one might argue that Perception came first? Nah. Animals can reason in very very primitive ways.
> 
> I really think the whole thing starts at the absolute beginning, and its coming about is nothing short of a story of our species as it is. I think that there was never a time that there was human and that there was not, in some form or capacity, the functions entirely.... though obviously unrecognizable in manifestation, unless very discerningly Abstracted and reapplied.
> 
> I don't think we can know that until we get a much much better idea of the workings of the brain... and even then.... this is just wild speculation, but I don't see how it could be another way.


True. Yes, true, the connections. Functions don't work on their own, so in a sense if the Ne comes along with the Si function... really, they are connected. If they were each separate it wouldn't fit... one isn't purely Si with nothing else, for example. So yes, let's assume that the functions were present in that... sense. Both judging and perceiving. 
But couldn't it be possible that ... it started off with certain cognitive functions (ex: only Fe with Ti were present and Ni with Se (maybe the order wouldn't matter, maybe it would))... and then later on, the introverted (or extroverted) versions of these became to be? For example... take Fe with Ti came first with Fi and Te combination developing later in human history? I could see this being possible as well.


----------



## reckful

dinkytown said:


> However I identify very much with almost every definition of Si; in fact I'm quite certain it's my dominant function. Reading Jung further confirmed this.


You say you identify with "almost every definition of Si," and you say "reading Jung further confirmed this."

Buuut... as discussed at length in this post, most modern Si descriptions — including the ones you'll find in Myers, Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — bear little resemblance to Jung's Si descriptions, and are more like the _opposite_ of Jung's descriptions in many respects.

Are you one of those people who Naomi Quenk describes like this...



Quenk said:


> Introverted sensing types are careful and orderly in their attention to facts and details. They are thorough and conscientious in fulfilling their responsibilities. ... They are typically seen as well grounded in reality, trustworthy, and dedicated to preserving traditional values and time-honored institutions. With their focus on the reality of the present, they trust the evidence of their senses, and rely on carefully accumuated past and present evidence to support their conclusions and planned courses of action. ... They tend to take a skeptical, critical attitude to information that has not been verified by the senses and are likely to distrust people who are careless about facts, sloppy about details, and favor imagination and novelty over accuracy and solid substantiation.


... or are you one of those people who Jung said suffer from an "unpredictable and arbitrary" relation between their perceptions and the actual physical world, with the result that they end up with "an illusory conception of reality" that they're generally unable to effectively communicate to other people, partly because it's so strange and partly because their thinking and feeling functions "are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression"?

The Si descriptions you find in virtually all modern MBTI sources (including the function-centric theorists) make Si-doms sound consummately practical, not to mention likely candidates for employee of the month, whereas Jung says it's understandable why the Si-doms (together with their Ni-dom cousins) are considered the "most useless of men" from the standpoint of achieving practical, real-world results.

Which version of Si do you identify with?


----------



## Abraxas

@reckful,

Is there a particular body of work (book preferably) published by Naomi Quenk that you would personally recommend?

Specifically, I'm curious where you drew that type description from in your last post, in which she discusses Si-types.


----------



## reckful

Abraxas said:


> @reckful,
> 
> Is there a particular body of work (book preferably) published by Naomi Quenk that you would personally recommend?
> 
> Specifically, I'm curious where you drew that type description from in your last post, in which she discusses Si-types.


The only Naomi Quenk book I own is Beside Ourselves, and that's where that Si-dom description came from. The book's main subject is the inferior function, and no, I wouldn't really recommend it.

If you've ever read Thomson's Personality Type and been struck by the fact that many of her examples sound kind of artificial and/or silly, I'd say Thomson's a piker in that department compared to Quenk.

Here's the book's _opening example_ of the cognitive functions in action:



Quenk said:


> In order for a person to be able to function effectively, the opposites must be clearly distinguishable from each other. For example, if both sensing and intuitive perception carry equal amounts of mental energy, they are _undifferentiated_ — that is, the person cannot focus on either kind of information long enough to arrive at any kind of judgment about it.
> 
> This was the case for a nurse whose first job was employment in a hospital pediatric unit. While in nursing school, this woman had prided herself on the level of accuracy she demonstrated with the many details required of her work. ... She had also received positive evaluations on her ability to establish a rapport with patients and anticipate their needs and concerns. However, in her current job, those two areas seemed to conflict. She would be preparing a medication for one of her young patients, carefully and systematically following the prescribed dosages, when suddenly, she would find herself thinking about an impending meeting with the parents of a patient. ... Returning to her task of preparing the medication, she would find that she had lost count. She would begin again, only to find herself imagining what would happen if she gave a patient the wrong dose of medication. ... As time went on, she found herself habitually unable to focus on either the present or the future or the concrete or the abstract long enough to successfully perform her work. ... The distress, anxiety and confusion she experienced finally led her to give up her career.


W00t! Ain't functions a bitch?


----------



## dinkytown

reckful said:


> You say you identify with "almost every definition of Si," and you say "reading Jung further confirmed this."
> 
> Buuut... as discussed at length in this post, most modern Si descriptions — including the ones you'll find in Myers, Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — bear little resemblance to Jung's Si descriptions, and are more like the _opposite_ of Jung's descriptions in many respects.
> 
> Are you one of those people who Naomi Quenk describes like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ... or are you one of those people who Jung said suffer from an "unpredictable and arbitrary" relation between their perceptions and the actual physical world, with the result that they end up with "an illusory conception of reality" that they're generally unable to effectively communicate to other people, partly because it's so strange and partly because their thinking and feeling functions "are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression"?
> 
> The Si descriptions you find in virtually all modern MBTI sources (including the function-centric theorists) make Si-doms sound consummately practical, not to mention likely candidates for employee of the month, whereas Jung says it's understandable why the Si-doms (together with their Ni-dom cousins) are considered the "most useless of men" from the standpoint of achieving practical, real-world results.
> 
> Which version of Si do you identify with?


Jung's. Also many socionics descriptions of Si. It was in fact when I turned to Socionics, and conversed with confirmed Si-doms, that I realized how strong Si was in me.

Modern mbti Si descriptions, like the one you box quoted, don't appeal to me at all. Probably why I rejected Si until venturing into socionics. I'm not very organized. I'm not that practical. I'm not glued to tradition (although I don't outright reject tradition). I don't believe those are accurate descriptions of Si-doms. As an Si-dom, I perceive reality subjectively. When I perceive something, I don't perceive the detailed physical reality. I mean I still see the object, but I take it in as highly personalized, meaning-loaded impression of that object. Si is irrational. There's a reason I identified more highly as a "P" than a "J" for years. While I wouldn't go as far to label myself useless, I'm no one's definition of a model-employee. 

I guess I was grossly exaggerating when I claimed to identify with "every" definition of Si. I should have stated that I identify with every definition of Si that remains relatively true to Jung's original work. The Si definitions aimed at portraying it as orderly, factual, and rational are based on miscaricaturisations of Si-doms. Largely, as I stated, due to mbti's failure to align the J/P dichotomies with Jung's usage of rational and irrational for introverts.


----------



## dinkytown

@reckful

I shall note however, that some aspects of more modern definitions do improve on Jung's more, uhm, esotoric, view of Si. 

Some things that I believe can be accurately attributed to Si:
1) Impeccable storage of sensory data and details. Once something enters my mind, I almost never forget the details of where it was located, what it impression it made on me, what stuck out to me about it, etc.
2) Accumulate data from the past. Similar to the number one. Objects become associated with subjective experiences. Reality becomes associated with the fluctuations of my mind. In short, a rich tapestry of memories and experiences is knitted together, providing me with intense joy when recalling these sensory accumulations.
3) Hesitant with new experiences. Some might label this practical. I personally see it as inhibiting and limiting.
4) Traditions. I saw it written somewhere on here that Si-doms do follow traditions, but they're personal traditions, not necessarily cultural or societal traditions. I do what I see as comforting and familiar to me, not necessarily what may be familiar and traditional to society in general. In fact, I have some pretty esotoric "traditions". I believe Thompson's description of this aspect of Si is spot on.
5)Trustworthy. I think most Si-doms see themselves as trustworthy although I don't think this is type-specific.

Now where I see modern mbti Si definitions do not apply to me:
1)Upholden to responsibilities: Maybe to F-aux, but certainly not me as T-aux. I wish I was more reliable. Unfortunately I get stuck in the clouds, estranged in my interests, always forgetting about my duties to others.
2)Busybodies: Nah, I'm lazy as fuck.
3)Strive for concrete results: I would rather perfect a theory than see its implementation or practicality in reality. Partially why I agree with you when you ascertained that a person could be Si-dom, Ti-aux.
4)Always on time. Similar to number one. Unfortunately I'm always losing track of time, showing up a half-hour late, sleeping in way too long, etc.
5)Obedient to hierarchy: I'm incredibly pleased with toppling hierarchies and challenging authorities. Unfortunately this has gotten me in heaps of trouble over the years.
6)Grounded in reality: I'm anything but. Sure I focus more on reality than intuitive possibilities and insights, but all this reality is highly distorted by an incredibly subjective lens. As Jung stated, my view of my surroundings would be nearly incomprehensible to anyone else. Too layered in subjective symbolism and meaning.

This, to me, is the most accurate description of Si:


> Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail.
> 
> Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.
> 
> In contrast to extroverted sensing Se, Si is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. So, whereas Se ego types feel capable to evaluate how justified others' preferences are, Si ego types will try to adjust to them in any way possible (given that it does not extremely affect their own comfort), wishing to minimize conflict.
> 
> In contrast to introverted intuition Ni, Si is about direct interaction and unity (or discord) with one's surroundings, rather than abstract process and causal links.
> 
> Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals. They like to believe that if activities are done with enjoyment, people will give them more effort and time, and also becoming more skilled at what they are doing in the long run. They believe that goals should suit people's intrinsic needs rather than shaped by the demands and constraints of the external world, and so do not try to force others into doing things they don't want to do. They also try to be easygoing and pleasant, preferring peaceful coexistence to conflict, except when their personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake.
> http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Introverted_sensing


----------



## ENTrePreneur

This might help:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ic-personal-analysis-psychological-types.html


----------



## FakeLefty

So many walls of texts! Reading through this thread is like...










XD


----------



## theredpanda

FakeLefty said:


> So many walls of texts! Reading through this thread is like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XD


Haha, I agree  LOL


----------



## O_o

FakeLefty said:


> So many walls of texts! Reading through this thread is like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XD


^^^ 









 mental images of this entire thread. Moving object: information Wall: Other people's head.


----------



## theredpanda

ENTrePreneur said:


> This might help:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ic-personal-analysis-psychological-types.html


Hm- I like this  Yeah- I'm either ENTP or ESTP...


> Extraverted Sensation - This type is the *most realistic* and lively out of all the types. *They have a good eye for aesthetics, and give off a joyful energy.** They value physical freedom and personal will above all else*, and are *energized by living life to the fullest*. This type is best exemplified in athletes and entertainers, who *live for the now* and try to foster liveliness.
> 
> Extraverted Intuition - This type is *optimistic and driven, drawn to new possibilities*. They are enthusiastic about ideas, and have a *strong desire to actualize these thoughts*. *Impact and potential are very important to them , and they are energized by following their ambitions.* This type can be observed in visionaries and revolutionaries, seeing things less for what they are and more for what they could be.


"Most realistic" - I have a firm grasp on reality that I often ignore because I see reality as being boring and I refuse to give in to what is "real" and "normal". I hate practicality and want to challenge it.
"Good eye for aesthetics..."- not sure :/ depends I guess
"They value..."- yes, 100% agree
"energized by living life to the fullest"- again, 100% agree
"live for the now"- I realize that all we really have is this moment right now, so I try to make the most of it- but I also can't ever stop thinking the future and all the potential possibilities it might hold...
"optimistic and driven..."- yes, for the most part I try to stay optimistic, although I can be quite the cynic, I'd say I can be driven if it's something I actually care about and I love dreaming up new possibilities
"strong desire to..."- Depends on the thought. Most of the things I think up I try to see if there's any way to achieve them in this world, if not- I drop it.
"Impact and potential..."- YES, 100% agree, my greatest goal in life is to impact the world, and I see everything and everyone as having potential


----------



## Serpent

Raawx said:


> Oooooh. That all makes sense. One of cousins at dinner kept throwing out these "what if" scenarios, and it annoyed me. I responded to him saying that there was no direct purpose or reason to explore the "what if's" that he provided.
> 
> God, do I hate Zombie Apocalypse speculation. It's just...meh. Contagion and mass plague on the other hand?
> 
> And @_arkigos_, now that I think of it, I can see how Ne/Si will be much more grounded in the "potential reality" than Se/Ni would. (Thinking about your example of the ISTP/INTP divide, something about the Turkish empire or whatever). When I imagine anything, it has to be realistic and applicable; I would also conduct all that research in order to accurately represent the way the environment was like. It's also why history annoys me; it isn't accurate enough, and so I can't make any real or concrete speculations about what it was like. I need to experience that myself to complete the picture.
> 
> Related, I also can't stand games like GTA or whatever. Any of that simulated reality nonsense. To me, if one is going to attempt to simulate reality, they should do so 100% accurately. Otherwise, it's just a waste. It's often why I prefer games that provide imagined worlds and whatever to concrete ones.


I agree. In fact, I made a post pertaining to this in another thread.



> I wonder whether this particular kind of rationalization is a function of introverted thinking. Whenever I detect something that is outlandish or incongruous while playing a game that disrupts the flow of the game, I get an ephemeral sense of discomfort and try to come up with an explanation or back-story, even if it has to be equally or more outlandish, as to why that peculiarity occurred. Everything has to make sense. When I play a game, I have to immerse myself in it, as if I'm genuinely inside that virtual world. Perhaps that's the reason why I'm not too fond of video-game MODs and Create-A-Character modes (I like the idea but not the application, take the Create-A-Wrestler mode for example, I try to create realistic wrestlers as if I'm an actual WWE trainer scouting for talent while my cousin creates Batman and Santa Claus which bugs me, then I try to come up with a story where Batman has turned deranged through years of fighting his arch-nemesis Joker and after slaughtering each and every villain in Gotham, he develops a predilection towards violence and becomes a wrestler to quench his need for physical stimulation; as for Santa Claus, it's just yet another neighborhood Santa Claus who's broke and divorced because his wife does not want him to visit naughty children after night [fears of pedophilia] and he wants to beat people up; eventually both of them bail out when they realize that it's all scripted and create their own Fight Club with Tyler Durden's help).


----------



## Entropic

dinkytown said:


> Funny, I disagree with almost all your posts. But this post really made me stop and pause; I think you might be on to something with this. I tested ISTP for years almost everywhere. If going just by dichotomies, I am clearly an I, S, T, and P. There's no question about that. ISTP descriptions always seemed to fit. So much so that I always identified as an ISTP until recently when I began to explore things deeper.
> 
> There was one big kicker. I don't identify with Se at all. My foray into socionics really made this clear. However I identify very much with almost every definition of Si; in fact I'm quite certain it's my dominant function. Reading Jung further confirmed this.
> 
> If an mbti ISTP is really a Jungian Si-Ti-Fe-Ne (with Ti mildly differentiated and the last two mostly undifferentiated and practically unconscious), that would have saved me a hell of a lot of time trying to reconcile my type with the functions.
> 
> -------
> 
> To put things in a broader perspective, I think the mbti use of P and J was ass-backwards for introverted types and practically renders the system incompatible with Jung's functions. Attempting to fit an mbti type into the modern function model may be an exercise in futility.


I largely agree with this but the problem with reckful's assertion is not what the function theory about how the MBTI letter code is defined works at all. Also, I'm personally very sure that Myers was at least correct on one thing, and that's the fact that the auxiliary is extroverted. I'm very sure of being an Ni - T(e) - F(i) - Se type in the Jungian system because even though I am strong in terms of Fi, I am logical first, not ethical. My natural inclination is towards logic, not reading emotional feeling tones etc, even though Fi may play a large part of my psyche when I do reason, it is not what is given primacy. Instead it overall seems to mostly be at least in a Jungian sense, somewhat undifferentiated Thinking function but I know for a fact I prefer Fi and Te as a function pair, so again then what is it? I'm personally sure Jung would claim I'm NiTi because my reasoning seems largely subjective, because my reasoning even though it's Te, is filtered through Ni introversion which gives it a different spin when compared to a dominant Te type. 

The tl;dr is that I am quite sure by now that Jung did not read the auxiliary the same way we do it now.


----------



## Entropic

reckful said:


> You told @theredpanda that Jung's "type descriptions are taken to their extreme so few are very applicable on real life people." I pointed out that, on the contrary, Jung intended his descriptions (ignoring the neurotic parts) to capture what he viewed as the "typical" and "common" characteristics of the types.
> 
> You followed up with a post that gave us a Jung quote that supported my view rather than yours, and I pointed that out.
> 
> And now the gist of your latest post seems to be:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'll have you know that I have Nuance on the phone as I type this and they say you're asking way too much.


Jesus fucking Christ. Two people in this thread are pointing it out to you, you don't understand. Brick wall's gonna brick wall. I'm definitely not asking way too much. I would say it is in fact asking for too fucking little for someone who is trying to read CARL JUNG and interpreting everything he says 110% literally. Jung did not intend this though he was highly aware there would be people who do that, because he had the foresight to understand to the degree people are influenced by their own psychological processes, something which is indeed ironically stark every fucking time I try to tell you that no, there's actually more beneath the surface if you just once bothered to care and looked for it just a tiny itty bitty bit. 

Jung did certainly not intend his portraits to be 100% applicable. Go out and study people. REAL PEOPLE. How many people will you think fit that portrait, any of his portraits? People will not for most of the part because a) be that differentiated, Jung claims that someone to possess a dominant function and thus also have a psychological type was rare as it was in the first place; b) most people will be ambiverts and while they may have a function preference they will not have developed a psychological preference towards introversion or extroversion and will again not fit the fucking portrait; c) they have a fucking auxiliary which Jung in the very description I used as an example, realized himself, would render his depiction in a very different light. 

The portraits operate on one single premise alone which is so pointing out the fucking duh-obvious I don't get why you don't get it: they describe an extremely well-differentiated X dom with no auxiliary influence. That's when the portrait applies. It also applies in a general sense of capturing the nature of the X dom and notice that, GENERAL NATURE. Not they must be this because portrait says. No, they may exhibit variations of said behavior because the portrait says. 

The point, the entire point, of these portraits, is to give people a general gist, an idea, of how the types are like. How difficult is that to understand? Not people must be X, but people can or tend to be or are more or less of X if they are said type. That's the point of ANY description really, even descriptions of more quantitative nature because nature, this world, is not black and white. It cannot be. It needn't to correspond 100%. One can indeed be a less differentiated Ni dom or an Ni dom with a well-differentiated auxiliary and thus most of the Ni dom portrait may not apply at all though bits and pieces definitely will because fucking Forer effect. 

Another ironic thing is how you tend to always align yourself with consensus opinion but in this very case you go against the general consensus on the forum. Did it ever occur to you that the reason why people on this forum interprets Jung's use of the word "Galtonesque" in this context because it is actually *the correct* way of interpreting it? Did it ever occur to you that the consensus opinion on this very matter may in fact be correct and you are wrong? 

Learn to read a little between the lines, then come back here. I have no patience for brick walls always miscontruing my point because they fail to see the point.


----------



## dinkytown

ephemereality said:


> I largely agree with this but the problem with reckful's assertion is not what the function theory about how the MBTI letter code is defined works at all. Also, I'm personally very sure that Myers was at least correct on one thing, and that's the fact that the auxiliary is extroverted. I'm very sure of being an Ni - T(e) - F(i) - Se type in the Jungian system because even though I am strong in terms of Fi, I am logical first, not ethical. My natural inclination is towards logic, not reading emotional feeling tones etc, even though Fi may play a large part of my psyche when I do reason, it is not what is given primacy. Instead it overall seems to mostly be at least in a Jungian sense, somewhat undifferentiated Thinking function but I know for a fact I prefer Fi and Te as a function pair, so again then what is it? I'm personally sure Jung would claim I'm NiTi because my reasoning seems largely subjective, because my reasoning even though it's Te, is filtered through Ni introversion which gives it a different spin when compared to a dominant Te type.
> 
> The tl;dr is that I am quite sure by now that Jung did not read the auxiliary the same way we do it now.


Hmm, Jung would probably see me as SiTi which I'm largely inclined to agree with. However, I'm just going to go with Si-dom, T-aux and call it a day.


----------



## reckful

ephemereality said:


> Jung did certainly not intend his portraits to be 100% applicable. ...
> 
> The portraits operate on one single premise alone which is so pointing out the fucking duh-obvious I don't get why you don't get it: they describe an extremely well-differentiated X dom with no auxiliary influence.


It doesn't matter how many straw men you concoct, and how many walls of text you put up that imply you didn't say what you actually said.

I never said Jung "intended his portraits to be 100% applicable." I said he intended them (as he explicitly said) to describe the "common" and "typical" characteristics of the types.

And, as I've also pointed out to you and arkigos both, since Jung also thought it was _typical_ for one of his types to have a reasonably well-developed auxiliary ("Closer investigation shows *with great regularity* that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance *is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence*"), it's nonsense to suggest that what he described as the "common" and "typical" characteristics of his types were characteristics that only applied to what you describe as "an extremely well-differentiated X dom with no auxiliary influence."

As Jung saw it, if you looked at Ti-doms as a whole (for example), you'd find that there were:


things that were "common" and "typical" of Ti-doms generally (straw man alert! this doesn't mean "100% applicable");
things that were typical of Ti-doms with an S-aux but not Ti-doms with an N-aux;
things that were typical of Ti-doms with an N-aux but not Ti-doms with an S-aux; and
things about each Ti-dom that were more individual rather than being typical of their type.
The paragraph (from Psychological Types) that you're mischaracterizing explains that Jung's "Galtonesque" type portraits are pretty much limited to Category 1 characteristics. It does _not_ say that the Category 1 stuff only tended to apply in "extreme" cases (in your words) where one was dealing with (in your words) "an extremely well-differentiated X dom with no auxiliary influence." If that was the case, they wouldn't have been (in _Jung's_ words) "the common and therefore typical features" of the types.

Here's Jung again, for ease of reference:



Jung said:


> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which *single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced*. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.


----------



## Psychopomp

@reckful 

You are right, Jung said it himself:



> _In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which _*single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.*


So it doesn't matter if the word 'extreme' applies or if @ephemereality said it this way or I said it that way. If you are critiquing syntax or wording, then fine. That is more than welcome. Do not conflate that into a false dichotomy. "Our syntax has X or Y flaw, thus it fails and the converse is now true." We can say it wrongly in 1000 ways, but it will never make the converse true. It must stand on its own merit and if you read the quote above you see that it does not. 

Jung said:

1) These types do not occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life.
2) They are Galtonesque family portraits (that is, an amalgamation of common traits that is not true of any individual separated from the whole). 
3) Common and therefore typical features, disproportionately stressed.
4) Individual features effaced (worn away, made indistinct, essentially removed in recognizable form).
5) If you were to look at actual people, you'd see the influence of an auxiliary is invariable present in consciousness.
6) This gives that second function co-determining influence.

I retract all of my previous statements, which you can misinterpret and cherrypick for flaws and submit to you this:



> Inferior FunctionThis term is used to denote the function that remains in arrear in the process of differentiation. For experience shows that it is hardly possible—owing to the inclemency of general conditions—for anyone to bring all his psychological functions to simultaneous development. The very conditions of society enforce a man to apply himself first and foremost to the differentiation of that function with which he is either most gifted by Nature, or which provides his most effective means for social success. Very frequently, indeed as a general rule, a man identifies himself more or less completely with the most favoured, hence the most developed, function. It is this circumstance which gives rise to psychological types. But, as a consequence of such a one-sided process of development, one or more functions necessarily remain backward in development. Such functions, therefore, may be fittingly termed 'inferior' in the psychological, though not in the psycho-pathological, sense, since these retarded functions are in no way morbid but merely backward as compared with the more favoured function.* As a rule, therefore, the inferior function normally remains conscious, although in neurosis it lapses either partially or principally into the unconscious. For, inasmuch as too great a share of the libido is intercepted by the favoured function, the inferior function undergoes a regressive development, i.e. it returns to its earlier archaic state, therewith becoming incompatible with the conscious and favoured function. When a function that should normally be conscious relapses into the unconscious, the specific energy adhering to this function is also delivered over to the unconscious. A natural function, such as feeling, possesses its own inherent energy: it is a definitely organized living system, which, under no circumstances, can be wholly robbed of its energy.*
> Through the unconscious condition of the inferior function, its energy-remainder is transferred into the unconscious;* whereupon the unconscious becomes unnaturally activated.* *The result of such activity is a production of phantasy at a level corresponding with the archaic, submerged condition, to which the inferior function has now sunk.* *Hence an analytical release of such a function from the unconscious can take place only by retrieving those same unconscious phantasy-images which have come to life through the activation of the unconscious function. The process of making such phantasies conscious also brings the inferior function to consciousness, thus providing it with a new possibility of development.*


He says that the default state of a function may be conscious, but by engaging one function consciously and primarily, its converse is sent to the unconscious, but it does not lie easy there. It produces phantasies and disturbances, but that those fantasies and neuroses and archaicisms might 'come to life' through 'activation of the unconscious function'... that the process of making such 'phantasies' conscious also brings the whole function into consciousness, giving it the possibility for development. 

Jung defines 'phantasies' thusly:



> Passive phantasies without any antecedent or accompanying intuitive attitude appear from the outset in plastic form in the presence of a wholly passive attitude on the part of the cognizing subject Such phantasies belong to the category of psychic "automatismes" (Janet). Naturally these latter can occur only as the result of a relative dissociation of the psyche, since their occurrence presupposes the withdrawal of an essential sum of energy from conscious control with a corresponding activation of unconscious material. Thus the vision of Saul presupposes an unconscious acceptance of Christianity, though the fact had escaped his conscious insight.
> It is probable that passive phantasy always springs from an unconscious process antithetically related to consciousness, but one which assembles approximately the same amount of energy as the conscious attitude, whence also its capacity for breaking through the latter's resistance.


So, in summary:

1) Inferior functions produce passive phantasies from the unconscious when relegated there. 
2) These are 'unnaturally activated', presumably in individuals suffering through some disturbance, such as stress, or depression, or any of a variety of quantifiable or unquantifiable circumstances. The point is that you know the thing through experience and through it's 'quality', in a sense of the term, which Jung does also state in his description of the Unconscious. 
3) That in their influence and in their activation, these phantasies take part in the psyche and are not within the conscious control of the individual.
4) They are capable of 'breaking through' the resistance of the conscious attitude.

His example of Saul is perfect. It shows what Jung MEANS perfectly. Unconsciously, Saul accepted Christianity. Consciously, the inferior and archaic phantasy caused Saul to actual perceive himself as experiencing something that was in no way real. 

It is no stretch whatsoever to apply this to believing unconsciously that one must be a great athlete, 'delusions of grandeur', and then consciously breaking through the illusion that one performed well in a game. Or in seduction. Or that a religious experience occurred, or that the government is watching you, or that your wife is cheating, or that you are well-liked and popular, or that you are intelligent, or that you are an ENTP and have those things manifest in your view, or that you are an ISFJ and have it manifest. There are ego incentives to all of these things, if you get into it, there are phobic aspects to all of these things. I have personally experienced such a Phantasy, quite like Saul, actually.. though not so visceral or grand. I've experience many forms of Cognitive Dissonance.... I have believed many things about myself that were not true. Should others have accepted these things? Followed suit? Smiled and nodded, then rolled their eyes behind my back? Should they have said, "well, it is what he experiences... his stated preference...." and called it real? If not, then what were they to do?

If all this is possible, and we know it is... what should we look for? Indication of emotional oddities or neuroses, depression, perhaps look for motives or incentives that are unconsciously expressed, for things that don't add up, for a lot of certainty but not a lot of evidence, for a refusal to consider alternatives, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. The alternative, of course, is to agree to every fantasy and offer no help or insight at all. That is beyond unacceptable to me.... it shows no integrity or compassion and is a huge waste of time. 

---

Also, I have been reading the remainder of Psychological Types, and I am concerned. Jung gives countless examples of types throughout the book. None of them are half so clear or in sync with his descriptions of the functions and their Galtonesque common and typical traits, taken on the whole.... certainly none are copies of that description, though it is indeed a palette from which to apply or compare common and typical traits. Please explain how, say, most or many of the examples Jung gives can be tied directly to these descriptions. I am assuming here, of course, that I am just misunderstanding your point, and that you are misunderstanding mine. That is because my goal is to learn and to understand.


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> @reckful
> 
> You are right, Jung said it himself: ...


Your post doesn't point to anything in Jung that's meaningfully inconsistent with my point.

I absolutely don't disagree that Jung was saying that his portraits generally _omitted_ the stuff that tended to distinguish one subvariant of a type from another (e.g., a Ti-dom with an S-aux from a Ti-dom with an N-aux). That's the "Galtonesque" sense in which those portraits are artificially "pure."

That has nothing to do with whether what Jung called the "common and therefore typical features" that he _did_ include in his portraits were features that he thought were typical of, e.g., Ti-doms generally or were instead, as ephemereality stated, features that would only tend to be found in an "extreme" subset of Ti-doms where the Ti-dom essentially _didn't have_ an auxiliary function.


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> Your post doesn't point to anything in Jung that's meaningfully inconsistent with my point.
> 
> I absolutely don't disagree that Jung was saying that his portraits generally _omitted_ the stuff that tended to distinguish one subvariant of a type from another (e.g., a Ti-dom with an S-aux from a Ti-dom with an N-aux). That's the "Galtonesque" sense in which those portraits are artificially "pure."
> 
> That has nothing to do with whether what Jung called the "common and therefore typical features" that he _did_ include in his portraits were features that he thought were typical of, e.g., Ti-doms generally or were instead, as ephemereality stated, features that would only tend to be found in an "extreme" subset of Ti-doms where the Ti-dom essentially _didn't have_ an auxiliary function.


Given your propensity for overly-literal and/or hyperbolic interpretations of other people's posts (this is indicative of a cognitive bias, btw, a rather common one dealing with attribution in others), for example, the case in which you interpreted me as having implied that if an objective value were "bullying is wrong" that the subjective value would be "bullying is right".

I never said it, but you thought that I had. You insisted that I had. In fact, I had never thought such a thing, had never said such a thing, had never meant to imply such a thing, and while what is implied in any statement is sometimes ambiguous... we can easily say that I did in fact never imply such a thing.

You simply inferred it. I doubt anyone else did, because it was more than a stretch... in my eyes, it was an absolutely ludicrous inference. 

So, I ask you pointedly whether you can be certain that your interpretation of the situation is accurate. It is entirely possible that you and I, and even you an @_ephemereality_, agree more than this discussion would seem to imply. 

My post was meant to call out:

1) That self-perception is not reliable in certain cases, and in even many cases. I happen to know that you agree with this.
2) That the unconscious and inferior functions and attitudes can and do manifest.
3) There are certain signs and indications of the above two being major factors, and that we should not balk from noting them, nor should we put them aside for simpler answers...

... especially if the reasoning for this is that some of the efforts in that regard are flawed to your interpretation... which I have already shown in this post is prone to error. 

4) Jung's actual examples of people in Psychological Types do not seem to reflect his 'portraits'... and seem to be painting rather more dynamic pictures of the individual, which he seemed to indicate himself in that quote you brought up when he said that typical features are therein stretched disproportionally, and individual features are just as disproportionally effaced. 

Those points seem to support what I see as @_ephemereality_'s view, though you might choose to argue that his tone was a touch hyperbolic.... and that you think that he is leaning toward the other extreme overmuch. If that was your intention, you've executed it quite unclearly.

This all ties into the greater argument...

Type cannot be gauged by stated preference... for a number of reasons, one of which is the definition of preference.... given that it seems likely and clear that Jung meant 'that which you tend to actually use', where many interpret it as 'that which you see as more desirable'. The latter, obviously, is not in line with Jung... (though not, as your mind might now be moving to read into my statement, openly contradictory to Jung... just more N/A or at the very least sometimes unreliable) ... and the former not always understood by the individual in question, which Jung rather supports as a notion.

...especially given that those traits are either concreted into Galtonesque descriptions (which invites nitpicking), are subject to myths one holds about themselves, or are abstracted into descriptions open to all manner of misinterpretation (or are actually just wrong altogether), or an overloading of conflicting or too-specific descriptions or abstractions that allow the individual to cherrypick their type out of the cloud... which leads unrelentingly to people choosing whichever type pleases them best... which would often be the most romanticized and rare types (in their mind or situation), for obvious reasons. 

Also, the tendency to see these descriptions overly-literally or as a binary. Thus, an INTP who is quite emotional and compassionate reads Jung's descriptions and says, "well, but I am quite emotional and compassionate... I cannot be this type". Because, as someone recently stated quite appropriately, it doesn't represent them... or they don't see it as representing them, or they don't want it to represent them, or whatever. 

For example, I don't often like other INTPs I meet. Haha! So, when I read the descriptions, even Jung's, I see it through that lens and fail to identify. There is a well known and thoroughly documented bias we have to see ourselves as thoroughly diverse and others as thoroughly uniform.... we are dynamic and three dimensional and others are caricatures. Happens all the time in the most insidious of ways. Thus, when we see a portrait of how people see us, we think of ourselves as too diverse for it. That is such a constant theme on this forum, and in general. 

I could go on and on. 

Don't make this thing with ephemereality another "bullying is right" debacle. Try to see what he meant, and if you don't pile biases on him you'll see that the REAL issue you have with him is that you think he was somewhat hyperbolic, or that his wording seemed so, or could be interpreted so. He might agree, if you paint his position fairly and insightfully. Again, it is probably just a misunderstanding/bias that is amplifying an otherwise manageable disagreement.


----------



## Entropic

@arkigos fair, my language is hyperbolic, I won't deny that. That happens when I get pissed and frustrated when people don't see a point I'm raising over and over that's just really obvious to me. There is a limit to how much I can explain the same thing in a different way. I don't possess that capacity. If people don't understand the first couple of times I just give up because I don't know how to else make them see or understand than to literally start pounding it into their heads. That's perhaps the only time I wish I had a stronger auxiliary than I do.


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> Also, I have been reading the remainder of Psychological Types, and I am concerned. Jung gives countless examples of types throughout the book. None of them are half so clear or in sync with his descriptions of the functions and their Galtonesque common and typical traits, taken on the whole.... certainly none are copies of that description, though it is indeed a palette from which to apply or compare common and typical traits. Please explain how, say, most or many of the examples Jung gives can be tied directly to these descriptions. I am assuming here, of course, that I am just misunderstanding your point, and that you are misunderstanding mine. That is because my goal is to learn and to understand.


You say that the remainder of Psychological Types includes "countless examples of types" that can be compared with the Chapter 10 descriptions. That's news to me. Jung spent the bulk of Chapters 1-9 talking about the characteristics he thought were associated with _extraversion generally_ and _introversion generally_. There are plenty of examples of extraverts and plenty of examples of introverts, and there are other examples where Jung readers have been heard to complain that it's not exactly clear which of his eight functions Jung is saying was the dominant function. I would have said that, far from there being "countless" examples, examples outside Chapter 10 where Jung clearly identifies someone's dominant function are relatively few and far between — and that, within that limited group, there aren't that many where Jung gives us all that much in the way of a portrait of the person.

But hey, what do I know? If you've found "countless examples of types" outside Chapter 10 that you think give the lie to the idea that the non-neurotic sections of Jung's descriptions in Chapter 10 involved what he viewed as relatively typical features, by all means paste three of them in your next post — and kindly bold the stuff that leads you to say that each portrait is really inconsistent with the notion that Jung's Chapter 10 portraits illustrated what Jung himself characterized as the "common and therefore typical features" of the types.

And if you can't manage to find three good examples, then WTF was that quoted paragraph of your post about?


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> You say that the remainder of Psychological Types includes "countless examples of types" that can be compared with the Chapter 10 descriptions. That's news to me. Jung spent the bulk of Chapters 1-9 talking about the characteristics he thought were associated with _extraversion generally_ and _introversion generally_. There are plenty of examples of extraverts and plenty of examples of introverts, and there are other examples where Jung readers have been heard to complain that it's not exactly clear which of his eight functions Jung is saying was the dominant function. I would have said that, far from there being "countless" examples, examples outside Chapter 10 where Jung clearly identifies someone's dominant function are relatively few and far between — and that, within that limited group, there aren't that many where Jung gives us all that much in the way of a portrait of the person.
> 
> But hey, what do I know? If you've found "countless examples of types" outside Chapter 10 that you think give the lie to the idea that the non-neurotic sections of Jung's descriptions in Chapter 10 involved what he viewed as relatively typical features, by all means paste three of them in your next post — and kindly bold the stuff that leads you to say that each portrait is really inconsistent with the notion that Jung's Chapter 10 portraits illustrated what Jung himself characterized as the "common and therefore typical features" of the types.
> 
> And if you can't manage to find three good examples, then WTF was that quoted paragraph of your post about?


I'll do exactly that. If I fail to find good examples, I'll relent the point that there are 'countless' examples, which was obviously hyperbole. 

I appreciate the correction. In the meantime, you can remove the reference from the context of my post and address the post without it, as it is in no way essential. It remains a rebuttal of your position. Thanks!


----------



## reckful

@arkigos —

You just made a post where you said you'd "been reading the remainder of Psychological Types" and found "countless examples of types throughout the book."

"Countless examples," arkigos. "Throughout the book," arkigos.

And you said that "none of them" — "none" of those "countless examples," arkigos — seemed to you to be "in sync with [Jung's] descriptions of the functions, ... taken on the whole."

And then you invited me to waste my time going through Psychological Types in search of those "countless examples" so I could "explain how," contrary to your impression, they "tied directly to" Jung's function descriptions.

And I called you on your bullshit, and I said, "Countless examples, arkigos? How about giving us three."

And you replied, oh, well, hrmm, hrmm, "countless" was "obviously hyperbole" — and, as for finding even three examples, well, you might not be able to "find good examples."

So I'd just like to point out that, in my copy of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, the definitions of "hyperbole" and "dishonesty" are substantially different.


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> @_arkigos_ —
> 
> You just made a post where you said you'd "been reading the remainder of Psychological Types" and found "countless examples of types throughout the book."
> 
> "Countless examples," arkigos. "Throughout the book," arkigos.
> 
> And you said that "none of them" — "none" of those "countless examples," arkigos — seemed to you to be "in sync with [Jung's] descriptions of the functions, ... taken on the whole."
> 
> And then you invited me to waste my time going through Psychological Types in search of those "countless examples" so I could "explain how," contrary to your impression, they "tied directly to" Jung's function descriptions.
> 
> And I called you on your bullshit, and I said, "Countless examples, arkigos? How about giving us three."
> 
> And you replied, oh, well, hrmm, hrmm, "countless" was "obviously hyperbole" — and, as for finding even three examples, well, you might not be able to "find good examples."
> 
> So I'd just like to point out that, in my copy of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, the definitions of "hyperbole" and "dishonesty" are substantially different.


No, I said I was being hyperbolic, might be wrong, and might indeed fail to produce those examples. 

If I fail to find them, I intended, and intend, to state so in the most clear of ways. I have been brutally wrong before, and in fact I have been wrong in interchanges with you. I have admitted being wrong when it was pointed out to me and I will do so, happily, again this time. I am, this very instant, reading the book and if I fail to match your (I think quite fair) request... I will in the clearest and most pointed of terms, state that I was completely and totally wrong.

I feel that doing so is important. I think I have endeavored to do so in every case in the past.

You are viewing me through a hostile lens. I don't understand why.


((Notably, I cannot call to mind a single instance ever in which you have done the same... either you have never been wrong, or you have never admitted it........ or I just cannot recall it, obviously))


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> No, I said I was being hyperbolic, might be wrong, and might indeed fail to produce those examples.
> 
> If I fail to find them, I intended, and intend, to state so in the most clear of ways. I have been brutally wrong before, and in fact I have been wrong in interchanges with you. I have admitted being wrong when it was pointed out to me and I will do so, happily, again this time. I am, this very instant, reading the book and if I fail to match your (I think quite fair) request... I will in the clearest and most pointed of terms, state that I was completely and totally wrong.
> 
> I feel that doing so is important. I think I have endeavored to do so in every case in the past.
> 
> You are viewing me through a hostile lens. I don't understand why.
> 
> 
> ((Notably, I cannot call to mind a single instance ever in which you have done the same... either you have never been wrong, or you have never admitted it........ or I just cannot recall it, obviously))


_Scenario 1_: Poster A makes an honest mistake, Poster B corrects Poster A, and Poster A concedes the error.

_Scenario 2_: Poster A makes a dishonest post, Poster B calls them on their bullshit, and Poster A pretends it was just an honest mistake.

Big, big difference, as far as I'm concerned, and I'll leave it to any other reader of this thread who wants to read that paragraph of yours to decide whether they think it sounds like it was made honestly.

Here it is again, for ease of reference (with bolding by me):



arkigos said:


> Also, I have been reading the remainder of Psychological Types, and I am concerned. *Jung gives countless examples* of types throughout the book. *None of them are* half so clear or *in sync with his descriptions of the functions* and their Galtonesque common and typical traits, *taken on the whole*.... certainly none are copies of that description, though it is indeed a palette from which to apply or compare common and typical traits. Please explain how, say, most or many of the examples Jung gives can be tied directly to these descriptions. I am assuming here, of course, that I am just misunderstanding your point, and that you are misunderstanding mine. That is because my goal is to learn and to understand.


And here's your backtrack, after I asked you for three examples:



arkigos said:


> I'll do exactly that. If I fail to find good examples, I'll relent the point that there are 'countless' examples, which was obviously hyperbole.
> 
> I appreciate the correction. In the meantime, you can remove the reference from the context of my post and address the post without it, as it is in no way essential. It remains a rebuttal of your position. Thanks!


----------



## Psychopomp

@_reckful_

It's funny, I think you are reading that "I'll relent the point that there are 'countless' examples, which was obviously hyperbole" ... as perhaps sarcastic?

Well, it was, but not toward you... but toward myself. "Countless", arkigos? Yeah, THAT was hyperbole." 

It is so fascinating that your natural inclination is to assume such darkness and deviousness in me. What have I done to bring about that assumption? 

I am thinking that it may feel very unlikely to you that anyone could 'misremember' having seen 'countless' examples of something in a book they'd recently read. Thus, the only possible interpretation is that they were being dishonest... lying... and then attempting to cover up that lie. I think that from your lens that is a valid consideration.... however, it is giving me entirely too much credit. I just think some really dumb things sometimes, or misremember. I think I was thinking about all the times Jung mentions people in terms of typology at any time, and just off-handedly and unthinkingly said it was in Psychological Types, because I have seen so many of them floating about and just mindlessly assume that they are from the book... and that all paired up in my mind. When you called me out on it, I FROZE, because it suddenly occurred to me that I'd made a huge assumption there, and wasn't being precise or really vetting my own memories and impressions. That you think it is dishonest is really interesting. I can't even imagine consciously doing such a thing... it sounds taxing. There are ways in which I could be accurately called dishonest, but that is not one of them... at least not consciously. 

I can tell you I was not consciously dishonest at all. I believed what I was saying, or what I was trying to say. Even now, looking at that original quote, I essentially stand by it. I think his descriptions of people in the book were not copies or reflections of those descriptions (though at times quite consistent, and when not specifically reflective, at least not at all often contradictory)... if anything, it seems that Jung used people to make points and was kinda loose-y goose-y about how that actually represented their type, as if he were engaging the idea of them, or our idea of them, or how they come across in their work..... basically how Jung himself had experienced them, and just co-opting it for whatever point he was trying to illustrate.

I've made a list of about 20 people whom Jung described 'typological' attributes of. I'll find any of those references that exist in Psychological Types that I feel support my inference and post it here. It may indeed prove that my comment was spurious and specifically misleading. I am genuinely eager to find out. I'll then expand it to Jung in general, to see if I was wrong not only in specifics, but also in a grander sense.


----------



## Tranquility

arkigos said:


> @_reckful_
> 
> It's funny, I think you are reading that "I'll relent the point that there are 'countless' examples, which was obviously hyperbole" ... as perhaps sarcastic?
> 
> Well, it was, but not toward you... but toward myself. "Countless", arkigos? Yeah, THAT was hyperbole."
> 
> It is so fascinating that your natural inclination is to assume such darkness and deviousness in me. What have I done to bring about that assumption?
> 
> I am thinking that it may feel very unlikely to you that anyone could 'misremember' having seen 'countless' examples of something in a book they'd recently read. Thus, the only possible interpretation is that they were being dishonest... lying... and then attempting to cover up that lie. I think that from your lens that is a valid consideration.... however, it is giving me entirely too much credit. I just think some really dumb things sometimes, or misremember. I think I was thinking about all the times Jung mentions people in terms of typology at any time, and just off-handedly and unthinkingly said it was in Psychological Types, because I have seen so many of them floating about and just mindlessly assume that they are from the book... and that all paired up in my mind. When you called me out on it, I FROZE, because it suddenly occurred to me that I'd made a huge assumption there, and wasn't being precise or really vetting my own memories and impressions. That you think it is dishonest is really interesting. I can't even imagine consciously doing such a thing... it sounds taxing. There are ways in which I could be accurately called dishonest, but that is not one of them... at least not consciously.
> 
> I can tell you I was not consciously dishonest at all. I believed what I was saying, or what I was trying to say. Even now, looking at that original quote, I essentially stand by it. I think his descriptions of people in the book were not copies or reflections of those descriptions (though at times quite consistent, and when not specifically reflective, at least not at all often contradictory)... if anything, it seems that Jung used people to make points and was kinda loose-y goose-y about how that actually represented their type, as if he were engaging the idea of them, or our idea of them, or how they come across in their work..... basically how Jung himself had experienced them, and just co-opting it for whatever point he was trying to illustrate.
> 
> I've made a list of about 20 people whom Jung described 'typological' attributes of. I'll find any of those references that exist in Psychological Types that I feel support my inference and post it here. It may indeed prove that my comment was spurious and specifically misleading. I am genuinely eager to find out. I'll then expand it to Jung in general, to see if I was wrong not only in specifics, but also in a grander sense.


Most of the examples in the book were used to define introversion v. extraversion. The only chapter going in depth with a function example was the one on Schiller, I believe. The chapter on mediaeval thought holds good examples on thinking and feeling inferiors, while the chapter on modern philosophy does a good job at showing how Fi perceives Te through a subjective lens. I believe the most detailed typing given was Nietzsche, at the end of the Schiller chapter.

Even if you don't find anything in particular to strongly defend your stance, remember two things; people of the time had greater knowledge of the material Jung presented, so he very well may have left it fairly open in giving examples, expecting people to fill in the blanks. Oh, and I believe you can also find some good examples in Jung's commentary on Faust, in the poetry section, I think.


----------



## Tranquility

Also, @arkigos, I'd like to see your list when you're done. I'm going to be diing the same thing, and I want to see how well our research correlates. And, don't bother with the section on psychopathology, it's only on introversion v. extraversion.


----------



## Octavarium

arkigos said:


> Given your propensity for overly-literal and/or hyperbolic interpretations of other people's posts (this is indicative of a cognitive bias, btw, a rather common one dealing with attribution in others), for example, the case in which you interpreted me as having implied that if an objective value were "bullying is wrong" that the subjective value would be "bullying is right".
> 
> I never said it, but you thought that I had. You insisted that I had. In fact, I had never thought such a thing, had never said such a thing, had never meant to imply such a thing, and while what is implied in any statement is sometimes ambiguous... we can easily say that I did in fact never imply such a thing.
> 
> You simply inferred it. I doubt anyone else did, because it was more than a stretch... in my eyes, it was an absolutely ludicrous inference.


If you say that there's a category of people (Fe-doms) who subscribe to "universal values" like "bullying is wrong", it's reasonable to infer that there's some other category of people who don't subscribe to those values. Otherwise, why would you even bother saying such a thing? If someone said, "Fe-doms eat and sleep," wouldn't you think that was a silly thing to say? Type descriptions are only meaningful if they describe the characteristics that generally distinguish that type from the others. So if you were pretty much just saying, "Fe-doms think bullying is wrong, just like virtually everybody else," what was your point?

While I'm on the subject of Fe (and Fi), You told me I was wrong when I said your post from the other day was an NFP-ish sentiment, and that it's actually Ne + Fe, so more likely for SFJs and NTPs. I assume you don't mean people who have SFJ or NTP preferences, so I won't argue from that perspective. However, although I don't generally use the functions, I do think Fi/Fe is an important and meaningful distinction, which the dichotomous framework is missing out on. I'm not sure what the exact relationship is between Fi/Fe and T/F or the other dichotomies, whether it's that TJs and FPs are Fi types and FJs and TPs are Fe types, as the theory suggests, or if it's something else that no one's managed to figure out yet, although the Big Five agreeableness dimension, which is generally considered to be the same thing as an MBTI F preference, seems more Fe than Fi. However, here's part of my understanding of Fi/Fe, and most NFPs do seem more Fi in at least this aspect.

You associate Fe with universal values, but I actually think it's Fi that's more universal, whereas Fe is more contextual. An Fe user would consider their moral values to be somewhat relative to their group/culture, while Fi users tend to take a more transcendent view of their moral values. That doesn't mean an Fe user wouldn't subscribe to values like "bullying is wrong", but I suspect that Fi and Fe types might justify that value in different ways. Fe types are more willing to adjust their values to the current context, E.G. respecting the customs of the group or culture in which they find themselves. Fi types tend to think that doing the right thing is more important than promoting group harmony. Your perspective seems more Fi than Fe because it values individuals over groups, and transcends culture (it seems like a "whichever groups/cultures we belong to, we're all human, we're all individuals" kind of thing, + the "we're all the same" aspect of it is consistent with what I said about NFPs.

If you're an MBTI INFP, I.E. someone with I, N, F and P preferences, (and if what you posted the other day really is what defines you and what's going through your head all the time, I think you probably are) your approach to this thread 
supports my STJ/NFP theory. You've told @reckful several times in various threads that the differences between your way of thinking and his prove that you're using different functions, but I think part of the difference, from a typological perspective, is that @reckful seems to require more precision than you do, (as do I) whereas you seem to be more comfortable with having some ambiguity or "fuzziness". I can certainly see how an INFP could think an INTJ's approach was "too literal".


----------



## Psychopomp

EthereaEthos said:


> Most of the examples in the book were used to define introversion v. extraversion. The only chapter going in depth with a function example was the one on Schiller, I believe. The chapter on mediaeval thought holds good examples on thinking and feeling inferiors, while the chapter on modern philosophy does a good job at showing how Fi perceives Te through a subjective lens. I believe the most detailed typing given was Nietzsche, at the end of the Schiller chapter.
> 
> Even if you don't find anything in particular to strongly defend your stance, remember two things; people of the time had greater knowledge of the material Jung presented, so he very well may have left it fairly open in giving examples, expecting people to fill in the blanks. Oh, and I believe you can also find some good examples in Jung's commentary on Faust, in the poetry section, I think.


Well, my original point is that Jung's descriptions of people would paint a more dynamic and varied character than could be correlated to any particular function description.. so it isn't necessarily significant what Jung intended present from those descriptions. 

In a sense, what I need to prove is rather easy. My offending quote:



> *Jung gives countless examples of types throughout the book. None of them are half so clear or in sync with his descriptions of the functions and their Galtonesque common and typical traits, taken on the whole.... certainly none are copies of that description, though it is indeed a palette from which to apply or compare common and typical traits.*


1) Jung gives 'countless' examples of types throughout the book. I've been tasked with 3, but I'd like to show exactly how many he gave.
2) None of them are half so clear as his descriptions of the functions and their 'common and typical traits', taken on the whole.
3) Nor are they in sync.
4) None are copies of any description.
5) It is, though, a palette from which to apply/compare 'common and typical traits'.

I just have to show that Jung did indeed outline the traits of a number of people... and that those outlined traits cannot be easily correlated or seen as a reflection of his type descriptions. The latter part of that is pretty easy, since he wasn't actually even attempting to do so, and if he had done so, we'd know with confidence what Jung thought the type of these people were, which we typically do not... at least not clearly. So, if I can show that he gave a robust and fair description of them, the point is rather proven. 

Thus, my statement will be quite true, unless one can prove that Jung did not give a fair or robust description of the person's traits, regardless of his purpose. 

To that end, let's begin at the beginning. 

Tertullian:


* *






> Tertullian was born in Carthage somewhere about 160 A.D. He was a pagan, and yielded himself to the lascivious life of his city until about his thirty-fifth year, when he became a Christian. He was the author of numerous writings, wherein his character, which is our especial interest, unmistakably shows itself. Clear and distinct are his unexampled, noble-hearted zeal, his fire, his passionate temperament, and the profound inwardness of his religious understanding. He is fanatical, ingeniously one-sided for the sake of an accepted truth, impatient, an incomparable fighting spirit, a merciless opponent, who sees victory only in the total annihilation of his adversary, and his speech is like a flashing steel wielded with inhuman mastery. He is the creator of the Church Latin which lasted for more than a thousand years. He it was who coined the terminology of the Early Church. "Had he seized upon a point of view, then must he follow it through to its every conclusion as though lashed by legions from hell, even when right had long since ceased to be on his side and all reasonable order lay mutilated before him." The passion of his thinking was so inexorable that again and again. he alienated himself from the very thing for which he would have given his heart's blood. Accordingly his ethical code is bitter in its severity. Martyrdom he commanded to be sought and not shunned; he permitted no second marriage, and required the permanent veiling of persons of the female sex. The Gnosis, which in reality is a passion for thought and cognition, he attacked with unrelenting fanaticism; including both philosophy and science, which are so closely linked up with it. To him is ascribed the sublime confession: Credo quia absurdum est (I believe because it is against reason). This, however, does not altogeiher accord with historical fact; he merely said (De Carne Christi, 5): "Et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est quia impossibile est." ("And the Son of God died; this is therefore credible, just because it is absurd. And He rose again from the tomb; this is certain, because it is impossible".) By virtue of the acuteness of his mind he saw through the poverty of philosophic and of Gnostic learning, and contemptuously rejected it. He invoked against it the testimony of his own inner world, his own inner realities, which were one with his faith. In the shaping and development of these realities he became the creator of those abstract conceptions which still underlie the Catholic system of to-day. The irrational inner reality had for him an essentially dynamic nature; it was his principle, his consolidated position in face of the world and the collectively valid or rational science and philosophy. I translate his own words:
> 
> 
> "I summon a new witness, or rather a witness more known than any written monument, more debated than any system of life, more published abroad than any promulgation, greater than the whole of man, yea that which constitutes the whole man. Approach then, O my soul, should'st thou be something Divine and eternal, as many philosophers believe -- the less wilt thou lie -- or not wholly Divine, because mortal, as forsooth Epicurus alone contends -- then so much the less can'st thou lie -- whether thou comest from heaven or art born of earth, whether compounded of numbers or atoms, whether thou hast thy beginning with the body or art later joined thereto; what matter indeed whence thou springest or how thou makest man what he is, namely a reasonable being, capable of perception and knowledge. But I call thee not, O soul, as proclaiming wisdom, trained in the schools, conversant with libraries, fed and nourished in the academies and pillared halls of Attica. No, I would speak with thee, O soul, as wondrous simple and uneducated, awkward and inexperienced, such as thou art for those who have nothing else but thee, even just as thou comest from the alleys, from the street-corners and from the workshops. It is just thy ignorance I need."
> 
> 
> The self-mutilation achieved by Tertullian in the sacrificium intellectus led him to the unreserved recognition of the irrational inner reality, the real ground of his faith. That necessity of the religious process which he sensed in himself he seized in the incomparable formula "anima naturaliter Christiana" ("the soul is naturally Christian"). With the sacrificium intellectus philosophy and science, hence the Gnosis also, had no more meaning for him.





...and Origen:


* *






> In Origen we may recognize the absolute opposite of Tertullian. Origen was born in Alexandria about 185. His father was a Christian martyr. He himself grew up in that quite unique mental atmosphere wherein the ideas of East and West mingled. With an intense yearning for knowledge he eagerly absorbed all that was worth knowing, and accepted everything, whether Christian, Jewish, Grecian, or Egyptian, which at that time the teeming intellectual world of Alexandria offered him. He distinguished himself as a teacher in a school of catechists. The pagan philosopher Porphyrius, a pupil of Plotinus, said of him: "His outer life was that of a Christian and against the Law; but in his view of things phenomenal and divine he was a Hellenist, and substituted the conception of the Greeks for the foreign myths."
> 
> 
> Already before A.D. 211 his self-castration had taken place; his inner motives for this may indeed be guessed, but historically they are not known to us. Personally he was of great influence, and had a winning speech. He was constantly surrounded by pupils and a whole host of stenographers who gathered up the precious words that fell from the revered master's lips. As an author he was extraordinarily fertile and he developed an amazing academic activity. In Antioch he even delivered lectures on theology to the Emperor's mother Mammaea. In Caesarea he was the head of a school. His teaching activities were considerably interrupted by his extensive journeyings. He possessed extraordinary scholarship and had an astounding capacity for the investigation of things in general. He hunted up old Bible manuscripts and earned special merit for his textual criticism. "He was a great scholar, indeed the only true scholar the ancient Church possessed", says Harnack. In complete contrast to Tertullian, Origen did not bar the door against the influence of GJ.1osticism; in fact he even transferred it, in attenuated form, into, the bosom of the Church; such at least was his aim. Indeed, judging by his thought and fundamental views, he was himself almost a Christian Gnostic. His position in regard to faith and knowledge is portrayed by Harnack in the following psychologically significant words:
> 
> 
> "The Bible, in like wise, is needful to both: the believers receive from it the realities and commandments which they need, while the scholars decipher thoughts therein and gather from it that power which guideth them to the contemplation and love of God -- whereby all material things, through spiritual interpretation (allegorical exegesis, hermeneutics), seem to be re-cast into a cosmos of ideas, until all is at last surmounted in the 'ascent' and left behind as stepping stones, while only this remaineth: the blessed abiding relationship of the God-created creature-soul to God (amor et visio)."
> 
> 
> His theology as distinguished from Tertullian's was essentially philosophical; it was thoroughly pressed, so to speak, into the frame of a neo-Platonic philosophy. In Origen the two spheres of Grecian philosophy and the Gnosis on the one hand, and the world of Christian ideas on the other, peacefully and harmoniously intermingle. But this daring, intelligent tolerance and sense of justice also led Origen to the fate of condemnation by the Church. The final condemnation, to be sure, only took place posthumously, when Origen as an old man had been tortured in the persecution of the Christians by Decius, and had died not long after from the effects of the torture. In 399 Pope Anastasias I pronounced the condemnation, and in 543 his heresy was anathematized by a synod convoked by Justinian, which judgment was upheld by later Councils.





So, Tertullian, *according to Jung in his book Psychological Types*, for the purpose of "our special interest [in his character]", is described thusly:

1) Yielded himself up to the lascivious life of his city until about 35, then became a staunch Christian philosopher. 
2) Prolific author, shows his character in his writings.
3) Clear and distinct are his "unexampled, noble-hearted zeal, his fire, his passionate temperament, and the profound inwardness of his religious understanding."
4) Fanatical.
5) Ingeniously one-sided for the sake of an accepted truth.
6) Impatient.
7) Incomparable fighting spirit.
8) Merciless opponent.
9) Saw victory only in the total annihilation of his enemy.
10) Creator of Chuch Latin.
11) Had to follow through point of view to its every conclusion [rather intensely]... even when right had long since ceased to be on his side and all reasonable order lay mutilated before him."
12) Inexorable passion of thinking.
13) Bitterly severe ethical code.
14) Commanded martyrdom to be sought and not shunned.
15) Rigid rules in the faith.
16) Said "I believe because it is against reason".. "I am certain [of Christ's divinity/resurrection] because it is impossible".
17) Creator of abstract concepts which underlie the Catholic system of today.
... and so on.

So, @reckful. Let's get this ball rolling. What type description does this correlate to? Saying "it was all about E/I" is such a cop out, because it doesn't make my offending quote in the least untrue. If you question this, please read it again. You are accusing me of willful dishonesty. That Jung used this description outline an introverted type is not relevant... it is a robust and fair description of the man. 

Also, of course, the function you correlate it to must be introverted.... though I am sure you know that. 

I assume Ni, because Jung calls him again and again irrational and fanatic. He really is painting a portrait of an Ni. Though, I think the portrait on the whole is more of an Se/Ni or Ni/Se.... however, if you compare even this to the description above, there is a great deal of Rational traits mentioned. Feeling.. in the sense of being in many ways defined by what he valued and did not value, is also fairly central in the description. Tying this to a single function description is going to be a tough one.... 

I'll not spell out Origen, but his description is posted, so tell me the correlation there as well. I am guessing Fe? Ne? I like that one especially because he talks about how this Extraversion of value caused him to not follow blindly or agree with the culture and group to which he belonged. You agree with Myers that this is N? Does this contradict Jung's description of Fe types? I'll have to reread it. 
@EthereaEthos - Faust, Schiller, Nietzsche. Excellent, thank you. I think I want to kinda work up a type for these folks while I am at it. 

The description of Tertullian reminds me of Christopher Hitchens oddly enough... well, not so oddly. It seems clear that Jung considers him an Ni dom.... so, INFJ or INTJ, and I think that the whole things speaks rather loudly to Te/Fi rather than Fe/Ti. So, INTJ. 

Origen seems rather overtly Fe/Ti and Ne. He'd have to be an NTP, and if we follow Jung, he'd have to be an ENTP. Thus, the dichotomy here presented is that of Ni and Ne? ... and, in a sense, Fi and Fe. Yes, it seems that is rather it. I vs E is here rendered as Ni/Fi (and Te, obviously)... and Ne/Fe (and Ti, as well). Yes, I agree with myself on this one most definitely.


----------



## Abraxas

I don't believe arkigos is an INFP.

INTP seems quite accurate, only, rather than researching and gathering more information from Ne, he's drawing a conclusion _first_ (Ti-dom) and _then_ attempting the research to validate his position only when he feels the need to do so (Ne-aux).

I believe the root of the issue is that, instead of making statements as if they were only speculative or a matter of opinion, he is making them as if they were _matters of fact_. That's a kind of intellectual dishonesty, because when you _extravert_ your thoughts and opinions, you better make sure you don't fuck it up. Especially around people who value Te and take it very seriously.

If you want to play poker with the grown ups, you better know how to bluff.

BTW, this isn't an attack against you @_arkigos_, I'm not trying to take sides, I'm just trying to offer an extraverted perspective so you can understand where @reckful and others are coming from.


----------



## Psychopomp

Octavarium said:


> If you say that there's a category of people (Fe-doms) who subscribe to "universal values" like "bullying is wrong", it's reasonable to infer that there's some other category of people who don't subscribe to those values. Otherwise, why would you even bother saying such a thing? If someone said, "Fe-doms eat and sleep," wouldn't you think that was a silly thing to say? Type descriptions are only meaningful if they describe the characteristics that generally distinguish that type from the others. So if you were pretty much just saying, "Fe-doms think bullying is wrong, just like virtually everybody else," what was your point?


I agree, and noted the same in my original response to that. I said I felt it was a reasonable thing to think if taken very literally and on its own. However, in context, it was a clarification of what a value might be... and since we were talking specifically about extraverted ones, or objective ones, I was thinking of it in that context and failed to anticipate the highly literal (and fairly removed from context, I felt) interpretation. When he pointed it out, I said I understood other than some confusion that he'd assume that interpretation... since it was contrary to everything I'd say up to then and after... and that he'd characterized it as something I'd said, when it was in fact a (reasonable or unreasonable) inference. 



Octavarium said:


> While I'm on the subject of Fe (and Fi), You told me I was wrong when I said your post from the other day was an NFP-ish sentiment, and that it's actually Ne + Fe, so more likely for SFJs and NTPs. I assume you don't mean people who have SFJ or NTP preferences, so I won't argue from that perspective. However, although I don't generally use the functions, I do think Fi/Fe is an important and meaningful distinction, which the dichotomous framework is missing out on. I'm not sure what the exact relationship is between Fi/Fe and T/F or the other dichotomies, whether it's that TJs and FPs are Fi types and FJs and TPs are Fe types, as the theory suggests, or if it's something else that no one's managed to figure out yet, although the Big Five agreeableness dimension, which is generally considered to be the same thing as an MBTI F preference, seems more Fi than Fe. However, here's part of my understanding of Fi/Fe, and most NFPs do seem more Fi in at least this aspect.


When I say NFP, in my mind and in my intention, I am meaning FiNeSiTe and/or NeFiTeSi... and also, admittedly, am thinking of those whom I consider to be that type. I also tend to think that the difference between ENFP and INFP is significant as a dichotomy but not nearly so significant in the grander model of typology... and thus tend to think of them as a pair or a cluster within that whole framework. That's just 'full disclosure'. 



Octavarium said:


> You associate Fe with universal values, but I actually think it's Fi that's more universal, whereas Fe is more contextual. An Fe user would consider their moral values to be somewhat relative to their group/culture, while Fi users tend to take a more transcendent view of their moral values. That doesn't mean an Fe user wouldn't subscribe to values like "bullying is wrong", but I suspect that Fi and Fe types might justify that value in different ways. Fe types are more willing to adjust their values to the current context, E.G. respecting the customs of the group or culture in which they find themselves. Fi types tend to think that doing the right thing is more important than promoting group harmony. Your perspective seems more Fi than Fe because it values individuals over groups, and transcends culture (it seems like a "whichever groups/cultures we belong to, we're all human, we're all individuals" kind of thing, + the "we're all the same" aspect of it is consistent with what I said about NFPs.


Interestingly, I agree with you... at least in what I see as your intent. I disagree that Fe would orient itself to the group or culture, per se.... and that is what I meant by 'universal', but I really think that it is quite true to say that Fe operates well and agile in whatever context it is in.. but does it itself abide that context or limit to that context? I think that it would expand to the widest Objective context available... but that the bounds of that context is not really something it would be able to or inclined to determine...? So, then, we have a problem of terminology. I think that, not unlike Jung, I tend to be promiscuous with my word usage, and tend to think very and communicate very deictically, as I have often noted. I naturally and not-consciously rely a lot on context and a general 'intuition' of meaning. I find it typically works out just fine, but in some cases and with some people, my intended context does not come across. There is a natural empathy missing, either due to a lack of desire/capacity/inclination to inject a certain generous intention into what I say, or to assume the 'best' or 'most reasonable' interpretation. I think this is, as Jung so legendarily considered, a 'Problem of Types'. 

I'd say, back on topic of Fi and Fe... I'd say it is simply that Fi seeks to do 'the right thing' rather than 'the best or most observably desirable thing in this situation'. Thus, you could say that Fi is universal, and Fe contextual, but really it is just quite definitionally 'subjective', that is, oriented to the subject... and Fe considering the Object, while inclusive of 'best' in the most ideal context of which it is aware. Thus, I don't think that either Fe or Fi would by any necessity reject values simply because they came from another culture or group, even if they ran contrary to the group to which they belonged.... rather, Fe would reject them if it determined (not by itself) that they did not serve the Object, and Fi if it did serve the Subject.... and, of course, vice versa as well for both (accepting based on their respective orientations). 

I very much agree, though, that Fi will not seek contextual justification for variable ethics. Very much. 



Octavarium said:


> If you're an MBTI INFP, I.E. someone with I, N, F and P preferences, (and if what you posted the other day really is what defines you and what's going through your head all the time, I think you probably are) your approach to this thread
> supports my STJ/NFP theory. You've told @_reckful_ several times in various threads that the differences between your way of thinking and his prove that you're using different functions, but I think part of the difference, from a typological perspective, is that @_reckful_ seems to require more precision than you do, (as do I) whereas you seem to be more comfortable with having some ambiguity or "fuzziness". I can certainly see how an INFP could think an INTJ's approach was "too literal".


It's a Ti(Ne)/Te(Pi) dichotomy, I think. I find INFPs to be more literal than I, which I attribute to their Te... but they also seem to be fairly deictic like myself, which I can only guess is oriented more to ... Ne? 

I am not an INFP because I am profoundly objective in my valuations... very much dependent and oriented to the Object in them... I am the sort that turns to my wife and asks, "What is right here? What is the right thing to do... I cannot tell." and while she (and Fi) might struggle to say in any terms because of the ever-deepening nuance that occurs to her as she sits there silently, I usually take her hesitating and introverting as an indication that what I feel is the 'best' valuation or judgment in the situation, in a very Utilitarian (as in, the philosophy) sense, is in fact not in a Subjective sense. This sets me to logically analyze the situation to determine what that might be. If that functional delineation is insufficient for you, you might consider my relatively low emotional intelligence, my constant tendency to overlook and not retain in my consciousness any sense of the values of a situation, my constant orientation to logic at all times, the fact that I am a programmer?, er, that I don't know how to comfort people..... that as a confidante I am often very comfortable offering logical advice but terrible at 'just listening' or sympathizing... taking a more "Here is a solution, which you COULD have thought of had you just used your brain... so please don't cry because I don't know how to handle that". 

I am just really really clearly a Thinker and not a Feeler. No one in the world that knows me in any degree would question it. When I am openly emotional, it is terribly extraverted and adolescent, and quickly swallowed with logical stoicism. It's not a subtle 'on the line' thing. I am very logical... however, I intellectually PREFER ethics and morals and... goodness and all that stuff, because I see no use or interest in reason without value. You only have to look at one of the countless Einstein quotes to find precedence for this among INTPs.


----------



## Megakill

theredpanda said:


> Because I get random revelations and realizations that build up inside me and then "click" one day.


What you're proposing might exist but it would require a new hypothesis about mbti. Therefore the only answers we can respond with are theories or "no".


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> Well, my original point is that Jung's descriptions of people would paint a more dynamic and varied character than could be correlated to any particular function description.. so it isn't necessarily significant what Jung intended present from those descriptions.
> 
> In a sense, what I need to prove is rather easy. My offending quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Jung gives 'countless' examples of types throughout the book. I've been tasked with 3, but I'd like to show exactly how many he gave.
> 2) None of them are half so clear as his descriptions of the functions and their 'common and typical traits', taken on the whole.
> 3) Nor are they in sync.
> 4) None are copies of any description.
> 5) It is, though, a palette from which to apply/compare 'common and typical traits'.
> 
> I just have to show that Jung did indeed outline the traits of a number of people... and that those outlined traits cannot be easily correlated or seen as a reflection of his type descriptions. The latter part of that is pretty easy, since he wasn't actually even attempting to do so, and if he had done so, we'd know with confidence what Jung thought the type of these people were, which we typically do not... at least not clearly. So, if I can show that he gave a robust and fair description of them, the point is rather proven.
> 
> Thus, my statement will be quite true, unless one can prove that Jung did not give a fair or robust description of the person's traits, regardless of his purpose.
> 
> To that end, let's begin at the beginning.
> 
> Tertullian:
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tertullian was born in Carthage somewhere about 160 A.D. He was a pagan, and yielded himself to the lascivious life of his city until about his thirty-fifth year, when he became a Christian. He was the author of numerous writings, wherein his character, which is our especial interest, unmistakably shows itself. Clear and distinct are his unexampled, noble-hearted zeal, his fire, his passionate temperament, and the profound inwardness of his religious understanding. He is fanatical, ingeniously one-sided for the sake of an accepted truth, impatient, an incomparable fighting spirit, a merciless opponent, who sees victory only in the total annihilation of his adversary, and his speech is like a flashing steel wielded with inhuman mastery. He is the creator of the Church Latin which lasted for more than a thousand years. He it was who coined the terminology of the Early Church. "Had he seized upon a point of view, then must he follow it through to its every conclusion as though lashed by legions from hell, even when right had long since ceased to be on his side and all reasonable order lay mutilated before him." The passion of his thinking was so inexorable that again and again. he alienated himself from the very thing for which he would have given his heart's blood. Accordingly his ethical code is bitter in its severity. Martyrdom he commanded to be sought and not shunned; he permitted no second marriage, and required the permanent veiling of persons of the female sex. The Gnosis, which in reality is a passion for thought and cognition, he attacked with unrelenting fanaticism; including both philosophy and science, which are so closely linked up with it. To him is ascribed the sublime confession: Credo quia absurdum est (I believe because it is against reason). This, however, does not altogeiher accord with historical fact; he merely said (De Carne Christi, 5): "Et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est quia impossibile est." ("And the Son of God died; this is therefore credible, just because it is absurd. And He rose again from the tomb; this is certain, because it is impossible".) By virtue of the acuteness of his mind he saw through the poverty of philosophic and of Gnostic learning, and contemptuously rejected it. He invoked against it the testimony of his own inner world, his own inner realities, which were one with his faith. In the shaping and development of these realities he became the creator of those abstract conceptions which still underlie the Catholic system of to-day. The irrational inner reality had for him an essentially dynamic nature; it was his principle, his consolidated position in face of the world and the collectively valid or rational science and philosophy. I translate his own words:
> "I summon a new witness, or rather a witness more known than any written monument, more debated than any system of life, more published abroad than any promulgation, greater than the whole of man, yea that which constitutes the whole man. Approach then, O my soul, should'st thou be something Divine and eternal, as many philosophers believe -- the less wilt thou lie -- or not wholly Divine, because mortal, as forsooth Epicurus alone contends -- then so much the less can'st thou lie -- whether thou comest from heaven or art born of earth, whether compounded of numbers or atoms, whether thou hast thy beginning with the body or art later joined thereto; what matter indeed whence thou springest or how thou makest man what he is, namely a reasonable being, capable of perception and knowledge. But I call thee not, O soul, as proclaiming wisdom, trained in the schools, conversant with libraries, fed and nourished in the academies and pillared halls of Attica. No, I would speak with thee, O soul, as wondrous simple and uneducated, awkward and inexperienced, such as thou art for those who have nothing else but thee, even just as thou comest from the alleys, from the street-corners and from the workshops. It is just thy ignorance I need."
> The self-mutilation achieved by Tertullian in the sacrificium intellectus led him to the unreserved recognition of the irrational inner reality, the real ground of his faith. That necessity of the religious process which he sensed in himself he seized in the incomparable formula "anima naturaliter Christiana" ("the soul is naturally Christian"). With the sacrificium intellectus philosophy and science, hence the Gnosis also, had no more meaning for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and Origen:
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Origen we may recognize the absolute opposite of Tertullian. Origen was born in Alexandria about 185. His father was a Christian martyr. He himself grew up in that quite unique mental atmosphere wherein the ideas of East and West mingled. With an intense yearning for knowledge he eagerly absorbed all that was worth knowing, and accepted everything, whether Christian, Jewish, Grecian, or Egyptian, which at that time the teeming intellectual world of Alexandria offered him. He distinguished himself as a teacher in a school of catechists. The pagan philosopher Porphyrius, a pupil of Plotinus, said of him: "His outer life was that of a Christian and against the Law; but in his view of things phenomenal and divine he was a Hellenist, and substituted the conception of the Greeks for the foreign myths."
> Already before A.D. 211 his self-castration had taken place; his inner motives for this may indeed be guessed, but historically they are not known to us. Personally he was of great influence, and had a winning speech. He was constantly surrounded by pupils and a whole host of stenographers who gathered up the precious words that fell from the revered master's lips. As an author he was extraordinarily fertile and he developed an amazing academic activity. In Antioch he even delivered lectures on theology to the Emperor's mother Mammaea. In Caesarea he was the head of a school. His teaching activities were considerably interrupted by his extensive journeyings. He possessed extraordinary scholarship and had an astounding capacity for the investigation of things in general. He hunted up old Bible manuscripts and earned special merit for his textual criticism. "He was a great scholar, indeed the only true scholar the ancient Church possessed", says Harnack. In complete contrast to Tertullian, Origen did not bar the door against the influence of GJ.1osticism; in fact he even transferred it, in attenuated form, into, the bosom of the Church; such at least was his aim. Indeed, judging by his thought and fundamental views, he was himself almost a Christian Gnostic. His position in regard to faith and knowledge is portrayed by Harnack in the following psychologically significant words:
> "The Bible, in like wise, is needful to both: the believers receive from it the realities and commandments which they need, while the scholars decipher thoughts therein and gather from it that power which guideth them to the contemplation and love of God -- whereby all material things, through spiritual interpretation (allegorical exegesis, hermeneutics), seem to be re-cast into a cosmos of ideas, until all is at last surmounted in the 'ascent' and left behind as stepping stones, while only this remaineth: the blessed abiding relationship of the God-created creature-soul to God (amor et visio)."
> His theology as distinguished from Tertullian's was essentially philosophical; it was thoroughly pressed, so to speak, into the frame of a neo-Platonic philosophy. In Origen the two spheres of Grecian philosophy and the Gnosis on the one hand, and the world of Christian ideas on the other, peacefully and harmoniously intermingle. But this daring, intelligent tolerance and sense of justice also led Origen to the fate of condemnation by the Church. The final condemnation, to be sure, only took place posthumously, when Origen as an old man had been tortured in the persecution of the Christians by Decius, and had died not long after from the effects of the torture. In 399 Pope Anastasias I pronounced the condemnation, and in 543 his heresy was anathematized by a synod convoked by Justinian, which judgment was upheld by later Councils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Tertullian, *according to Jung in his book Psychological Types*, for the purpose of "our special interest [in his character]", is described thusly:
> 
> 1) Yielded himself up to the lascivious life of his city until about 35, then became a staunch Christian philosopher.
> 2) Prolific author, shows his character in his writings.
> 3) Clear and distinct are his "unexampled, noble-hearted zeal, his fire, his passionate temperament, and the profound inwardness of his religious understanding."
> 4) Fanatical.
> 5) Ingeniously one-sided for the sake of an accepted truth.
> 6) Impatient.
> 7) Incomparable fighting spirit.
> 8) Merciless opponent.
> 9) Saw victory only in the total annihilation of his enemy.
> 10) Creator of Chuch Latin.
> 11) Had to follow through point of view to its every conclusion [rather intensely]... even when right had long since ceased to be on his side and all reasonable order lay mutilated before him."
> 12) Inexorable passion of thinking.
> 13) Bitterly severe ethical code.
> 14) Commanded martyrdom to be sought and not shunned.
> 15) Rigid rules in the faith.
> 16) Said "I believe because it is against reason".. "I am certain [of Christ's divinity/resurrection] because it is impossible".
> 17) Creator of abstract concepts which underlie the Catholic system of today.
> ... and so on.
> 
> So, @reckful. Let's get this ball rolling. What type description does this correlate to? Saying "it was all about E/I" is such a cop out, because it doesn't make my offending quote in the least untrue. If you question this, please read it again. You are accusing me of willful dishonesty. That Jung used this description outline an introverted type is not relevant... it is a robust and fair description of the man.
> 
> Also, of course, the function you correlate it to must be introverted.... though I am sure you know that.
> 
> I assume Ni, because Jung calls him again and again irrational and fanatic. He really is painting a portrait of an Ni. Though, I think the portrait on the whole is more of an Se/Ni or Ni/Se.... however, if you compare even this to the description above, there is a great deal of Rational traits mentioned. Feeling.. in the sense of being in many ways defined by what he valued and did not value, is also fairly central in the description. Tying this to a single function description is going to be a tough one....
> 
> I'll not spell out Origen, but his description is posted, so tell me the correlation there as well. I am guessing Fe? Ne? I like that one especially because he talks about how this Extraversion of value caused him to not follow blindly or agree with the culture and group to which he belonged. You agree with Myers that this is N? Does this contradict Jung's description of Fe types? I'll have to reread it.
> @EthereaEthos - Faust, Schiller, Nietzsche. Excellent, thank you. I think I want to kinda work up a type for these folks while I am at it.
> 
> The description of Tertullian reminds me of Christopher Hitchens oddly enough... well, not so oddly. It seems clear that Jung considers him an Ni dom.... so, INFJ or INTJ, and I think that the whole things speaks rather loudly to Te/Fi rather than Fe/Ti. So, INTJ.
> 
> Origen seems rather overtly Fe/Ti and Ne. He'd have to be an NTP, and if we follow Jung, he'd have to be an ENTP. Thus, the dichotomy here presented is that of Ni and Ne? ... and, in a sense, Fi and Fe. Yes, it seems that is rather it. I vs E is here rendered as Ni/Fi (and Te, obviously)... and Ne/Fe (and Ti, as well). Yes, I agree with myself on this one most definitely.


Wow, arkigos. Your reading comprehension skills could really use some work. But you know what? I'll bet they'd work quite a bit better if you took a more thoughtful approach to your posts. You just explained to another poster within the past couple of days how _fast_ you typically bash out your posts. And I think you should give some thought to the idea that, when you post on an internet forum, you're implicitly inviting other people to spend time reading your posts. And I would hope that extending that invitation to however many people you imagine are likely to read one of your posts would go hand in hand with _some_ kind of sense of obligation to have your posts be worth their while.

You say you assume Jung saw Tertullian as "Ni," but Jung specifically said Tertullian was a "classic example of introverted thinking ... flanked by an unmistakable sensuality."

Honestly, fellow, you are either in over your head or you're posting too fast or maybe some of both. Whatever the explanation, pardon me if I think you're pretty much just wasting my time.

In any case... Perhaps the main reason Jung viewed Tertullian and Origen with such fascination is that, as he saw it, each of them had been born one type and each of them, for the sake of Christianity (as each of them viewed Christianity's demands), _converted themself into their opposite type_ — by way of _castration_ in the case of Origen, and by way of what Jung called a _sacrificium intellectus_ in the case of Tertullian.

So, if you hadn't been totally mixed up about Tertullian's type and had pointed up some things that didn't fit Jung's Ti-dom descriptions, I would have said: Jung would certainly agree with you that Tertullian ended up exhibiting characteristics _inconsistent with introverted thinking_, since that's (presumably) what led Jung to conclude that Tertullian had _changed his type_!

But, precisely because Jung viewed Tertullian and Origen as oddballs in the sense of _falsifying_ their inborn types (which Jung elsewhere wrote was a likely path to neurosis), neither of them is someone you should be trying to use as a good example to show that Jung didn't think the characteristics he described in Chapter 10 were "common and therefore typical features" of the types.

As a side note: In case you think Jung thought it wasn't all that unusual to convert yourself into your opposite type, I don't know if there's a single other example of that in all the rest of Psychological Types. In any case, I think it's fair to say Jung didn't consider it a "common" or "typical" thing for someone to do.


----------



## Psychopomp

Abraxas said:


> I don't believe arkigos is an INFP.
> 
> INTP seems quite accurate, only, rather than researching and gathering more information from Ne, he's drawing a conclusion _first_ (Ti-dom) and _then_ attempting the research to validate his position only when he feels the need to do so (Ne-aux).
> 
> I believe the root of the issue is that, instead of making statements as if they were only speculative or a matter of opinion, he is making them as if they were _matters of fact_. That's a kind of intellectual dishonesty, because when you _extravert_ your thoughts and opinions, you better make sure you don't fuck it up. Especially around people who value Te and take it very seriously.
> 
> If you want to play poker with the grown ups, you better know how to bluff.
> 
> BTW, this isn't an attack against you @_arkigos_, I'm not trying to take sides, I'm just trying to offer an extraverted perspective so you can understand where @_reckful_ and others are coming from.


I agree with you. I am also very much disinclined to see reasonable arguments as attacks. 

I can also see how this would be seen as intellectual dishonesty. I can only defend on grounds that it is natural to see through one's own lens. So, if I were an INTJ, it would incredibly intellectually dishonest, because in order to do the same, an INTJ would have to be so. I can only assume. I think that overly literal interpretations and raking people around for using hyperbole or being inexact (and unconsciously assuming that meaning will carry... almost to the point that the actual words are never considered because the intent and spirit is all that is in conscious when writing) ... is something that would require one of my cognitive disposition to be cruelly rigid and exacting. If I myself did such a thing, I'd have to be a terribly dishonest person. I'd have to do it willfully and arbitrarily. 

However, for some reason I tend to naturally accept that it is through another lens that it is done. I think this is because I struggled for a long time (15 years now) coming to terms with an IxTJ friend and his dismissive and exacting treatment of my communication style. Eventually, I had to gain an empathy for it.... and understand that it was hugely valuable...and that when he caught me in my (what I think of as little) errors, it was something to genuinely address and try to learn from.

I feel I am doing it here. I also feel that it is a useful and desirable exercise. My only beef with @reckful in the meantime is that I feel he is using my errors as justification or a screen to ignore the spirit and thrust of my posts. As if my making a mistake on one point invalidates the whole and frees him from any onus of consideration. I am yet to acquire empathy for such things.


----------



## The Trollmaster

ephemereality said:


> That happens when I get pissed and frustrated when people don't see a point I'm raising over and over that's just really obvious to me.


Are you sure you're not just pissed because Jung described Fe-doms as more rational than your INTJ kind?


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> Wow, arkigos. Your reading comprehension skills could use some work. But you know what? I'll bet they'd work quite a bit better if you took a more thoughtful approach to your posts. You just explained to another poster within the past couple of days how _fast_ you typically bash out your posts. And I think you should give some thought to the idea that, when you post on an internet forum, you're implicitly inviting other people to spend time reading your posts. And I would hope that extending that invitation to however many people you imagine are likely to read one of your posts would go hand in hand with _some_ kind of sense of obligation to have your posts be worth their while.
> 
> You say you assume Jung saw Tertullian as "Ni," but Jung specifically said Tertullian was a "classic example of introverted thinking ... flanked by an unmistakable sensuality."
> 
> Honestly, fellow, you are either in over your head or you're posting too fast or maybe some of both. Whatever the explanation, pardon me if I think you're pretty much just wasting my time.
> 
> In any case, though... Perhaps the main reason Jung viewed Tertullian and Origen with such fascination is that, as he saw it, each of them had been born one type and each of them, for the sake of Christianity (as each of them viewed Christianity's demands), _converted themself into their opposite type_ — by way of _castration_ in the case of Origen, and by way of what Jung called a _sacrificium intellectus_ in the case of Tertullian.
> 
> So, if you hadn't been totally mixed up about Tertullian's type and had pointed up some things that didn't fit Jung's Ti-dom descriptions, I would have said: Jung would certainly agree with you that Tertullian ended up exhibiting characteristics _inconsistent with introverted thinking_, since that's (presumably) what led Jung to conclude that Tertullian had _changed his type_!
> 
> But, precisely because Jung viewed Tertullian and Origen as oddballs in the sense of _falsifying_ their inborn types (which Jung elsewhere wrote was a likely path to neurosis), neither of them is someone you should be trying to use as a good example to show that Jung didn't think the characteristics he described in Chapter 10 were "common and therefore typical features" of the types.
> 
> As a side note: In case you think Jung thought it wasn't all that unusual to convert yourself into your opposite type, I don't know if there's a single other example of that in all the rest of Psychological Types. In any case, I think it's fair to say Jung didn't consider it a "common" or "typical" thing for someone to do.


It doesn't matter what I think of Tertullian's type. It wasn't the point of the post.

Also, I wasn't attempting to relay what Jung thought his type was, but what I thought his type was.

If you think it was superfluous, I don't give a crap. If you don't want to read my posts, don't.

Answer the question.


@Abraxas

Also, I don't think we've proven that it was an error... that I chose to work under the assumption that I was remembering wrong was not an admission, but an attempt at being impartial and thorough. Though I admit stating it from memory and hyperbolically was asking for trouble and unquestionably inexact language. I don't think someone using inexact language is something that can be claimed as universally condemnable, either, since Jung is perhaps the most guilty of all, and y'all seem to think that he is an alright fellow. 

I don't think it was dishonest because I do indeed think that Jung's description of historical figures does not sync well with his descriptions of functions, in much the way I was meaning to describe. That I used the word 'countless' is hardly a mortal sin (in my eyes). If I said it wrong, tell me so, no reason to call out a hunt and question my intellectual honesty... sounds like much ado about nothing, especially if the essential point is accurate (from my meaning and point of view).


----------



## Abraxas

arkigos said:


> I feel I am doing it here. I also feel that it is a useful and desirable exercise. My only beef with @_reckful_ in the meantime is that I feel he is using my errors as justification or a screen to ignore the spirit and thrust of my posts. As if my making a mistake on one point invalidates the whole and frees him from any onus of consideration. I am yet to acquire empathy for such things.


I see what you're saying. That's true, it also irritates me when people call me on what feels like a technicality or a quibble over semantics instead of addressing what I'm _basically saying_ - and which I _know they know what I really meant_ - but in a public arena, I think they're also trying to consider the context for it, and acknowledging that others might _not_ be able to read into what you're saying and just get it.


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> It doesn't matter what I think of Tertullian's type. It wasn't the point of the post.
> 
> Also, I wasn't attempting to relay what Jung thought his type was, but what I thought his type was.
> 
> If you think it was superfluous, I don't give a crap. If you don't want to read my posts, don't.
> 
> Answer the question.


As far as I'm concerned, the pending "question" remains: Where are three "examples" where Jung offers us a portrait of someone who he identifies as one of his eight types and that seems sufficiently inconsistent with the corresponding Chapter 10 description that it makes sense to say that either (1) Jung must not have intended his Chapter 10 descriptions to cover the "common and therefore typical features" of the types, or (2) if that was Jung's intent (as he said it was), he pretty clearly ended up contradicting himself?

And that question is addressed to you, not me.

And if you're going to make another post that attempts to answer it, please don't waste my (and the other thread readers') time with another hasty post that shows as little thought as, and misses the boat as badly as, that last one did.

Posts that badly miss the boat despite a good faith effort on your part are one thing. Posts that badly miss the boat because you really can't be arsed to give them much time or effort are another.

The sentence where Jung ID's Tertullian as a "classic example of introverted thinking" is the very first sentence of the paragraph that comes right after the last one you posted. You didn't miss it because it was tucked away in some other part of Psychological Types. I assume you missed it because, right before you got to it, you said something along the lines of "Fuck it, I'm bored and this is enough to paste into my post."


----------



## Psychopomp

Abraxas said:


> I see what you're saying. That's true, it also irritates me when people call me on what feels like a technicality or a quibble over semantics instead of addressing what I'm _basically saying_ - and which I _know they know what I really meant_ - but in a public arena, I think they're also trying to consider the context for it, and acknowledging that others might _not_ be able to read into what you're saying and just get it.


Usually, and even in this case, I assume the same. Though, it might not occur to those doing so that their approach might be equally incompatible to some on the forum. Criticism and stifling of any expansion or interpretation of ... anything... for example... seems very weirdly and extremely incompatible for personalitycafe.com/forum/ - don't you think? This is done under the guise of 'precision', but is taken far beyond it... as reckful has proven here by interpreting my expansion as a failed attempt at rendering what Jung said, though it is quite clear in the reading that I was doing no such thing.



reckful said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the pending "question" remains: Where are three "examples" where Jung offers us a portrait of someone who he identifies as one of his eight types and that seems sufficiently inconsistent with the corresponding Chapter 10 description that it makes sense to say that either (1) Jung must not have intended his Chapter 10 descriptions to cover the "common and therefore typical features" of the types, or (2) if that was Jung's intent (as he said it was), he pretty clearly ended up contradicting himself?
> 
> And that question is addressed to you, not me.
> 
> And if you're going to make another post that attempts to answer it, please don't waste my (and the other thread readers') time with another hasty post that shows as little thought as, and misses the boat as badly as, that last one did.
> 
> Posts that badly miss the boat despite a good faith effort on your part are one thing. Posts that badly miss the boat because you really can't be arsed to give them much time or effort are another.
> 
> The sentence where Jung ID's Tertullian as a "classic example of introverted thinking" is the very first sentence of the paragraph that comes right after the last one you posted. You didn't miss it because it was tucked away in some other part of Psychological Types. I assume you missed it because, right before you got to it, you said something along the lines of "Fuck it, I'm bored and this is enough to paste into my post."


I stated that I did not say 'Ni' as Jung's typing of Tertullian, but mine. Must I repeat myself again? You state as facts things that are only insinuations and assumptions. It is being claimed here that spurious [claims of what others have written] are something to revile and that waste time. Please, then, do not waste my time. Or, cite where I stated that Jung typed or did not type Tertullian an Ni dom. Cite it, reckful. I am waiting. 

Also, as it was not related to your question of me, nor my question of you... why are we focusing on it? You can say it was superfluous, but why in the WORLD are you attacking me on this? You are attacking me on something that is absolutely not true, and also not relevant. Why?

Please, again, cite where I have done what you claim... namely, stating that Jung typed Tertullian an Ni-dom. You have said that my reading comprehension must be off... and if you intend to insult someone, you must surely be able to back it up with an example of how that is so. So, where have I done what you say? Where?

I could make a stupid ultimatum here that I needn't interact with you until you have fulfilled my 'demand'... before and prerequisite to getting back to the freaking point, but I will not. You may go back to the point while leaving unfulfilled this error. I recognize that this is something you are generally unwilling to do... rather, incredibly and constantly willing to do yourself, but utterly unwilling to allow others to do. 

Though it may never enter your imagination, this whole problem boils down to a Problem of Types. I am getting your examples, though I am certain you will find cause to reject them. You have, it appears, never been wrong ... not even in spirit. Do not interpret this as avoiding your demands. I am not.


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> I stated that I did not say 'Ni' as Jung's typing of Tertullian, but mine. Must I repeat myself again? You state as facts things that are only insinuations and assumptions. It is being claimed here that spurious [claims of what others have written] are something to revile and that waste time. Please, then, do not waste my time. Or, cite where I stated that Jung typed or did not type Tertullian an Ni dom. Cite it, reckful. I am waiting.
> 
> Also, as it was not related to your question of me, nor my question of you... why are we focusing on it? You can say it was superfluous, but why in the WORLD are you attacking me on this? You are attacking me on something that is absolutely not true, and also not relevant. Why?
> 
> Please, again, cite where I have done what you claim... namely, stating that Jung typed Tertullian an Ni-dom. You have said that my reading comprehension must be off... and if you intend to insult someone, you must surely be able to back it up with an example of how that is so. So, where have I done what you say? Where?
> 
> I could make a stupid ultimatum here that I needn't interact with you until you have fulfilled my 'demand'... before and prerequisite to getting back to the freaking point, but I will not. You may go back to the point while leaving unfulfilled this error. I recognize that this is something you are generally unwilling to do... rather, incredibly and constantly willing to do yourself, but utterly unwilling to allow others to do.
> 
> Though it may never enter your imagination, this whole problem boils down to a Problem of Types. I am getting your examples, though I am certain you will find cause to reject them. You have, it appears, never been wrong ... not even in spirit. Do not interpret this as avoiding your demands. I am not.


I had challenged you to give us three examples "outside Chapter 10 that you think give the lie to the idea that the non-neurotic sections of Jung's descriptions in Chapter 10 involved what he viewed as relatively typical features" of his eight types.

Your first purported example was Tertullian, and you said, "Let's get this ball rolling. What type description does this correlate to? ... I assume Ni, because Jung calls him again and again irrational and fanatic. He really is painting a portrait of an Ni."

So... gosh, arkigos, pardon me for thinking that you were saying this was an "example" of Jung describing somebody _Jung_ viewed as an Ni — and in a way that you thought contradicted Jung's Ni descriptions in Chapter 10.

If that _wasn't_ what you were saying, then I fail to see what relevance you thought the Tertullian portrait had. The claim by you that kicked this whole back-and-forth off was that you'd "been reading the remainder of Psychological Types," and that "*Jung gives countless examples of types* throughout the book" and "*None of them are ... in sync with his descriptions of the functions*" in Chapter 10.

How would the Tertullian portrait qualify as Jung giving an "example of type" that wasn't "in sync with" his Chapter 10 description of Ni if you didn't think Jung was telling us Tertullian was an "example" of the Ni "type"?


----------



## Abraxas

arkigos said:


> Usually, and even in this case, I assume the same. Though, it might not occur to those doing so that their approach might be equally incompatible to some on the forum.


That's definitely a good counter-point.

In the case of crossing a Te-boundary, you're essentially not showing how your argument is validated by what is already known, which seems (to them) irresponsible and dishonest. In the case of crossing a Fe-boundary, they're ignoring the value of your effort to subjectively re-define an established idea and only focusing on the inconsistency of what you're saying with what is already known.

I believe you're experiencing the pull of your inferior function in this context.


----------



## Sixty Nein

Reckful. What is Jung's type to you?

Extra question. What is Arky's, Abraxy's and Ephy's type to you?


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> I had challenged you to give us three examples "outside Chapter 10 that you think give the lie to the idea that the non-neurotic sections of Jung's descriptions in Chapter 10 involved what he viewed as relatively typical features" of his eight types.
> 
> Your first purported example was Tertullian, and you said, "Let's get this ball rolling. What type description does this correlate to? ... I assume Ni, because Jung calls him again and again irrational and fanatic. He really is painting a portrait of an Ni."
> 
> So... gosh, arkigos, pardon me for thinking that you were saying this was an "example" of Jung describing somebody _Jung_ viewed as an Ni — and in a way that you thought contradicted Jung's Ni descriptions in Chapter 10.
> 
> If that _wasn't_ what you were saying, then I fail to see what relevance you thought the Tertullian portrait had. The claim by you that kicked this whole back-and-forth off was that you'd "been reading the remainder of Psychological Types," and that "*Jung gives countless examples of types* throughout the book" and "*None of them are ... in sync with his descriptions of the functions*" in Chapter 10.
> 
> How would the Tertullian portrait qualify as Jung giving an "example of type" that wasn't "in sync with" his Chapter 10 description of Ni if you didn't think Jung was telling us Tertullian was an "example" of the Ni "type"?


It's okay, it's an understandable mistake. I have a very abstractly organized brain, and I realize that what I think is obvious is not always so. In this case, it is actually quite straightforward. 

If you think about it, it cannot matter what I think Tertullian's type was, or what I thought Jung thought Tertullian's type was... because in either case it would be, and would have to be, irrelevant to you. That is because of the nature of the original question. That is: an example outside of Chapter 10 that I think is 'not in sync', 'not half so clear', and 'not a copy' of any of Jung's type descriptions in Chapter 10. I posit Tertullian and Origen as two such examples. 

Nothing in the whole wide wonderful world matters to that end other than whether or not the descriptions given for those two persons are in sync with, or mostly as clear as, or a copy of any single type description. In other words, that they can be seen as an example of that type as described in Chapter 10, clearly. 

My natural inclination was that you could choose any description to fit it... because what Jung thought they were was not necessarily part of the question, just whether they were or weren't an example of any single type description in a clear and distinct way. Thus, I implicitly reasoned (without really being aware of doing so, I suppose) that so long as it fit any function definition, that would suffice. However, I now realize that you might be inclined to further limit this to the function that Jung intended them to be an example of. It would certainly be appropriate! In this case, Ti.

So, Ti:


* *






> *The Introverted Thinking Type*
> 
> Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.
> The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object—indifference, and even aversion—characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing-element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his antisocial prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.
> With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.
> The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.







And Origen as Te? If I misunderstand somehow, just swap out the correct function and inform me:


* *






> *The Extraverted Thinking Type*
> 
> It is a fact of experience that all the basic psychological functions seldom or never have the same strength or grade of development in one and the same individual. As a rule, one or other function predominates, in both strength and development. When supremacy among the psychological functions is given to thinking, i.e. when the life of an individual is mainly ruled by reflective thinking so that every important action proceeds from intellectually considered motives, or when there is at least a tendency to conform to such motives, we may fairly call this a thinking type. Such a type can be either introverted or extraverted. We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type.
> In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim—in so far, of course, as he is a pure type—is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice—not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage—either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong—he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental misfire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.
> If tolerance for the sick, the suffering, or the deranged should chance to be an ingredient in the formula, special provisions will be devised for humane societies, hospitals, prisons, colonies, etc., or at least extensive plans for such projects. For the actual execution of these schemes the motives of justice and truth do not, as a rule, suffice; still devolve upon real Christian charity, which I to do with feeling than with any intellectual 'One really should' or I one must' figure largely in this programme. If the formula is wide enough, it may play a very useful rôle in social life, with a reformer or a ventilator of public wrongs or a purifier of the public conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more, does he develop into a grumbler, a crafty reasoner, and a self-righteous critic, who would like to impress both himself and others into one schema.
> We have now outlined two extreme figures, between which terminals the majority of these types may be graduated.
> In accordance with the nature of the extraverted attitude, the influence and activities of such personalities are all the more favourable and beneficent, the further one goes from the centre. Their best aspect is to be found at the periphery of their sphere of influence. The further we penetrate into their own province, the more do the unfavourable results of their tyranny impress us. Another life still pulses at the periphery, where the truth of the formula can be sensed as an estimable adjunct to the rest. But the further we probe into the special sphere where the formula operates, the more do we find life ebbing away from all that fails to coincide with its dictates. Usually it is the nearest relatives who have to taste the most disagreeable results of an extraverted formula, since they are the first to be unmercifully blessed with it. But above all the subject himself is the one who suffers most—which brings us to the other side of the psychology of this type.
> The fact that an intellectual formula never has been and never will be discovered which could embrace the abundant possibilities of life in a fitting expression must lead—where such a formula is accepted—to an inhibition, or total exclusion, of other highly important forms and activities of life. In the first place, all those vital forms dependent upon feeling will become repressed in such a type, as, for instance, aesthetic activities, taste, artistic sense, the art of friendship, etc. Irrational forms, such as religious experiences, passions and the like, are often obliterated even to the point of complete unconsciousness. These, conditionally quite important, forms of life have to support an existence that is largely unconscious. Doubtless there are exceptional men who are able to sacrifice their entire life to one definite formula; but for most of us a permanent life of such exclusiveness is impossible. Sooner or later—in accordance with outer circumstances and inner gifts—the forms of life repressed by the intellectual attitude become indirectly perceptible, through a gradual disturbance of the conscious conduct of life. Whenever disturbances of this kind reach a definite intensity, one speaks of a neurosis. In most cases, however, it does not go so far, because the individual instinctively allows himself some preventive extenuations of his formula, worded, of course, in a suitable and reasonable way. In this way a safety-valve is created.
> The relative or total unconsciousness of such tendencies or functions as are excluded from any participation in the conscious attitude keeps them in a relatively undeveloped state. As compared with the conscious function they are inferior. To the extent that they are unconscious, they become merged with the remaining contents of the unconscious, from which they acquire a bizarre character. To the extent that they are conscious, they only play a secondary rôle, although one of considerable importance for the whole psychological picture.
> Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict the rigid intellectual formula, they are affected first this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls. No function can be entirely eliminated—it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness. Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid. There are extraverted idealists, whose desire to advance the salvation of man is so consuming that they will not shrink from any lying and dishonest means in the pursuit of their ideal. There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means. Only an inferior feeling-function, operating seductively and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men.
> The inferiority of feeling in this type manifests itself also in other ways. In so far as it corresponds with the dominating positive formula, the conscious attitude becomes more or less impersonal, often, indeed, to such a degree that a very considerable wrong is done to personal interests. When the conscious attitude is extreme, all personal considerations recede from view, even those which concern the individual's own person. His health is neglected, his social position deteriorates, often the most vital interests of his family are violated—they are wronged morally and financially, even their bodily health is made to suffer—all in the service of the ideal. At all events personal sympathy with others must be impaired, unless they too chance to be in the service of the same formula. Hence it not infrequently happens that his immediate family circle, his own children for instance, only know such a father as a cruel tyrant, whilst the outer world resounds with the fame of his humanity. Not so much in spite of as because of the highly impersonal character of the conscious attitude, the unconscious feelings are highly personal and oversensitive, giving rise to certain secret prejudices, as, for instance, a decided readiness to misconstrue any objective opposition to his formula as personal ill-will, or a constant tendency to make negative suppositions regarding the qualities of others in order to invalidate their arguments beforehand—in defence, naturally, of his own susceptibility. As a result of this unconscious sensitiveness, his expression and tone frequently becomes sharp, pointed, aggressive, and insinuations multiply. The feelings have an untimely and halting character, which is always a mark of the inferior function. Hence arises a pronounced tendency to resentment. However generous the individual sacrifice to the intellectual goal may be, the feelings are correspondingly petty, suspicious, crossgrained, and conservative. Everything new that is not already contained formula is viewed through a veil of unconscious and is judged accordingly. It happened only in middle of last century that a certain physician, famed his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that fever shall be recognized by the pulse. There are, of course, a host of similar examples.
> Thinking which in other respects may be altogether blameless becomes all the more subtly and prejudicially, affected, the more feelings are repressed. An intellectual standpoint, which, perhaps on account of its actual intrinsic value, might justifiably claim general recognition, undergoes a characteristic alteration through the influence of this unconscious personal sensitiveness; it becomes rigidly dogmatic. The personal self-assertion is transferred to the intellectual standpoint. Truth is no longer left to work her natural effect, but through an identification with the subject she is treated like a sensitive darling whom an evil-minded critic has wronged. The critic is demolished, if possible with personal invective, and no argument is too gross to be used against him. Truth must be trotted out, until finally it begins to dawn upon the public that it is not so much really a question of truth as of her personal procreator.
> The dogmatism of the intellectual standpoint, however, occasionally undergoes still further peculiar modifications from the unconscious admixture of unconscious personal feelings; these changes are less a question of feeling, in the stricter sense, than of contamination from other unconscious factors which become blended with the repressed feeling in the unconscious. Although reason itself offers proof, that every intellectual formula can be no more than a partial truth, and can never lay claim, therefore, to autocratic authority; in practice, the formula obtains so great an ascendancy that, beside it, every other standpoint and possibility recedes into the background. It replaces all the more general, less defined, hence the more modest and truthful, views of life. It even takes the place of that general view of life which we call religion. Thus the formula becomes a religion, although in essentials it has not the smallest connection with anything religious. Therewith it also gains the essentially religious character of absoluteness. It becomes, as it were, an intellectual superstition. But now all those psychological tendencies that suffer under its repression become grouped together in the unconscious, and form a counterposition, giving rise to paroxysms of doubt. As a defence against doubt, the conscious attitude grows fanatical. For fanaticism, after all, is merely overcompensated doubt. Ultimately this development leads to an exaggerated defence of the conscious position, and to the gradual formation of an absolutely antithetic unconscious position; for example, an extreme irrationality develops, in opposition to the conscious rationalism, or it becomes highly archaic and superstitious, in opposition to a conscious standpoint imbued with modern science. This fatal opposition is the source of those narrow-minded and ridiculous views, familiar to the historians of science, into which many praiseworthy pioneers have ultimately blundered. It not infrequently happens in a man of this type that the side of the unconscious becomes embodied in a woman.
> In my experience, this type, which is doubtless familiar to my readers, is chiefly found among men, since thinking tends to be a much more dominant function in men than in women. As a rule, when thinking achieves the mastery in women, it is, in my experience, a kind of thinking which results from a prevailingly intuitive activity of mind.
> The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material. In general, therefore, we may describe this kind of judgment as predicative. In any case, characteristic that it is never absolutely depreciatory or destructive, but always substitutes a fresh value for one that is demolished. This quality is due to the fact that thought is the main channel into which a thinking-type's energy flows. Life steadily advancing shows itself in the man's thinking, so that his ideas maintain a progressive, creative character. His thinking neither stagnates, nor is it in the least regressive. Such qualities cling only to a thinking that is not given priority in consciousness. In this event it is relatively unimportant, and also lacks the character of a positive vital activity. It follows in the wake of other functions, it becomes Epimethean, it has an 'esprit de l'escalier' quality, contenting itself with constant ponderings and broodings upon things past and gone, in an effort to analyse and digest them. Where the creative element, as in this case, inhabits another function, thinking no longer progresses it stagnates. Its judgment takes on a decided inherency-character, i.e. it entirely confines itself to the range of the given material, nowhere overstepping it. It is contented with a more or less abstract statement, and fails to impart any value to the experimental material that was not already there.
> The inherency-judgment of such extraverted thinking is objectively orientated, i.e. its conclusion always expresses the objective importance of experience. Hence, not only does it remain under the orientating influence of objective data, but it actually rests within the charmed circle of the individual experience, about which it affirms nothing that was not already given by it. We may easily observe this thinking in those people who cannot refrain from tacking on to an impression or experience some rational and doubtless very valid remark, which, however, in no way adventures beyond the given orbit of the experience. At bottom, such a remark merely says 'I have understood it—I can reconstruct it.' But there the matter also ends. At its very highest, such a judgment signifies merely the placing of an experience in an objective setting, whereby the experience is at once recognized as belonging to the frame.
> But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking. Such a thinking, therefore, ceases to have any interest for our present discussion. Our concern is rather with the constitution of that thinking which cannot be subordinated to the dominance of another function, but remains true to its own principle. To observe and investigate this thinking in itself is not easy, since, in the concrete case, it is more or less constantly repressed by the conscious attitude. Hence, in the majority of cases, it first must be retrieved from the background of consciousness, unless in some unguarded moment it should chance to come accidentally to the surface. As a rule, it must be enticed with some such questions as 'Now what do you really think?' or, again, 'What is your private view about the matter?' Or perhaps one may even use a little cunning, framing the question something this: 'What do you imagine, then, that I really think about the matter?' This latter form should be chosen when the real thinking is unconscious and, therefore projected. The thinking that is enticed to the surface this way has characteristic qualities; it was these I had in mind just now when I described it as negative. It habitual mode is best characterized by the two words 'nothing but'. Goethe personified this thinking in the figure of Mephistopheles. It shows a most distinctive tendency to trace back the object of its judgment to some banality or other, thus stripping it of its own independent significance. This happens simply because it is represented as being dependent upon some other commonplace thing. Wherever a conflict, apparently essential in nature, arises between two men, negative thinking mutters 'Cherchez la femme'. When a man champions or advocates a cause, negative thinking makes no inquiry as to the importance of the thing, but merely asks 'How much does he make by it?' The dictum ascribed to Moleschott: "Der Mensch ist, was er isst" (" Man is what he eats ") also belongs to this collection, as do many more aphorisms and opinions which I need not enumerate.
> The destructive quality of this thinking as well as its occasional and limited usefulness, hardly need further elucidation. But there still exists another form of negative thinking, which at first glance perhaps would scarcely be recognized as such I refer to the theosophical thinking which is today rapidly spreading in every quarter of the globe, presumably as a reaction phenomenon to the materialism of the epoch now receding. Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no longer a modest dream, but an experience upon 'another plane'. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is ,very simply explained by 'vibrations' which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that 'spiritual science' has left no enigmas of life unsolved. But, fundamentally, this sort of thinking is just as negative as materialistic thinking. When the latter conceives psychology as chemical changes taking place in the cell-ganglia, or as the extrusion and withdrawal of cell-processes, or as an internal secretion, in essence this is just as superstitious as theosophy. The only difference lies in the fact that materialism reduces all phenomena to our current physiological notions, while theosophy brings everything into the concepts of Indian metaphysics. When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as 'vibrations', we have said just as little. Since, what are 'vibrations'? Not only are both methods of explanation quite impotent—they are actually destructive, because by interposing their seeming explanations they withdraw interest from the problem, diverting it in the former case to the stomach, and in the latter to imaginary vibrations, thus preventing any serious investigation of the problem. Either kind of thinking is both sterile and sterilizing. Their negative quality consists in this it is a method of thought that is indescribably cheap there is a real poverty of productive and creative energy. It is a thinking taken in tow by other functions.







The remainder of this post is superfluous to the point at hand and may be ignored:

Man, really really reading that Ti description was altogether uncomfortable... I think I need to read it like a mantra, lest one day I read it and realize it is me to the last drop. I realize I know at least one person whom the description does not fail to describe until the absolute end... and he is a pitiful man who does indeed surround himself with buffers to protect his extreme subjectivity. A 'pure' and extreme Ti type. I thought, "I'll have to send that to him and see what he thinks" and then I realized that to get it to him, I'd have to send it to his girlfriend... aka, his enabling subjectivity buffer. I also think it is interesting how relatively ungenerous Jung is in these descriptions! I am glad for it. I am making a mental note of that bit from Te 'What do you imagine, then, that I really think about the matter?' - to pull out the full extent of how divested of worth the Te has rendered my thoughts. reckful, this description has rather 'got your number', on the whole... at least as well as Ti has got mine. I don't think you have a chance of tying Tertullian's description meaningfully to Ti. There is almost no correlation in the descriptions themselves, at least it seems. Origen to Te? Ugh... again, where is it? I assuming that you'll just have to dismiss my argument on some grounds. I am curious what you will choose. It seems like there is no other way out... but you always do surprise me with your interpretations.... though on the whole they seem to just be hyper-focusing on something I said, obscuring the point and then obscuring the point that obscured the point. Reading Jung seems to support the idea that you actually don't understand and/or allow my ideas to retain their worth. Like, they are 'out of line' and thus dismissed? 

Either way, my natural self-doubt on the subject of this little debacle is rather dissolving with this first exercise. It seems pretty clear the descriptions don't match up... in no small part, as I said, to the dynamicism of the individuals as Jung describes them. Maybe he has a good description of Kant floating around.... ? That would serve as a good match for the Ti description, undoubtedly.



Abraxas said:


> That's definitely a good counter-point.
> 
> In the case of crossing a Te-boundary, you're essentially not showing how your argument is validated by what is already known, which seems (to them) irresponsible and dishonest. In the case of crossing a Fe-boundary, they're ignoring the value of your effort to subjectively re-define an established idea and only focusing on the inconsistency of what you're saying with what is already known.
> 
> I believe you're experiencing the pull of your inferior function in this context.



Interestingly, I think that is really the crux of the problem. @_reckful_ constantly assumes things about what I am thinking and saying which aren't true. For example, had I stopped there, reckful might have lashed out that many things he has said were direct quotes from me. That itself would be an assumption of what my first sentence might imply... but I did not say such a thing, nor did I intend it. I mean, I don't think he'd necessarily say that particular thing or think it, that was just an example of the sort of assumption I mean. I am not sure what spawns that, but it is not something I am entirely familiar with and so I am unprepared to anticipate it or to deal with it when it comes. It always surprises me. As if I had some dark ulterior motive or perhaps that my thoughts are not possessing any understanding of the obvious realities of the situation. 

I find that, with Fi, there is an assumption on the part of the casual observer that Fi is selfish and contrary for no good reason... or that they are not mindful of mores or not conscientious. This, of course, is the profound opposite of the truth, because Fi is an unfathomably deep well... which looks inconspicuous or unimpressive, until one chances to toss a coin in and a sense of the profound depth ... a depth they never perceived ... makes itself apparent. 

It is so peculiar to me to be seen as illogical or superficial in my understanding. I think I just come across as such because I rather overestimate how well I am being understood. It seems quite clear to me, and yet the response I get is confused and, worse, assuming that I am confused. I am not remotely, and I fail to see how the point wasn't painfully clear. Obviously, it wasn't clear... but it seems that it is only when dealing with very strong Te types that this problem really comes to bear. I am often told that I am very clear in my descriptions, and explanations, but under the tyrannical gaze of Te, no variance or misstep is given quarter, and even acquiescence is seen as masking some sinister heresy. It is profoundly uncomfortable for me. Jung actually stated this would be the case, this feeling of 'oppression', but the invasive act of divesting my words of any significance is quite bizarre. My natural response is to appease, by passively allowing whatever concession seems unimportant, yet this seems to be something of a slippery slope, as it appears the Te perceives this as.... inconsistent? Even dishonest? Peculiar. It most certainly is not. I am merely offering tribute to the overlord and his Empirical Toll, telling me I must not possibly understand that my views aren't SoNSos as if I don't already know. I know when they are and when they aren't, and I struggle to remember not to assume that everyone else doesn't. It is rather that these things are so obvious to me as to not bear mentioning... and the Te interprets this as me not knowing them, when it is actually that they are just focusing on all the white noise and missing the real point (which is my strength). 

Of course, I see that they are right to pick out these technicalities and promiscuities. I do value it, and even welcome it, I would certainly loathe to be misunderstood or to express something that isn't true.... but the extreme of this is a bit much to bear. 

The irony is, I am branded a heretic and so even when I AM in line with Jung, it is assumed and extrapolated that I am not, for I must not be, as a known heretic, and so my language must take on this contract-like rigidity so as not to have every possible misinterpretation and accusation weaved into it. 

I cannot comprehend how one would so seize upon and presume to speak for / control / police / infer from another person without simply thinking it through more thoroughly to be certain they are correct. The sin, in my eyes, is failing to do this. The correlation to Fi (though in a different medium) is pretty clear, I think. Like I said, there is unquestionable value in that counter balance, up to a point. 

Haha! Yes, my inferior function is indeed pulling on me here.


----------



## Entropic

The Trollmaster said:


> Are you sure you're not just pissed because Jung described Fe-doms as more rational than your INTJ kind?


What? True to your name are you trying to troll me? Because I certainly wouldn't trade away my irrationality for anything. If you even saw just a tiny fraction of what I see, I don't think you make this statement.


----------



## Abraxas

Sixty Nein said:


> Reckful. What is Jung's type to you?
> 
> Extra question. What is Arky's, Abraxy's and Ephy's type to you?



Don't take this personally, it's not meant as an insult.

But, I hope he's not irresponsible enough to attempt to answer the second question.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> That's definitely a good counter-point.
> 
> In the case of crossing a Te-boundary, you're essentially not showing how your argument is validated by what is already known, which seems (to them) irresponsible and dishonest. In the case of crossing a Fe-boundary, they're ignoring the value of your effort to subjectively re-define an established idea and only focusing on the inconsistency of what you're saying with what is already known.
> 
> I believe you're experiencing the pull of your inferior function in this context.


Funnily so did I, hence I'm done arguing here. Unfortunately mine isn't as elegant as @arkigos' as it just makes me forceful and impatient to say the least, which does usually not serve the climate of a debate well. Curiously though, I understand arkigos fully well and even though I know I am a Te type I have a hard time seeing the problem here since the point is made obvious enough to me. Well, I never claimed my Te was strong though. It's definitely not one of my preferred go to functions except in some situations. 

More directed at you abraxas, but do you experience a cognitive difference in your mind when you access Fe in a more conscious way? Or Ti for the matter. Like you feel that you think a little differently from what's normal?


----------



## Abraxas

ephemereality said:


> Funnily so did I, hence I'm done arguing here. Unfortunately mine isn't as elegant as @_arkigos_' as it just makes me forceful and impatient to say the least, which does usually not serve the climate of a debate well. Curiously though, I understand arkigos fully well and even though I know I am a Te type I have a hard time seeing the problem here since the point is made obvious enough to me. Well, I never claimed my Te was strong though. It's definitely not one of my preferred go to functions except in some situations.
> 
> More directed at you abraxas, but do you experience a cognitive difference in your mind when you access Fe in a more conscious way? Or Ti for the matter. Like you feel that you think a little differently from what's normal?


I tend to shock people who get to know me because my initial behavior towards them is to disarm them by conforming to their emotional boundaries completely (Fe) instead of asserting my intuitive insights. This also stems from being a 9w1, so I instinctively fear that asserting my own identity will push others away and result in my isolation from others. But I can't maintain Fe. It's too draining on me, because I'm neglecting my dominant and auxiliary functions. Eventually, I _can't possibly hide who I really am and it asserts itself naturally_. I get physically and emotionally completely exhausted, and I just shut down the act and start showing my real self - a person who sees every angle, and has a hard time feeling _allied_ with just one.

Because it's easy for me to see a million points of view, I don't identify with any single point of view as more legitimate, and I tend to use my auxiliary function in a passive aggressive and defensive way, pointing out the limitations of other people's reasoning process - all the data they're ignoring, all the possibilities that invalidate their choices. I have a lot in common with INTJs in that respect, although I'm more of an ambivert or a "closet extravert" I think. That tendency is also what pushes people away - nobody appreciates being shown the poverty of their own intellect. So I hide it, rather than confront people and show them all the possibilities that I see.


Anyway.


When I access Ti, I'm bringing my own subjective reasoning to bear against my intuition - forcing myself to "pick a side." I have to decide which of the intuitions "make the most sense". This is tough to do, because if you let intuition go crazy, you see too many implications. The escapism is to just pick the one that makes others happy to hear (Fe) because it's "safe" and ensures I get what I want from my 9w1-ness. This actually leads me to engage in a bit of Te, because that might be what would make others happy to see me do. So, I go out of my way to organize my ideas to meet some objective standard. But, in the end, that feels like selling out in the worst way.

For people who value Ti, we want to take a crack at it ourselves. It feels like... you're short-changing yourself if you just "refer to the manual" or rely on some "formalized method" or "generally accepted intellectual standard." We want to break boundaries, not express ourselves within them. We don't feel like we're being honest when we do, because we see so much more.

To Ti, working within an extraverted thinking paradigm feels _stagnant_ because you're just synthesizing new ideas from what already exists. Sure, maybe you can figure out a new way to paint with the same basic materials, but Ti is about _analysis_. We want to deconstruct an idea to see how it was formed so that we can get at the essence of what makes a thing true, and _then_ we can start to synthesize completely new and novel _components_ of ideas.

When I access Fe, again, it's usually in a defensive way. My intuition allows me to anticipate a scenario, and so I foresee what I will need to do to disarm it from happening.


----------



## Abraxas

@arkigos,

It's because you analyze the concept, break it down until you arrive at its most fundamental intellectual assumptions, and then you speak with absolute certainty that you have grasped the totality of the idea by addressing those fundamentals rather than the outward manifestation of the idea that everyone is familiar with.

You expect people to be on the same page as you, but nobody else can experience that subjective process you went through to arrive at your conclusions. They have no epistemic access to your internal thought process, so they don't always see how you started at point A and arrived at point B.

You also expect other people to do the same thing as you, but that would imply they had the same goal as you. Extraverted thinkers are not aiming for depth of understanding as much as breadth of application. They want to put an idea to work. Precision is not their concern. Practicality is their concern - what the idea actually does in the objective world, it's consequences, it's purpose. They don't want to internally deconstruct an idea, they just want apply it in the outer world.

When you deconstruct an idea in front of someone who strongly values Te, more than anything (more than your idea being inconsistent with facts), what bothers them is that they don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. It seems pointless, like trying to reinvent the wheel instead of building cars. They're not sure what you're trying to achieve, because to them it just looks like you're making a mess and leaving it for others to clean up.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> I tend to shock people who get to know me because my initial behavior towards them is to disarm them by conforming to their emotional boundaries completely (Fe) instead of asserting my intuitive insights. This also stems from being a 9w1, so I instinctively fear that asserting my own identity will push others away and result in my isolation from others. But I can't maintain Fe. It's too draining on me, because I'm neglecting my dominant and auxiliary functions. Eventually, I _can't possibly hide who I really am and it asserts itself naturally_. I get physically and emotionally completely exhausted, and I just shut down the act and start showing my real self - a person who sees every angle, and has a hard time feeling _allied_ with just one.


Did you ever get into socionics? It asserts that usually when in new environments and meeting new people we engage the functions situated in what it refers to as the superego block e.g. almost a direct extrapolation of Freud's use of the word that is, a sense of upholding external standards, living up to external expectations etc. For an Ni type, the superego block would be SiJe. If INTJ, then SiFe, if INFJ, then SiTe. I just thought it could be an interesting point of view for you to consider given what you wrote. 

As for myself, I am not even sure how I t he heck I engage new people. I'm much too oblivious to how I socially come across. I may try to keep up with some socially accepted norms and standards to begin with and be a bit more careful as to not stepping on someone's toes though. I suppose from a certain perspective one can interpret this behavior as Fe.



> Because it's easy for me to see a million points of view, I don't identify with any single point of view as more legitimate, and I tend to use my auxiliary function in a passive aggressive and defensive way, pointing out the limitations of other people's reasoning process - all the data they're ignoring, all the possibilities that invalidate their choices. That tendency is what pushes people away - nobody appreciates being shown the poverty of their own intellect. So I hide it, rather than confront people and show them all the possibilities that I see.


My approach is very different from yours. I'm aggressive and I would never consider myself passively so, but I think you know this by now lol. I won't hide my disagreements away from people's sights. I like to challenge people on their views and ask them questions in order to make them question themselves and what they think they know. I know what you mean with seeing a million points of view though. 



> When I access Ti, I'm bringing my own subjective reasoning to bear against my intuition - forcing myself to "pick a side." I have to decide which of the intuitions "make the most sense". This is tough to do, because if you let intuition go crazy, you see too many implications. The escapism is to just pick the one that makes others happy to hear (Fe) because it's "safe" and ensures I get what I want from my 9w1-ness. This actually leads me to engage in a bit of Te, because that might be what would make others happy to see me do. So, I go out of my way to organize my ideas to meet some objective standard. But, in the end, that feels like selling out in the worst way.


I know what you mean with seeing too many implications. I have a very hard time just sticking with one option and run with it. That's why I never understood Keirsey's definition of the INTJ as being good at contingency planning. Maybe if they are more ambiverted and very Te-heavy. I'm decidedly not though, because I see too many options as to how things can go. 

As for myself, I think I tend to narrow it down to what makes _me_ happy. Want to emphasize that for clarification. I always stick with Fi-derived decisions when it comes to important life decisions. I think that's part of the reason why I was so confused over my type because I experience this extreme push-pull between T and F in my psyche sometimes where I just can't seem to choose or decide which one I should actually stick with in any given situation because both options make sense if you know what I mean? 

The real reason why I asked you this question though, has to do with that when I engage with Te in a much more conscious way, I definitely experience myself as thinking differently. It feels more mechanical, less organic, I definitely become much more rigid and structured both in terms of my thinking and my mannerisms, I externalize my organizational thought clearly and precisely. Especially in the context of theory, I suddenly find myself spending more time gathering source material, referencing, quoting, organizing my thoughts, than I am genuinely engaging concepts or ideas. Also perhaps curiously so, I feel more removed from my emotional life and feelings as a whole. I experience myself as much more detached, and viewing everything from a more logical and scrutinizing viewpoint. I can mobilize like this for briefer periods but they don't last very long. 



> For people who value Ti, we want to take a crack at it ourselves. It feels like... you're short-changing yourself if you just "refer to the manual" or rely on some "formalized method" or "generally accepted intellectual standard." We want to break boundaries, not express ourselves within them. We don't feel like we're being honest when we do, because we see so much more.


I don't think I have ever experienced conscious use of Ti actually. I only really know Fi and Te. 



> To Ti, working within an extraverted thinking paradigm feels _stagnant_ because you're just synthesizing new ideas from what already exists. Sure, maybe you can figure out a new way to paint with the same basic materials, but Ti is about _analysis_. We want to deconstruct an idea to see how it was formed so that we can get at the essence of what makes a thing true, and _then_ we can start to synthesize completely new and novel _components_ of ideas.


As a curious question, would you say I'm Ti or Te?



> When I access Fe, again, it's usually in a defensive way. My intuition allows me to anticipate a scenario, and so I foresee what I will need to do to disarm it from happening.


I see. Kind of like what arkigos did in this thread, you would say?


----------



## Abraxas

ephemereality said:


> Did you ever get into socionics? It asserts that usually when in new environments and meeting new people we engage the functions situated in what it refers to as the superego block e.g. almost a direct extrapolation of Freud's use of the word that is, a sense of upholding external standards, living up to external expectations etc. For an Ni type, the superego block would be SiJe. If INTJ, then SiFe, if INFJ, then SiTe. I just thought it could be an interesting point of view for you to consider given what you wrote.


I did at first, but I didn't stick with it because I had a hard time relating to the material. Also, everyone I've met who is really into it acted like an asshole when I started raising objections and pointing out other possibilities, so I just backed off and was like, "um, alright then. Sorry to disturb your religion."




ephemereality said:


> As for myself, I am not even sure how I t he heck I engage new people. I'm much too oblivious to how I socially come across. I may try to keep up with some socially accepted norms and standards to begin with and be a bit more careful as to not stepping on someone's toes though. I suppose from a certain perspective one can interpret this behavior as Fe.


I'm generous and smile a lot and I openly compliment people, and when they show me insecurities, I offer them new ways of looking at things so that they feel empowered and special. I reinforce their ego by giving them positive reinforcement. I totally throw out my own opinions and I just tell them what they want to hear - what they need to hear. I did that to @arkigos, and if I keep supporting him, relating to him, trying to empower him, and doing all that, he'll start to admire me, and then I'll get what I want, which is a sense that I'm important in the world - that my existence matters and I have a right to be here.

That's the honey. Then, later, comes the knife. The intensity of his thinking will eventually start to drain me, because he's trying to milk water out of sand, convinced that he's got something really important to say. But I know better. I know the world is too chaotic and incidental for pure reason. You can't confine insight to a conclusion, something gets lost in the translation. Ti is just being really certain. Te is just being really efficient. Fi is just feeling authentic because honesty seems like it matters. Fe is just being considerate because we all want to get along.

But, in reality, we're too limited to comprehend anything fully or accomplish anything meaningful.

Knowledge is ignorance. Accomplishment is nihilistic.





ephemereality said:


> My approach is very different from yours. I'm aggressive and I would never consider myself passively so, but I think you know this by now lol. I won't hide my disagreements away from people's sights. I like to challenge people on their views and ask them questions in order to make them question themselves and what they think they know. I know what you mean with seeing a million points of view though.


Yeah. I have so much in common with INTJs, I won't lie. I thought I was an INTJ forever. We're like mirror images sometimes.




ephemereality said:


> I know what you mean with seeing too many implications. I have a very hard time just sticking with one option and run with it. That's why I never understood Keirsey's definition of the INTJ as being good at contingency planning. Maybe if they are more ambiverted and very Te-heavy. I'm decidedly not though, because I see too many options as to how things can go.


Yeah I think the "strategist" type descriptions apply more towards Te-doms, and put a lot of emphasis on Te in INTJs as well, because introverted intuition is a tough nut to crack. It's hard to give an objective account of a subjective process, so this is understandable.

MBTI also focuses more on the dichotomies and the traits that define those, rather than the functions and the traits that define those. Each MBTI type is really defined by the dichotomy-traits, not function-traits. Honestly, I wish MBTI would drop functions entirely, because they're just vestigial to the model at this point and aren't even needed to describe the types. If there was no mention of functions at all, people would just see themselves through the MBTI dichotomy lens and not worry about their functions.

If you prefer a functional approach, I tell people to just look at Analytical Psychology and JCF and ignore MBTI.

However, if I'm not mistaken, there's more _confirmed_ evidence for MBTI types than Jungian types, so there's also that.

I say "confirmed" because I like to maintain a degree of critical skepticism and admit that just because there is no evidence for a thing does not mean the thing doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative.

And also, I'm totally into weird shit like mystical systems and chaos magick theory, so I'm partial to Jung. The dude was an alchemist. Like, a motherfucking sorcerer. He turned alchemy into a psychological model, and became one of the most influential psychologists in history. That's fucking legit.




ephemereality said:


> As for myself, I think I tend to narrow it down to what makes _me_ happy. Want to emphasize that for clarification. I always stick with Fi-derived decisions when it comes to important life decisions. I think that's part of the reason why I was so confused over my type because I experience this extreme push-pull between T and F in my psyche sometimes where I just can't seem to choose or decide which one I should actually stick with in any given situation because both options make sense if you know what I mean?


Yeah. Jung just mentions developing extraverted judgment. He also thought the psyche was dynamic. There's no reason to insist that you can't just be balanced in your auxiliary. It just means that neither one will be as fully developed as someone who just relies on the one over the other. You wouldn't have as much control over them. Instead, they'd tend to overwhelm you and control you. That might not really matter though, practically speaking, it might work out just fine for you. If you get lucky, then it won't matter.





ephemereality said:


> The real reason why I asked you this question though, has to do with that when I engage with Te in a much more conscious way, I definitely experience myself as thinking differently. It feels more mechanical, less organic, I definitely become much more rigid and structured both in terms of my thinking and my mannerisms, I externalize my organizational thought clearly and precisely. Especially in the context of theory, I suddenly find myself spending more time gathering source material, referencing, quoting, organizing my thoughts, than I am genuinely engaging concepts or ideas. Also perhaps curiously so, I feel more removed from my emotional life and feelings as a whole. I experience myself as much more detached, and viewing everything from a more logical and scrutinizing viewpoint. I can mobilize like this for briefer periods but they don't last very long.



Probably because you're engaging your thinking function, which necessarily pushes your feeling function farther down the chain of command for the duration. But then you go back to your dominant perceiving function and gradually level out.




ephemereality said:


> I don't think I have ever experienced conscious use of Ti actually. I only really know Fi and Te.


When I'm unconscious of Ti, my auxiliary points at intuitions that leap out at me as "that's the right one" in the instant that they pop into my head. The second the insight occurs, judging comes along for the ride "built right in".

When I'm conscious of Ti, then I'm really applying myself, trying to think critically, trying to carefully scrutinize my insights by analyzing them for logical inconsistencies. This feels tedious sometimes because it's like double-checking your math. Fuck doing the problem over again, but sometimes you really need to be sure. It's usually when I doubt my insights. I have to make sure they make sense, at least to me, so that if someone asks I have a way of explaining what I see.





ephemereality said:


> As a curious question, would you say I'm Ti or Te?


Both of course.

However, I can say for certain that you used Ti in order to break down your thought process for me, analyze yourself, and explain it all subjectively. I dare you to cite a source for all the information you provided me in your post.

Please don't try, you get what I'm saying though right? That's Ti. You're drawing a conclusion from the information at hand without following a set of rules - you're just sort of "eye-balling" it and going, "yeah that works." It's a subjective determination based on the fact that what you wrote makes sense to you.

Te would be more demanding. You wouldn't bother explaining yourself in your own words really. You'd just cite a source and be done with it. You'd have figured this stuff out by now and already have developed an efficient way of explaining yourself that didn't require improvisation.

Look at how @reckful does it. He even quotes himself and references his own posts. When he engages in a debate, he quotes the other person. There's no room for subjective interpretation. He's drawing straight from the source. You see? Either you said it, or, he's already dealt with it before, so he's got a system in place which is efficient and cuts to the chase. He's got it down to a science. That's totally INTJ/ENTJ. No bullshit, no interpretation, just a straight up reality check.





ephemereality said:


> I see. Kind of like what arkigos did in this thread, you would say?


Yeah. Only, I'm more aware of it I think.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> I did at first, but I didn't stick with it because I had a hard time relating to the material. Also, everyone I've met who is really into it acted like an asshole when I started raising objections and pointing out other possibilities, so I just backed off and was like, "um, alright then. Sorry to disturb your religion."


Yeah, now when I think of it you made those quadra hangout threads. How did I forget lol. 



> I'm generous and smile a lot and I openly compliment people, and when they show me insecurities, I offer them new ways of looking at things so that they feel empowered and special. I reinforce their ego by giving them positive reinforcement. I totally throw out my own opinions and I just tell them what they want to hear - what they need to hear. I did that to @arkigos, and if I keep supporting him, relating to him, trying to empower him, and doing all that, he'll start to admire me, and then I'll get what I want, which is a sense that I'm important in the world - that my existence matters and I have a right to be here.
Click to expand...

Wow, I am completely opposite of that pretty much, or at least distinctly lack this particular quality. I can't compliment people for the sake of social nicety unless I somehow feel the compliment is actually well-deserved and I truly mean it. Also, this strikes me as extremely enneagram 2 in terms of logic. 



> That's the honey. Then, later, comes the knife. The intensity of his thinking will eventually start to drain me, because he's trying to milk water out of sand, convinced that he's got something really important to say. But I know better. I know the world is too chaotic and incidental for pure reason. You can't confine insight to a conclusion, something gets lost in the translation. Ti is just being really certain. Te is just being really efficient. Fi is just feeling authentic because honesty seems like it matters. Fe is just being considerate because we all want to get along.
> 
> But, in reality, we're too limited to comprehend anything fully or accomplish anything meaningful.
> 
> Knowledge is ignorance. Accomplishment is nihilistic.


You're an adherent of Nietzsche? I also wonder if it's not part of inferior Se logic to think, to downplay external ambition and accomplishments. 



> Yeah. I have so much in common with INTJs, I won't lie. I thought I was an INTJ forever. We're like mirror images sometimes.


I know, though it depends on how Te heavy they are to me. I still notice a distinct difference between NiT(i), NiT(e), Ni(Fi) and Ni(Fe). All Ni, but such different flavors of Ni. That doesn't even start looking into levels of differentiation. I wonder how one would quantitatively measure that in a meaningful way when it comes to the introverted function attitudes. This is why I suspected for some time now that Myers and Augusta don't understand the auxiliary the same as Jung did. This sentence partially in relation to what you wrote further down below as well when I asked you about my auxiliary. 



> Yeah I think the "strategist" type descriptions apply more towards Te-doms, and put a lot of emphasis on Te in INTJs as well, because introverted intuition is a tough nut to crack. It's hard to give an objective account of a subjective process, so this is understandable.


I agree, though I wonder if it also doesn't overlap with ENFJs. 



> MBTI also focuses more on the dichotomies and the traits that define those, rather than the functions and the traits that define those. Each MBTI type is really defined by the dichotomy-traits, not function-traits. Honestly, I wish MBTI would drop functions entirely, because they're just vestigial to the model at this point and aren't even needed to describe the types. If there was no mention of functions at all, people would just see themselves through the MBTI dichotomy lens and not worry about their functions.


Yes, I agree. I find that MBTI has painted itself into such a corner where there's no way out unless you were to completely revamp the system in its essence, but it's too established for that to ever happen at this point. A new system would have to emerge then. Different scholars having different ideas about the functions, and creating their own models to go with it doesn't help at all. You just end up with this theoretical mess I was at one point considering to see if it's possible to sort out but I eventually decided that such an endeavor would be quite fruitless. 



> If you prefer a functional approach, I tell people to just look at Analytical Psychology and JCF and ignore MBTI.


Agreed, or at least if one prefers a more structured approach, socionics isn't that bad either in my opinion. 



> However, if I'm not mistaken, there's more _confirmed_ evidence for MBTI types than Jungian types, so there's also that.


You mean in correlation to the SLOAN/OCEAN/Big 5 test? 



> I say "confirmed" because I like to maintain a degree of critical skepticism and admit that just because there is no evidence for a thing does not mean the thing doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative.


That's what intuitive types think, I think. I think the problem has more to do with various scientific paradigms going against each other. If Jung had published his works as a part of modern (social/cultural) anthropology, no one would find it unscientific or questionable at all. The evidence is clearly out there. People exist. The real problem is how we verify and validate. 



> And also, I'm totally into weird shit like mystical systems and chaos magick theory, so I'm partial to Jung. The dude was an alchemist. Like, a motherfucking sorcerer. He turned alchemy into a psychological model, and became one of the most influential psychologists in history. That's fucking legit.


I wish I had gotten more into esotericism when I was still heavily drawn to it. I started to explore right and left hand paths but stopped at left hand. I partially blame LaVey. He really turned me off at some point. His thinking was much too simplistic for my own tastes. Carnal and animalistic. Yes, I won't deny the logos of that, but it wasn't what I sought. I wish I had known someone who was associated with Ordo Templi Orientis at the time so I had gotten a better introduction to Crowley. He was too obscure to me at that point. 

I think Ni types in general can be quite drawn towards mysticism also. There's something about the mystical that speaks to Ni and I am not surprised that it's partially why Jung associated Ni with it as well. 



> Yeah. Jung just mentions developing extraverted judgment. He also thought the psyche was dynamic. There's no reason to insist that you can't just be balanced in your auxiliary. It just means that neither one will be as fully developed as someone who just relies on the one over the other. You wouldn't have as much control over them. Instead, they'd tend to overwhelm you and control you. That might not really matter though, practically speaking, it might work out just fine for you. If you get lucky, then it won't matter.


Yes, agreed, the psyche is dynamic and I think aux-tert can also switch positions no problem, depending on what you are doing. As a practical example, let's say I am put into the option of moving because of potential job prospects. Te tells me I should move because it's the rational thing to do. I might get a job which leads to money in the bank etc. Other details can be solved later if so. Fi tells me I don't want to move. I like it here. It can be quite paralyzing. 



> Probably because you're engaging your thinking function, which necessarily pushes your feeling function farther down the chain of command for the duration. But then you go back to your dominant perceiving function and gradually level out.


Yes, though realistically speaking, it's not like I would feel less or be less emotional because of it necessarily. 



> When I'm unconscious of Ti, my auxiliary points at intuitions that leap out at me as "that's the right one" in the instant that they pop into my head. The second the insight occurs, judging comes along for the ride "built right in".
> 
> When I'm conscious of Ti, then I'm really applying myself, trying to think critically, trying to carefully scrutinize my insights by analyzing them for logical inconsistencies. This feels tedious sometimes because it's like double-checking your math. Fuck doing the problem over again, but sometimes you really need to be sure. It's usually when I doubt my insights. I have to make sure they make sense, at least to me, so that if someone asks I have a way of explaining what I see.


Hm, yeah, I can't quite relate. Usually I can externalize the visions onto something else like I did in my first response to you in the above. I understand/conceptualize/perceive something, could it be mapped in relation to another system? 



> Both of course.


I think you and I are quite aware I already knew the answer to this question but I figured I might as well ask because I wanted to confirm my suspicions. So in relation to what you wrote in the below: 



> However, I can say for certain that you used Ti in order to break down your thought process for me, analyze yourself, and explain it all subjectively. I dare you to cite a source for all the information you provided me in your post.
> 
> Please don't try, you get what I'm saying though right? That's Ti. You're drawing a conclusion from the information at hand without following a set of rules - you're just sort of "eye-balling" it and going, "yeah that works." It's a subjective determination based on the fact that what you wrote makes sense to you.
> 
> Te would be more demanding. You wouldn't bother explaining yourself in your own words really. You'd just cite a source and be done with it. You'd have figured this stuff out by now and already have developed an efficient way of explaining yourself that didn't require improvisation.
> 
> Look at how @reckful does it. He even quotes himself and references his own posts. When he engages in a debate, he quotes the other person. There's no room for subjective interpretation. He's drawing straight from the source. You see? Either you said it, or, he's already dealt with it before, so he's got a system in place which is efficient and cuts to the chase. He's got it down to a science. That's totally INTJ/ENTJ. No bullshit, no interpretation, just a straight up reality check.


How would you differentiate Te from just Thinking? Similarly, how would you differentiate between an IxTJ from IxFJ and EJ? As for sources, sometimes I arse, sometimes I don't. There is usually a source, but I rarely pay attention to it. 



> Yeah. Only, I'm more aware of it I think.


Yes, after what you wrote in the above I'm inclined to agree you do seem quite Fe and somewhat conscious of it.


----------



## reckful

Sixty Nein said:


> Reckful. What is Jung's type to you?
> 
> Extra question. What is Arky's, Abraxy's and Ephy's type to you?


I've participated in a number of lengthy type-me exercises here at PerC — e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and this multi-thread one: one, two and three. But arkigos, Abraxas and ephemereality haven't been among my subjects, and I've mostly sworn off that particular form of time-sink for the time being.

As for Jung...

The first thing you have to clarify if you want to type Jung is: under whose system? Do you mean the result Jung would have gotten if he'd taken the MBTI or a (possibly different) type based on the cognitive functions? And if you mean the latter, are you talking about Jung's conception of the functions or the substantially different (in many respects) function descriptions/model that modern theorists like Thomson, Berens and Nardi use?

Myers acknowledged that most Jung scholars believed that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the _same attitude_ as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude — and you can (in case you're interested) read more about that in this post. I think Myers was wrong — and the majority of Jung scholars were right — although it wasn't a very significant mistake from Myers' perspective since, although she gave the functions quite a lot of lip service in the first half of Gifts Differing, she then essentially left them behind in favor of the dichotomies.

I think the interpretation that's most consistent with Psychological Types as a whole is that Jung's function model for a Ti-dom with an N auxiliary (for example) was really Ti-Ni-Se-Fe — with Ne being a Ti-dom's default, unconscious form of N and Ni being the form that N would take to the extent that the Ti-dom differentiated it and brought it into conscious, directed use as the auxiliary function. But Jung also said that the auxiliary function, because it "served" the dominant function, wasn't "autonomous" or "true to its own principle" to the same extent as when it was the dominant function, so I'd say there's a decent case to be made for the idea that Jung's function model for a Ti-dom with auxiliary N was really more like Ti-N-Se-Fe.

It's clear that Jung viewed himself as a "rational type" (i.e., J-dom) at the time he wrote Psychological Types (because he told us that), and I really don't think there's any doubt that means Jung viewed himself as a Ti-dom at that time. And, judging by the way he described rational types (and, to a lesser extent, introverts), I suspect that the fact that he viewed himself as a Ji-dom means he would have tested as an MBTI J if he'd ever taken the MBTI.

Here's a link to Part 3 of an interview done with John Freeman when Jung (born in 1875) was 84. Forward to around 8:40 and you can watch this exchange:



> *JF:* Have you concluded what psychological type you are yourself?
> 
> *Jung:* (chuckling) Naturally I have devoted a great deal of attention to that painful question, you know.
> 
> *JF:* And reached a conclusion?
> 
> *Jung:* Well, you see, the type is nothing static. It changes in the course of life. But I most certainly was characterized by thinking. I overthought from early childhood on. And I had a great deal of intuition, too. And I had definite difficulty with feeling. And my relation to reality was not particularly brilliant. I was often at variance with the reality of things. Now that gives you all the necessary data for the diagnosis.


So Jung was clear about his N and T preferences, and was clearly introverted (as I understand it), but sheepishly confessed that he'd found his own type to be a "painful question," which suggests to me that, at least during some phase of his life, he must have wrestled with the issue of whether he was a Ti-dom with an N-aux or an Ni-dom with a T-aux — comparable (you could argue) to the confusion of all those internet forumites who wonder if they're INTJ or INTP.

Because of the way he describes his preferences in the interview, he seems to be pointing to Ti-dom with N-aux, and that's the way he's most commonly typed.

But if you take a look at this page, you'll see Vicky Jo's "news flash" to the effect that Jung reportedly told Stephen Abrams (a Jung scholar) in 1959 that he was an "introverted intuitive." And, in this follow-up report, Vicki Jo quotes Marie-Louise von Franz (one of Jung's prize pupils) declaring that Jung was an N-dom.

As a side note, I think it's pretty clear Jung was Limbic (neurotic) on the Big Five dimension that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension, and that he considered at least some of his neurotic characteristics part of introversion. He also viewed much of what most MBTI theorists today would tend to label the abstract/concrete component of N/S as part of I/E. So, when Jung describes "introverts" in Psychological Types, his descriptions tend to be better matches for neurotic INs than for introverts in general.

Finally, on T/F... I think T/F's the messiest of the four MBTI dimensions, and arguably the one that's the most poorly captured in modern MBTI sources — and I think there's a strong case to be made that Jung didn't have all that good a grasp on how an F preference would tend to manifest itself in, say, a male (in particular) INFJ. It's not uncommon to read that Jung was an INFJ, and people making that claim often point to his mystical bent, among other characteristics more typically associated with NFs than NTs. I view INFJ as the second-most-likely type for Jung, and I'm also a believer — consistent, as I understand it, with quite a lot of MBTI and (especially) Big Five data — that it's possible to be sufficiently middle-ish on most, if not all, of the MBTI dimensions that an "x" is at least arguably the best label to use. So I also think it's possible that Jung was effectively an INxJ.

If forced to choose, though, I'd choose INTJ. And I really don't think there's any doubt about the I or the N — especially if somebody's talking about the modern conception of S/N.


----------



## Octavarium

reckful said:


> But arkigos, Abraxas and ephemereality haven't been among my subjects, and I've mostly sworn off that particular form of time-sink for the time being.


Do you mean you're no longer participating in typing threads, or just that you're not typing those particular people?


----------



## tanstaafl28

Raawx said:


> @_arkigos_, sheesh. How fast do you type? I swear, you churn out mini-essays so quickly...


You doubt the powers of an INTP? That's what they *do*.


----------



## reckful

Octavarium said:


> Do you mean you're no longer participating in typing threads, or just that you're not typing those particular people?


I way overextended myself in the type-me department at the end of last year (at three MBTI forums) and am pretty much not getting involved in type-me threads for the time being. It's partly just an "hours in the week" thing, and I may well get back in the saddle, to one degree or another, at some point in the future.


----------



## Abraxas

ephemereality said:


> How would you differentiate Te from just Thinking? Similarly, how would you differentiate between an IxTJ from IxFJ and EJ?


Thinking is the organization of perceptual input into conceptual categories and definitions.

Te is externalized, so it gets expressed in the organization of information into categories visible to everyone.

Ti is internalized, so it doesn't get expressed. It organizes the information internally.

You can see Te, because it exists in the logical structure of visible stuff - language, science, politics, economics, calendars, schedules, rules. It's the outward manifestation of logical principals.

You can't see Ti because the guy is just sitting there thinking. He's not showing you his thoughts, only he has epistemic access to them because they only exist subjectively to him.


ITJs are introverts and thinkers who express their thoughts outwardly by structuring things.

IFJs are introverts and feelers who express their values outwardly by structuring things.

The one category is impersonal about it, they'll sacrifice kindness for efficiency if they have to. The other one is more sensitive about it, they'll sacrifice efficiency for kindness if they have to.

ITJs and IFJs are more low-key, low-energy, calm and placid. They only act like EJs in groups or around other people. When they're alone, they're not so extraverted, and they don't get energized by being around other people the way EJs do.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> Thinking is the organization of perceptual input into conceptual categories and definitions.
> 
> Te is externalized, so it gets expressed in the organization of information into categories visible to everyone.
> 
> Ti is internalized, so it doesn't get expressed. It organizes the information internally.
> 
> You can see Te, because it exists in the logical structure of visible stuff - language, science, politics, economics, calendars, schedules, rules. It's the outward manifestation of logical principals.
> 
> You can't see Ti because the guy is just sitting there thinking. He's not showing you his thoughts, only he has epistemic access to them because they only exist subjectively to him.


But by this logic, then an undifferentiated Thinking auxiliary must by definition appear more akin to Ti than it does Te unless you are going to argue that logic can be more or less externalized? By the same token, how can we then even differentiate if someone has a differentiated Ti or not if we cannot observe the quantitative level of its differentiation towards introversion? 



> ITJs are introverts and thinkers who express their thoughts outwardly by structuring things.


But similarly, could not an IxTJ have a Te whose logos is primarily filtered through the introverted nature of their Ni, thus resembling something more of an NiTi than NiTe? Must any auxiliary for the matter, always have such an explicit expression or manifestation? Could not someone's logic be oriented to the external in say perhaps, a partially unconscious manner without it being clearly manifested as such? 

Similarly, to what degree can we separate between the functions and just normal cognitive abilities because clearly any person is capable of normal human reasoning assuming they are mentally healthy and do not suffer from any cognitive disability that may impair their ability to reason? Must logic by definition always be a manifestation or the expression of the Thinking function? 


> IFJs are introverts and feelers who express their values outwardly by structuring things.


The above obviously applies to IxFJs as well. 



> The one category is impersonal about it, they'll sacrifice kindness for efficiency if they have to. The other one is more sensitive about it, they'll sacrifice efficiency for kindness if they have to.
> 
> ITJs and IFJs are more low-key, low-energy, calm and placid. They only act like EJs in groups or around other people. When they're alone, they're not so extraverted, and they don't get energized by being around other people the way EJs do.


Must EJs become energized by people?


----------



## Abraxas

ephemereality said:


> But by this logic, then an undifferentiated Thinking auxiliary must by definition appear more akin to Ti than it does Te unless you are going to argue that logic can be more or less externalized? By the same token, how can we then even differentiate if someone has a differentiated Ti or not if we cannot observe the quantitative level of its differentiation towards introversion?


Isn't that what Jung said in Psychological Types?

He said you can't see introverted functions. I mean, they're introverted. So they're like... not... extraverted.

That doesn't mean "by definition" that they're undifferentiated. They can still be conscious processes and integral to the conscious ego, it's just that you can't see them in the external world. You can only see them by proxy, through extraversion and extraverted functions. Or, in the case of the introvert - the decisive _lack_ of extraversion and extraverted functions. That's why I say, you look at this dude with Ti and he's just not doing anything. He's just sitting there thinking.





ephemereality said:


> But similarly, could not an IxTJ have a Te whose logos is primarily filtered through the introverted nature of their Ni, thus resembling something more of an NiTi than NiTe? Must any auxiliary for the matter, always have such an explicit expression or manifestation? Could not someone's logic be oriented to the external in say perhaps, a partially unconscious manner without it being clearly manifested as such?
> 
> Similarly, to what degree can we separate between the functions and just normal cognitive abilities because clearly any person is capable of normal human reasoning assuming they are mentally healthy and do not suffer from any cognitive disability that may impair their ability to reason? Must logic by definition always be a manifestation or the expression of the Thinking function?
> 
> 
> The above obviously applies to IxFJs as well.
> 
> 
> Must EJs become energized by people?



Lol, dude I don't know. I'm just repeating what the books say.

Sure, I mean, I guess it could be whatever, right? Go crazy.

I never really bothered to go as far as you are with it, because I don't just dig my way to China, I take a plane.

Think laterally!

Just abandon MBTI and JCF and move to an entirely different model and study something else that offers better explanations for the phenomenon you're observing.

There's so much literature in general psychology, philosophy, sociology, political science, general science, theoretical physics, biology, history, economics, etc, to assimilate. Personality psychology is just this tiny little niche of a much bigger picture.

Not everything needs to be explained as a facet of personality.

In fact, isn't that a cognitive bias?

Fundamental attribution error?


----------



## Cellar Door

I just want to say that this thread is awesome, I just got caught up. Function order and the introversion vs. extroversion functional stacking structure has been the bane of my existence since I started studying this stuff. I know that it really doesn't matter in a sense, as long as you have a functional system that does whatever you need it to do, but I want to use what everyone else is using. Or else it's useless in many practical applications.

I think the biggest hurdle is turning the theory and the structure of the functions into type portraits and behaviors. For me, I thought I was an INFJ for a while because I identified heavily with Ti and Ni because there are many aspects of Ne that sort of annoy me and I don't think I sync up with the reinin dichotomies correctly (For example, I much more identify with dynamic vs. static). However, a lot of the socionics information I think is pretty accurate. Then you get into situations where you read things like this:

Socionics :: Rationality / Irrationality

The information on this chart is in direct contradiction with the reinin dichotomies (which granted aren't totally accepted) and tons of other commonly accepted stuff. For example, I think Ji types would have a lot of the irrational characteristics and a lot of the rational characteristics are Je, especially Te. If PiJi is a legitimate type then I think a table like this is way more consistent.

But really, you can forget about the table, it's not even about that, it's just one more example of how all this information doesn't cleanly fit together. At this point, I'm honestly considering just throwing away everything and simplifying it down to the level @Abraxas is using.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> Isn't that what Jung said in Psychological Types?
> 
> He said you can't see introverted functions. I mean, they're introverted. So they're like... not... extraverted.
> 
> That doesn't mean "by definition" that they're undifferentiated. They can still be conscious processes and integral to the conscious ego, it's just that you can't see them in the external world. You can only see them by proxy, through extraversion and extraverted functions. Or, in the case of the introvert - the decisive _lack_ of extraversion and extraverted functions. That's why I say, you look at this dude with Ti and he's just not doing anything. He's just sitting there thinking.


Ok fine. 



> Lol, dude I don't know. I'm just repeating what the books say.
> 
> Sure, I mean, I guess it could be whatever, right? Go crazy.
> 
> I never really bothered to go as far as you are with it, because I don't just dig my way to China, I take a plane.
> 
> Think laterally!
> 
> Just abandon MBTI and JCF and move to an entirely different model and study something else that offers better explanations for the phenomenon you're observing.
> 
> There's so much literature in general psychology, philosophy, sociology, political science, general science, theoretical physics, biology, history, economics, etc, to assimilate. Personality psychology is just this tiny little niche of a much bigger picture.
> 
> Not everything needs to be explained as a facet of personality.
> 
> In fact, isn't that a cognitive bias?
> 
> Fundamental attribution error?


I don't know. They are somewhat hypothetical questions since we got to that subject. I was essentially trying to match my own perception vis-a-vis yours, by seeing what answers you would produce. I didn't intend being aggressive or such, though I realize it could come across that way. 

It doesn't concern me that much, I have my own understanding of things, but it was a matter of curiosity, if putting it that way.


----------



## Abraxas

ephemereality said:


> Ok fine.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. They are somewhat hypothetical questions since we got to that subject. I was essentially trying to match my own perception vis-a-vis yours, by seeing what answers you would produce. I didn't intend being aggressive or such, though I realize it could come across that way.
> 
> It doesn't concern me that much, I have my own understanding of things, but it was a matter of curiosity, if putting it that way.



It's not your fault. I was being a little passive aggressive to be honest. I was getting my ass handed to me in League of Legends and it put me in a bad mood. Plus I was having a sugar/caffeine crash from the coffee I drank wearing off.


I've also spent so much time locked into this stuff that it starts to feel like a prison eventually. When I go back and re-read the material in Psychological Types, or Personality Types by Thomson, or the MBTI Manual Third Edition, or the MBTI Step II Manual, or Gifts Differing, or... *looks over his shoulder at his bookcase at the stacks of books on MBTI*...

... Well, the point is... I'm well read on MBTI, and Jung. And general psychology. And philosophy of the mind. And dungeons & dragons.

There's a sense in which, I feel like I know all that this human species has, at this point in history, come to know about the so-called "mind". I don't have answers that don't exist yet, but the more I focus on just one field of science - like psychology - the more I feel like something is being left out of the equation.

I feel like, we need to look someplace else for fresh inspirations. Maybe the answers to how the mind works don't even have anything to do with psychology, or even neuroscience. Maybe they have to do with theoretical physics. Maybe the real issue is a philosophical one, and we're like monkeys clicking rocks together making sparks and we have no clue what fire even is yet.

Have you ever had a moment, where you stopped and watched something happening, and something about the thing that was happening revealed some kind of profound insight to you that related to some completely unrelated thing? Like, you glance at the small creases in the fabric covering the interior contour of your Sennheiser HD280 pro headphones, and it reminds you of an image you once saw of a kind of galaxy, and you get that intense vibe. The vibe that makes you feel like you're living in a simulation, and for just a moment you caught a glimpse of something fundamental about that simulation, something that makes you feel like... the simulation isn't as complicated as it looks.

Maybe things really aren't that complicated.

You grow up. You're a kid. You don't know the things. You go to school. Everyone tells you to take it seriously. Tests are a big deal. Grades. Competition. College. Pressure. Responsibility. Jobs. Careers. Gotta make money. Ambition. Opportunity. You learn so many things. Now you know a lot of things.

We want to figure everything out, but it's like we're afraid. Like, somehow we imagine that the universe must be so intimidating, so hard to master, so vast and incomprehensible. Authors like H.P. Lovecraft become cult, and legendary, because they prey on that kind of natural insecurity.

But something must be wrong with my head, because I don't relate to that feeling at all. I never have. All my life I've felt the opposite - like, why does everyone take all of this so seriously? What's the big deal. It's easy. Just do the math. Just write the words. Just read. Just listen. If you want to remember, then just remember it. Pass the tests. If you care, then you care. If you don't, then of course you will fail.

The problem isn't a lack of a challenge either. The problem is, _who cares._ It doesn't _matter_. It's just _bullshit_.

It's just bread and circus.

What is nature trying to do? Why is life so important?

It's just shit happening. It doesn't _mean anything._

Just do whatever you want, say whatever you want, believe whatever you want, because in the end the only one who really gives a shit about the consequences of your beliefs and actions is you. Other people don't even matter unless they matter to _you_. The one in control, the master, is _you._

Do anything.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> It's not your fault. I was being a little passive aggressive to be honest. I was getting my ass handed to me in League of Legends and it put me in a bad mood. Plus I was having a sugar/caffeine crash from the coffee I drank wearing off.


Oh yes, that's exactly what soloq does to you no matter how many people you end up muting.


> I've also spent so much time locked into this stuff that it starts to feel like a prison eventually. When I go back and re-read the material in Psychological Types, or Personality Types by Thomson, or the MBTI Manual Third Edition, or the MBTI Step II Manual, or Gifts Differing, or... *looks over his shoulder at his bookcase at the stacks of books on MBTI*...
> 
> ... Well, the point is... I'm well read on MBTI, and Jung. And general psychology. And philosophy of the mind. And dungeons & dragons.
> 
> There's a sense in which, I feel like I know all that this human species has, at this point in history, come to know about the so-called "mind". I don't have answers that don't exist yet, but the more I focus on just one field of science - like psychology - the more I feel like something is being left out of the equation.
> 
> I feel like, we need to look someplace else for fresh inspirations. Maybe the answers to how the mind works don't even have anything to do with psychology, or even neuroscience. Maybe they have to do with theoretical physics. Maybe the real issue is a philosophical one, and we're like monkeys clicking rocks together making sparks and we have no clue what fire even is yet.
> 
> *Have you ever had a moment, where you stopped and watched something happening, and something about the thing that was happening revealed some kind of profound insight to you that related to some completely unrelated thing? Like, you glance at the small creases in the fabric covering the interior contour of your Sennheiser HD280 pro headphones, and it reminds you of an image you once saw of a kind of galaxy, and you get that intense vibe. The vibe that makes you feel like you're living in a simulation, and for just a moment you caught a glimpse of something fundamental about that simulation, something that makes you feel like... the simulation isn't as complicated as it looks.*


Fucking hell yes. How many people know this feeling? I don't know. Anything can trigger it, though it tends to come with a sense of infinitely abstract complexity. Incidentally I was actually skimming through a thread that triggered this very, for the lack of a better word, sensation or feeling: 

http://personalitycafe.com/critical-thinking-philosophy/216050-i-love-capitalism-greed-good.html

Subject matter aside, that can be argued infinitely I think, what really struck me as I was reading through was how damn surrealistic and bizarre it all was. You see all these people arguing over these things. It may appear petty even, depending on how one views it. I suppose in a sense, what you get is some weird hyper-realistic detachment going on, almost like you see how it fits into a much greater, grander cosmic scheme that we are normally too occupied playing our roles in to ever truly notice that we are just doing that, playing roles and nothing more. No one really stops and thinks "hey wait a minute, wtf am I doing here and why?" 



> Maybe things really aren't that complicated.
> 
> You grow up. You're a kid. You don't know the things. You go to school. Everyone tells you to take it seriously. Tests are a big deal. Grades. Competition. College. Pressure. Responsibility. Jobs. Careers. Gotta make money. Ambition. Opportunity. You learn so many things. Now you know a lot of things.


I keep thinking of the holographic principle if you know of it? That truth may be simpler than what we realize. Incidentally, I am quite sure that Leonard Susskind who came up with the theory, is an Ni dom. 



> We want to figure everything out, but it's like we're afraid. Like, somehow we imagine that the universe must be so intimidating, so hard to master, so vast and incomprehensible. Authors like H.P. Lovecraft become cult, and legendary, because they prey on that kind of natural insecurity.
> 
> But something must be wrong with my head, because I don't relate to that feeling at all. I never have. All my life I've felt the opposite - like, why does everyone take all of this so seriously? What's the big deal. It's easy. Just do the math. Just write the words. Just read. Just listen. If you want to remember, then just remember it. Pass the tests. If you care, then you care. If you don't, then of course you will fail.
> 
> The problem isn't a lack of a challenge either. The problem is, _who cares._ It doesn't _matter_. It's just _bullshit_.
> 
> It's just bread and circus.
> 
> What is nature trying to do? Why is life so important?
> 
> It's just shit happening. It doesn't _mean anything._
> 
> Just do whatever you want, say whatever you want, believe whatever you want, because in the end the only one who really gives a shit about the consequences of your beliefs and actions is you. Other people don't even matter unless they matter to _you_. The one in control, the master, is _you._
> 
> Do anything.


Yes, as a tl;dr version of what I was thinking reading that thread was essentially so we can sit here all day long arguing about what political model is the best, but why does that even matter when we're at the brink of destruction and the end of time if we're not going to *DO* something about it? 

With that said, I love Lovecraft. I tend to find that his ideas are interesting usually, usually the travel to other dimensions or such that we cannot physically experience but are despite all that very real but how do we know? I also like his play on insanity, that our sense of rationality is misleading us. We think we know so much and understand so much but yet we know nothing at all. That's the simple truth on the matter. What we know and understand, they're tiny fractions meant to keep us sane. Purely and solely so. They don't mean much in and of themselves. 

So what you say, it preys on a specific mentality, that we cannot trust that which we think we know and understand and that our understanding itself, it leads to a certain abstraction that invites instability. What should we trust? Science and numbers? There's magic in them. Not just because that's what Lovecraft insinuated or because that's what the occultists think/thought, but because that is simply what we perceive. 

In fiction, magic tends to be externalized as a force operating on its own, but I don't think that's what real magic is. Real magic, what we would be capable of producing in this world with its limitations, that's in a sense stripping the world naked. There is always another veil beyond the one which we see. There's a certain point in which we want to believe, trick and fool ourselves that if we can just define the properties, then we are safe. We have these rules, boundaries and limitations. We know the distance between X and Y and we can infinitely abstract this definition of space should we so desire, but it doesn't change the fact that it is just that, a space. Nothing more, nothing less. There's a freedom when you remove all boundaries and controls and some people can't handle that, I suppose. It's easier to just stick to what is known.

Addendum
Oh yeah, I just remembered you got into metal music not too long time ago-ish? At least my memory isn't always completely fail haha. Speaking about this very subject, I think you would immensely appreciate the band Scar Symmetry, especially their lyrics. Very very sure their lyricist must be an Ni type because all of their lyrics just gush so much Ni:


----------



## adam2020

theredpanda said:


> It does have to do with intuition- hard to explain. I can't be alone- if I'm left alone I go crazy- I'm an extrovert but a very complicated one.


I might be wrong but this seems to be an issue that effects quite a few ENTP's, technically being an extrovert but not quite matching up to the extrovert profile


----------



## absyrd

adam2020 said:


> I might be wrong but this seems to be an issue that effects quite a few ENTP's, technically being an extrovert but not quite matching up to the extrovert profile


Ne-domness in general.


----------



## PaladinX

Abraxas said:


> Isn't that what Jung said in Psychological Types?
> 
> *He said you can't see introverted functions.* I mean, they're introverted. So they're like... not... extraverted.
> 
> That doesn't mean "by definition" that they're undifferentiated. They can still be conscious processes and integral to the conscious ego, it's just that you can't see them in the external world. You can only see them by proxy, through extraversion and extraverted functions. Or, in the case of the introvert - the decisive _lack_ of extraversion and extraverted functions. That's why I say, you look at this dude with Ti and he's just not doing anything. He's just sitting there thinking.


Can you please cite a source or provide a quote for the bolded line?


----------



## theredpanda

adam2020 said:


> I might be wrong but this seems to be an issue that effects quite a few ENTP's, technically being an extrovert but not quite matching up to the extrovert profile


Yep it's because of our Ne- we are in our own mind often


----------



## Psychopomp

adam2020 said:


> I might be wrong but this seems to be an issue that effects quite a few ENTP's, technically being an extrovert but not quite matching up to the extrovert profile





absyrd2 said:


> Ne-domness in general.


Unfortunately overly used as a justification of such a typing. In and of itself not particularly meaningful. Lots of types and lots of people can be and are quite ambiverted. 

@_Abraxas_ @_PaladinX_ - I am also curious about the "you can't see Xi" thing. I've toyed with such hyperbole in the past, but one needn't look any further than my own posts to see that a dominant Ti looks quite conspicuously like dominant Thinking... what with the constant use of logic. One might say, though, that we do not see their workings? Thus making them harder to follow or get in sync with?


----------



## reckful

PaladinX said:


> Can you please cite a source or provide a quote for the bolded line?


Here's one relevant passage:



Jung said:


> The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object. ... The introvert, on the other hand, who reacts almost entirely within, cannot as a rule discharge his reactions except in explosions of affect. He suppresses them, though they may be just as quick as those of the extravert. They do not appear on the surface, hence the introvert may easily give the impression of slowness. Since immediate reactions are always strongly personal, the extravert cannot help asserting his personality. But the introvert hides his personality by suppressing all his immediate reactions. Empathy is not his aim, nor the transference of contents to the object, but rather abstraction from the object. ... *As a rule one is badly informed about the introvert because his real self is not visible. His incapacity for immediate outward reaction keeps his personality hidden.* ...
> 
> Both [extraverts and introverts] are capable of _enthusiasm_. What fills the extravert's heart flows out of his mouth, but the enthusiasm of the introvert is the very thing that seals his lips.


----------



## Psychopomp

@_reckful_ - the third example of a description being less than clear, not in sync with, not a copy of the Chapter X descriptions comes quickly on in the description of Antisthenes:


* *






> Antisthenes, the representative of the former school, although by no means remote from the Socratic mental atmosphere and even a friend of Xenophon, was nevertheless avowedly illdisposed to Plato's beautiful world of ideas. He even wrote a pamphlet against Plato, in which he offensively converted Plato's name to . means boy or man, but from the sexual aspect, since comes from , penis; whereby Antisthenes, in the well-known manner of projection, delicately suggests to us upon what matters he has a grudge against Plato. As we have seen, this was also for Origen, the Christian, the 'other' -- prime-cause (Auch-Urgrund), that very nevi I whom he sought to lay hold of by means of self-castration, in order to pass over without impediment into the richly embellished world of ideas. But Antisthenes was a pre-Christian pagan, to whom that thing was still of profound interest for which the phallus since earliest times has stood as the acknowledged symbol, namely sensation in its most liberal sense; not that he was alone in this interest, for as we well know it concerned the whole Cynic school, whose Leitmotiv was: back to nature! The reasons which might push Antisthenes' concrete feeling and sensation into the foreground were by no means few; he was before everything a proletarian, who made a virtue of his envy. He was no , no thorough-bred Greek: he was of the periphery; moreover, his teaching was carried on outside, before the gates of Athens, where he devoted himself to the study of proletarian behaviour, a model of Cynic philosophy. Furthermore, the whole school was composed of proletarians, or at least "peripheral" people, all of whom were in themselves a demolishing criticism of traditional values. After Antisthenes one of the most outstanding representatives of the school was Diogenes, who conferred upon himself the title (Dog); his tomb was also adorned by a dog in Parian marble. Despite his warm love of man, for his whole nature irradiated a wealth of human understanding, he none the less ruthlessly satirized everything that men of his time held sacred. He ridiculed the horror that gripped the spectators in the theatre at sight of the Thyestian repast [3] or the incest tragedy of OEdipus; anthropophagy was not so bad, since human flesh can lay no claim to an exceptional position as against other flesh, and furthermore the misfortune of an incestuous relationship was by no means such a grave evil, as the illuminating example of our domestic animals proves to us.
> .....
> Stilpon taught that generic concepts are without reality or objective validity; who, therefore, speaks of man speaks of nobody, because he designates "" ("neither this nor that "). Plutarch ascribes to him the statement "" ("one thing can affirm nothing concerning [the nature of] another"). Antisthenes' teaching was very similar.
> ....
> According to Antisthenes, the inherency-principle consists in this, that not only not many predicates. but that no predicate at all, can be affirmed of a subject which differs from it. Antisthenes granted as valid only those predicates that were identical with the subject. Apart from the circumstance that such statements of identity (as 'the sweet is sweet') affirm nothing at all and are, therefore. without meaning, the weakness of the inherency principle lies in this: that a judgment of identity has also nothing to do with the thing; the word' grass' has literally nothing to do with the thing 'grass.'
> ....
> Gomperz also felt this psychological foundation in Antisthenes, and brings out the following points: ... "a sturdy commonsense, a resistance to all enthusiasm, perchance also a strength of individual feeling, which stamp the personality and therefore the whole individual character as a type of complete reality." We might further add, the envy of a man without the full rights of citizenship, a proletarian, a man whom fate had sparingly endowed with beauty, and who could at the best, only climb to the heights by demolishing the values of others. Especially was this characteristic of the Cynic, who must ever be carping at others, and to whom nothing was sacred when it chanced to belong to another; he even made no scruples at destroying the peace of the home, if he might thereby seize an occasion to impose upon mankind his invaluable counsel.
> 
> 
> To this essentially critical attitude of mind Plato's world of ideas with its eternal reality stands diametrically opposed. It is plain that the psychology of the man who fashioned that world had an orientation that was altogether foreign to the critical, disintegrating judgments portrayed above.





In this case, Jung describes Antisthenes as an example of extraverted feeling and sensation, or perhaps feeling-sensation, or perhaps just concrete extraversion. What he means by that is a more complicated thing, which I have many thoughts on that I will spare you. Nevertheless, this another example of a lot of describing of someone that in no way strongly correlates to a single function description in Chapter X alone. I am certainly curious to see which you think it correlates to... or which you think Jung correlates it to, or whatever. 

Jung does indeed provide fragmented and sporadic descriptions of a pretty large number of different people, which of course do not tend to sync well with a single Chapter X description... but that is attributable as much to the lack of depth or effort Jung put into them toward that end. It wasn't, in a sense, his intention and thus not applicable. It would therefore be somewhat misleading to say that they are examples of full descriptions at all. Really, the aim of all of the descriptions should be noted as not being toward that end, though they are, in fact, descriptions, regardless of their end. Jung also states in many of these descriptions that we cannot know enough about the individual to type them for sure, outside of using them as examples to illustrate a point. Such is certainly worth mentioning. 

While he doesn't do much toward actually describing Schiller, he does use him as an example of introverted thinking, and Schiller seems fairly consistent with that. However, I think it can be cited as a deviation from an overly binary reliance on Chapter X descriptions when he uses Schiller as a jumping off point into describing how an introvert or an extravert might be characterized by their inferior relationship with what he here calls 'feeling-sensation'. These interactions are often cited in Jung's Chapter X descriptions, but in this case:



> When the energy belonging to positive thinking is bestowed upon "feeling-sensation", which would be equivalent to a reversal of the introverted type, the qualities of the undifferentiated. archaic "feeling-sensation" become paramount, i.e. the individual relapses into an extreme relatedness, or identification with the sensed object. This state corresponds with a so-called inferior extraversion, i.e. an extraversion which, as it were, detaches the individual entirely from his ego and dissolves him into archaic, collective ties and identifications. He is then no longer "himself", but a mere relatedness; he is identical with his object and consequently without a standpoint. Against this condition the introvert instinctively feels the greatest resistance, which, however, is no sort of guarantee against his repeated and unwitting lapse into it. Under no circumstances should this state be confused with the extraversion of an extraverted type, although the introvert is continually prone to make this mistake and to show towards the true extraversion that same contempt which, at bottom, he always feels for his own extraverted relation. The second instance, on the other hand, corresponds with a pure presentation of the introverted thinking type, who through amputation of the inferior feeling-sensation condemns himself to sterility,i.e. he enters that state in which "humanity will reach him as little from without as from within".


This state, which the introvert has "no sort of guarantee against his repeated and unwitting lapse into", which the introvert is "continually prone" to mistake with 'true extraversion'... and thus show the same contempt for it as his own inferior manifestation of it. 

Jung further assists the point here in the last sentence. He notes that a 'pure presentation' of the introverted thinking type would amputate this aspect of himself entirely. THIS correlates with Jung's description of introverted thinking in Chapter X. I think this could be easily qualified as 'extreme', given one's own preference.

It seems unlikely that Jung had any intention of portraying the latter 'pure presentation' as the typical one. I don't see that at all, and it appears Jung repeatedly states or implies otherwise.


----------



## Entropic

arkigos said:


> Unfortunately overly used as a justification of such a typing. In and of itself not particularly meaningful. Lots of types and lots of people can be and are quite ambiverted.
> 
> @_Abraxas_ @_PaladinX_ - I am also curious about the "you can't see Xi" thing. I've toyed with such hyperbole in the past, but one needn't look any further than my own posts to see that a dominant Ti looks quite conspicuously like dominant Thinking... what with the constant use of logic. One might say, though, that we do not see their workings? Thus making them harder to follow or get in sync with?


I think this is a matter of how observation is understood. Do you extrovert your logical conclusions in the same way Te types do it? No, of course not. The real logic of your thinking if you will, the crux of it, is still something internalized and unique to you. That doesn't mean that your thinking doesn't leave any trails behind at all, that it's impossible to observe. Perhaps if you were one to barely if ever communicate your thinking, then it would be difficult to type you at all since we would glean little to no insight into your mind to begin with, but we do see your thinking because you lay it to bare to see whenever you logically abstractize something. So while you do not extrovert your thinking in such a sense, it's not like it's impossible to observe. 

I am personally of the belief that if introversion would be impossible to observe, we arrive at an absurdist position because if we cannot observe introversion, then how do we know it exists? How do we know someone is introverted if we cannot observe their introversion? 

What we observe are how people relate to the object. Do they move away from or towards it? The analogy can be made so simple. So we have a person who is standing alone and then there is space between this person and another group of people. Does this person move towards the group or away from it? We could also induct that not being in the group means away from the group, but I think that kind of thinking is flawed because it creates a false dilemma.

To clarify, I think people who think introversion can't be observed directly and only through the lack of an extroverted presence are committing a logical fallacy because it must necessarily assume that there are no shades of grey between introversion-extroversion but the truth of the matter is that there is. Would an ambivert in the scenario of being alone and standing between a group of people be alone or not? 

Introversion can be observed because we can observe how people relate to the object. Instead of looking at where people stand on the scale of introversion-extroversion by trying to map out their specific position, we need to look at how they move on that scale. So different focus all together.

To address another issue I see is sometimes being raised a lot, is that people think that we can only observe extroversion because extroversion is tangible and expressed outside of the self and because introversion exists in people's heads or whatever, we can't observe it because it doesn't exist out in the "world". This is also a conceptual error and flawed reasoning because it again fundamentally misunderstands the actual nature of introversion-extroversion which is the relationship the ego has to the object world. I used to compare introversion and extroversion to subjective versus objective thinking in philosophy, and I think it still largely holds true. Introverts will be subjectivists because they seek introverted nuance by exploring something in depth. Introverts recognize that what is true for them may not be true for others, may that be in terms of perception or judgement. I recall that even Jung wrote that extroverts generalize, in that extroverts tend to think that which is true for the collective or themselves is true for everyone else too, may that be in terms of judgement or perception.

Of course, this is still simplified, but it's in my opinion a more accurate way to understand the problem anyway. Which is to say that an extrovert can still possess a subjective point of view and an introvert may possess an objective point of view; what matters isn't those views but why they hold those views.


----------



## Abraxas

PaladinX said:


> Can you please cite a source or provide a quote for the bolded line?


I have class all day today, but I'll try to look it up when I get a chance.


----------



## Kathy Kane

reckful said:


> Here's one relevant passage:


Jung's observations were accurate. Introverted functions are subjective and personal and won't extravert themselves. It's contradictory to the purpose of the functions. It is apparent in introverts who are quiet or who have a hard time articulating what they want to say. They have a differentiated introverted dominate function, but have yet to differentiate their aux extraverted function. The one they need to extravert themselves and relay their introverted information. 

The opposite is true as well. Extraverts with undifferentiated introverted functions may seem spazzy, spacey, hyper, or all over the place. It's because they haven't developed that inner subjective counterpart. 

The way we reveal the introverted function is by using the extraverted functions as the vessel. The introverted function will remain hidden, but not as in - we don't see it -, but as in it won't extravert itself. The extraverted functions do that for them.


----------



## reckful

arkigos said:


> @_reckful_ - the third example of a description being less than clear, not in sync with, not a copy of the Chapter X descriptions comes quickly on in the description of Antisthenes:
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antisthenes, the representative of the former school, although by no means remote from the Socratic mental atmosphere and even a friend of Xenophon, was nevertheless avowedly illdisposed to Plato's beautiful world of ideas. He even wrote a pamphlet against Plato, in which he offensively converted Plato's name to . means boy or man, but from the sexual aspect, since comes from , penis; whereby Antisthenes, in the well-known manner of projection, delicately suggests to us upon what matters he has a grudge against Plato. As we have seen, this was also for Origen, the Christian, the 'other' -- prime-cause (Auch-Urgrund), that very nevi I whom he sought to lay hold of by means of self-castration, in order to pass over without impediment into the richly embellished world of ideas. But Antisthenes was a pre-Christian pagan, to whom that thing was still of profound interest for which the phallus since earliest times has stood as the acknowledged symbol, namely sensation in its most liberal sense; not that he was alone in this interest, for as we well know it concerned the whole Cynic school, whose Leitmotiv was: back to nature! The reasons which might push Antisthenes' concrete feeling and sensation into the foreground were by no means few; he was before everything a proletarian, who made a virtue of his envy. He was no , no thorough-bred Greek: he was of the periphery; moreover, his teaching was carried on outside, before the gates of Athens, where he devoted himself to the study of proletarian behaviour, a model of Cynic philosophy. Furthermore, the whole school was composed of proletarians, or at least "peripheral" people, all of whom were in themselves a demolishing criticism of traditional values. After Antisthenes one of the most outstanding representatives of the school was Diogenes, who conferred upon himself the title (Dog); his tomb was also adorned by a dog in Parian marble. Despite his warm love of man, for his whole nature irradiated a wealth of human understanding, he none the less ruthlessly satirized everything that men of his time held sacred. He ridiculed the horror that gripped the spectators in the theatre at sight of the Thyestian repast [3] or the incest tragedy of OEdipus; anthropophagy was not so bad, since human flesh can lay no claim to an exceptional position as against other flesh, and furthermore the misfortune of an incestuous relationship was by no means such a grave evil, as the illuminating example of our domestic animals proves to us.
> .....
> Stilpon taught that generic concepts are without reality or objective validity; who, therefore, speaks of man speaks of nobody, because he designates "" ("neither this nor that "). Plutarch ascribes to him the statement "" ("one thing can affirm nothing concerning [the nature of] another"). Antisthenes' teaching was very similar.
> ....
> According to Antisthenes, the inherency-principle consists in this, that not only not many predicates. but that no predicate at all, can be affirmed of a subject which differs from it. Antisthenes granted as valid only those predicates that were identical with the subject. Apart from the circumstance that such statements of identity (as 'the sweet is sweet') affirm nothing at all and are, therefore. without meaning, the weakness of the inherency principle lies in this: that a judgment of identity has also nothing to do with the thing; the word' grass' has literally nothing to do with the thing 'grass.'
> ....
> Gomperz also felt this psychological foundation in Antisthenes, and brings out the following points: ... "a sturdy commonsense, a resistance to all enthusiasm, perchance also a strength of individual feeling, which stamp the personality and therefore the whole individual character as a type of complete reality." We might further add, the envy of a man without the full rights of citizenship, a proletarian, a man whom fate had sparingly endowed with beauty, and who could at the best, only climb to the heights by demolishing the values of others. Especially was this characteristic of the Cynic, who must ever be carping at others, and to whom nothing was sacred when it chanced to belong to another; he even made no scruples at destroying the peace of the home, if he might thereby seize an occasion to impose upon mankind his invaluable counsel.
> To this essentially critical attitude of mind Plato's world of ideas with its eternal reality stands diametrically opposed. It is plain that the psychology of the man who fashioned that world had an orientation that was altogether foreign to the critical, disintegrating judgments portrayed above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Jung describes Antisthenes as an example of extraverted feeling and sensation, or perhaps feeling-sensation, or perhaps just concrete extraversion. What he means by that is a more complicated thing, which I have many thoughts on that I will spare you. Nevertheless, this another example of a lot of describing of someone that in no way strongly correlates to a single function description in Chapter X alone. I am certainly curious to see which you think it correlates to... or which you think Jung correlates it to, or whatever.
> 
> Jung does indeed provide fragmented and sporadic descriptions of a pretty large number of different people, which of course do not tend to sync well with a single Chapter X description... but that is attributable as much to the lack of depth or effort Jung put into them toward that end. It wasn't, in a sense, his intention and thus not applicable. It would therefore be somewhat misleading to say that they are examples of full descriptions at all. Really, the aim of all of the descriptions should be noted as not being toward that end, though they are, in fact, descriptions, regardless of their end. Jung also states in many of these descriptions that we cannot know enough about the individual to type them for sure, outside of using them as examples to illustrate a point. Such is certainly worth mentioning.
> 
> While he doesn't do much toward actually describing Schiller, he does use him as an example of introverted thinking, and Schiller seems fairly consistent with that. However, I think it can be cited as a deviation from an overly binary reliance on Chapter X descriptions when he uses Schiller as a jumping off point into describing how an introvert or an extravert might be characterized by their inferior relationship with what he here calls 'feeling-sensation'. These interactions are often cited in Jung's Chapter X descriptions, but in this case:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the energy belonging to positive thinking is bestowed upon "feeling-sensation", which would be equivalent to a reversal of the introverted type, the qualities of the undifferentiated. archaic "feeling-sensation" become paramount, i.e. the individual relapses into an extreme relatedness, or identification with the sensed object. This state corresponds with a so-called inferior extraversion, i.e. an extraversion which, as it were, detaches the individual entirely from his ego and dissolves him into archaic, collective ties and identifications. He is then no longer "himself", but a mere relatedness; he is identical with his object and consequently without a standpoint. Against this condition the introvert instinctively feels the greatest resistance, which, however, is no sort of guarantee against his repeated and unwitting lapse into it. Under no circumstances should this state be confused with the extraversion of an extraverted type, although the introvert is continually prone to make this mistake and to show towards the true extraversion that same contempt which, at bottom, he always feels for his own extraverted relation. The second instance, on the other hand, corresponds with a pure presentation of the introverted thinking type, who through amputation of the inferior feeling-sensation condemns himself to sterility,i.e. he enters that state in which "humanity will reach him as little from without as from within".
> 
> 
> 
> This state, which the introvert has "no sort of guarantee against his repeated and unwitting lapse into", which the introvert is "continually prone" to mistake with 'true extraversion'... and thus show the same contempt for it as his own inferior manifestation of it.
> 
> Jung further assists the point here in the last sentence. He notes that a 'pure presentation' of the introverted thinking type would amputate this aspect of himself entirely. THIS correlates with Jung's description of introverted thinking in Chapter X. I think this could be easily qualified as 'extreme', given one's own preference.
> 
> It seems unlikely that Jung had any intention of portraying the latter 'pure presentation' as the typical one. I don't see that at all, and it appears Jung repeatedly states or implies otherwise.
Click to expand...


You continue to mischaracterize what the "pure" in Jung's sentence is referring to. Here's the passage again:



Jung said:


> In the foregoing descriptions *I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life*. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which *single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced*. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.


What Jung is saying is that his _portraits_ are artifically "pure" in the sense that they're pretty much limited to the "common and therefore typical features" of the types, while generally omitting the "individual features" that would distinguish, e.g., a Ti-dom with an N-aux from a Ti-dom with an S-aux.

Jung is _not_ saying that what he calls "the common and therefore typical features" of, say, Ti-doms that he includes in his Ti-dom portrait are features that are only "common and therefore typical" of a small and relatively extreme minority of Ti-doms who have unusually "pure" personalities (because they essentially don't have an auxiliary function).

========================================

In support of your perspective that the Chapter 10 portraits were generally just descriptions of "extreme" types, you said you'd "been reading the remainder of Psychological Types," and that "*Jung gives countless examples of types* throughout the book" and "*None of them are ... in sync with his descriptions of the functions*" in Chapter 10.

I pointed out that there wasn't exactly an abundance of "examples of type" outside Chapter 10, since most of the rest of Psychological Types focuses on extraversion and introversion generally, rather than the eight specific functions.

And Antisthenes is a good example of that. Jung really just IDs him as an extravert — and even that is subject to qualification, as noted below — so it doesn't make sense to use him as an example of somebody we can compare to one of Jung's eight Chapter 10 profiles and say he is or isn't "in sync" (as you put it) with that profile. He's certainly "in sync" with Jung's concepts of extraversion and introversion generally, which is precisely why Jung uses him as an example of the extraverted perspective that Jung associated with the philosophical school of _nominalism_ (the subject under discussion in that section). Jung certainly doesn't give us much of a portrait of Antisthenes, and it's arguably unclear whether, in his passing reference to Antisthenes's "concrete feeling and sensation," he's using "concrete" in the _extraverted_ sense (in which case he's presumably viewing Fe and Se as Antisthenes's conscious functions) or in the _undifferentiated_ sense (in which case he's presumably referring to either F or S, or both, as unconscious functions).

It's maybe also worth noting that Jung also states, in that same section of Psychological Types, that the fact that Antisthenes's philosophical perspective is (as Jung saw it) quintessentially extraverted doesn't mean that it's absolutely certain that Antisthenes himself was an extravert. So... not only doesn't Jung clearly ID Antisthenes as one of his eight types, he even allows for the possibility that he may have been an introvert.


----------



## Psychopomp

reckful said:


> You continue to mischaracterize what the "pure" in Jung's sentence is referring to. Here's the passage again:
> 
> 
> 
> What Jung is saying is that his _portraits_ are artifically "pure" in the sense that they're pretty much limited to the "common and therefore typical features" of the types, while generally omitting the "individual features" that would distinguish, e.g., a Ti-dom with an N-aux from a Ti-dom with an S-aux.
> 
> Jung is _not_ saying that what he calls "the common and therefore typical features" of, say, Ti-doms that he includes in his Ti-dom portrait are features that are only "common and therefore typical" of a small and relatively extreme minority of Ti-doms who have unusually "pure" personalities (because they essentially don't have an auxiliary function).
> 
> ========================================
> 
> In support of your perspective that the Chapter 10 portraits were generally just descriptions of "extreme" types, you said you'd "been reading the remainder of Psychological Types," and that "*Jung gives countless examples of types* throughout the book" and "*None of them are ... in sync with his descriptions of the functions*" in Chapter 10.
> 
> I pointed out that there wasn't exactly an abundance of "examples of type" outside Chapter 10, since most of the rest of Psychological Types focuses on extraversion and introversion generally, rather than the eight specific functions.
> 
> And Antisthenes is a good example of that. Jung really just IDs him as an extravert — and even that is subject to qualification, as noted below — so it doesn't make sense to use him as an example of somebody we can compare to one of Jung's eight Chapter 10 profiles and say he is or isn't "in sync" (as you put it) with that profile. He's certainly "in sync" with Jung's concepts of extraversion and introversion generally, which is precisely why Jung uses him as an example of the extraverted perspective that Jung associated with the philosophical school of _nominalism_ (the subject under discussion in that section). Jung certainly doesn't give us much of a portrait of Antisthenes, and it's arguably unclear whether, in his passing reference to Antisthenes's "concrete feeling and sensation," he's using "concrete" in the _extraverted_ sense (in which case he's presumably viewing Fe and Se as Antisthenes's conscious functions) or in the _undifferentiated_ sense (in which case he's presumably referring to either F or S, or both, as unconscious functions).
> 
> It's maybe also worth noting that Jung also states, in that same section of Psychological Types, that the fact that Antisthenes's philosophical perspective is (as Jung saw it) quintessentially extraverted doesn't mean that it's absolutely certain that Antisthenes himself was an extravert. So... not only doesn't Jung clearly ID Antisthenes as one of his eight types, he even allows for the possibility that he may have been an introvert.


Again, it doesn't matter what Jung thought he was.. but that there is a description and that it does or does not correlate to one of Jung's type descriptions. Unless you contend that he was misrepresenting them, then his conclusions are irrelevant. Jung says on the one hand that 'common and typical' examples manifest thusly, and on the other hand gives descriptions of people that cannot be easily correlated.

So, like this:

A: Girls commonly and typically wear pink.
B: Boys commonly and typically wear blue.
C: Social types wear bright colors.
D: Anti-social types wear dark colors. 
E: Pat was walking along in a what appeared to me to be a purple jacket, brown pants, and black shoes.
F: Pat is perhaps an example of an anti-social in this framework, though we cannot be sure.

So, is Pat a boy or a girl? 

You contend that wasn't the point. I agree. Nevertheless, Pat was described. That description was ambiguous on the point of Pat's gender. Don't you agree? You are the one who brought it up and held me to it so directly. You can argue it wasn't Jung's point or his perspective or this or that or whatever... I'll undoubtedly agree. Nevertheless, there are a ton of descriptions of people's behavior, words, priorities, and attempts to interpret them in Psychological Types. If what type they were was clear, don't you think it would be clear? Or that Jung would make it clear? Jung struggled to give a single clear answer on anyone's type... ever. Making quick and clear correlations to Jung's descriptions is difficult and ambiguous at best. Probably because that wasn't Jung's goal. One might argue that Jung gives a lot of examples of people in the book and none of them correlate well to any individual description. Ah! You can certain argue the use of the word 'types', by which I meant 'people, who are of a type'. Sure. There are nevertheless a wealth of anecdotes, quotes, examples, and recounting in the book ... and tracing them to a single description is difficult at best. That is probably why people have so failed to tell how Jung typed any given person.

You might again say that his point was extraversion vs introversion. Great. That doesn't affect the point. 

I don't think either one of us is actually arguing with the other here. I love it when that happens. In the end, it is a failure to comprehend the other one's point... or value their emphasis of that point. 

I don't disagree with your interpretation of Jung on the point of "common and typical features, disproportionately stressed". That isn't my point at all. My point is and has always been that people can't be correlated to those descriptions alone, and sometimes it can be quite ambiguous in the telling.... for any number of reasons. I am not certain we disagree on that. Jung certainly struggled to clearly type lots of people, and often deferred or changed his mind. That he deferred and focused on a more ambiguous or general dichotomy (E/I) or that he felt it was unclear or not knowable is hardly a strong rebuttal to my assertion of essentially the same thing. 

You could say that my statement was misleading in that it might be inferred from my statement that Jung intended the descriptions to correlate but failed... (which it isn't meant to imply) or that most of the descriptions in Psychological Types are too brief or specific, as a caveat. I'd agree.


----------



## Abraxas

I'm unable to find the specific passage that had sparked in my mind. I may have simply imagined it.

I thought I recalled a passage in Psychological Types when he expresses some concern that trying to view an introverted process from the outside is impossible because everything external appears to the psyche as extraverted.

I'm paraphrasing. I can't find the passage so I could be wrong.


----------



## Tranquility

reckful said:


> You continue to mischaracterize what the "pure" in Jung's sentence is referring to. Here's the passage again:
> 
> 
> 
> What Jung is saying is that his _portraits_ are artifically "pure" in the sense that they're pretty much limited to the "common and therefore typical features" of the types, while generally omitting the "individual features" that would distinguish, e.g., a Ti-dom with an N-aux from a Ti-dom with an S-aux.
> 
> Jung is _not_ saying that what he calls "the common and therefore typical features" of, say, Ti-doms that he includes in his Ti-dom portrait are features that are only "common and therefore typical" of a small and relatively extreme minority of Ti-doms who have unusually "pure" personalities (because they essentially don't have an auxiliary function).
> 
> ========================================
> 
> In support of your perspective that the Chapter 10 portraits were generally just descriptions of "extreme" types, you said you'd "been reading the remainder of Psychological Types," and that "*Jung gives countless examples of types* throughout the book" and "*None of them are ... in sync with his descriptions of the functions*" in Chapter 10.
> 
> I pointed out that there wasn't exactly an abundance of "examples of type" outside Chapter 10, since most of the rest of Psychological Types focuses on extraversion and introversion generally, rather than the eight specific functions.
> 
> And Antisthenes is a good example of that. Jung really just IDs him as an extravert — and even that is subject to qualification, as noted below — so it doesn't make sense to use him as an example of somebody we can compare to one of Jung's eight Chapter 10 profiles and say he is or isn't "in sync" (as you put it) with that profile. He's certainly "in sync" with Jung's concepts of extraversion and introversion generally, which is precisely why Jung uses him as an example of the extraverted perspective that Jung associated with the philosophical school of _nominalism_ (the subject under discussion in that section). Jung certainly doesn't give us much of a portrait of Antisthenes, and it's arguably unclear whether, in his passing reference to Antisthenes's "concrete feeling and sensation," he's using "concrete" in the _extraverted_ sense (in which case he's presumably viewing Fe and Se as Antisthenes's conscious functions) or in the _undifferentiated_ sense (in which case he's presumably referring to either F or S, or both, as unconscious functions).
> 
> It's maybe also worth noting that Jung also states, in that same section of Psychological Types, that the fact that Antisthenes's philosophical perspective is (as Jung saw it) quintessentially extraverted doesn't mean that it's absolutely certain that Antisthenes himself was an extravert. So... not only doesn't Jung clearly ID Antisthenes as one of his eight types, he even allows for the possibility that he may have been an introvert.


I found a few people Jung described as one of his eight types, with relative uncertainty:
Tertullian: IT-S
Origen: ES-F
Radbertus: EF-?
Darwin: ET-?
Kant: IT-N
Nietzsche: IN-T
Furneaux Jordan: IF-?
Schopenhauer: IT-N

And the rest I could find that he specifically pointed out, typed only along introvert and extravert, again uncertainly:

Scotus Erigina: I
Goethe: E
Spitteler: I
Humphry Davy: E
Liebig: E
Robert Mayer: I
Faraday: I

Most of Jung's analyses of these people are through their own work or through the work of others, which he then correlates to the subjects themselves.


----------



## Tranquility

arkigos said:


> @_reckful_ - the third example of a description being less than clear, not in sync with, not a copy of the Chapter X descriptions comes quickly on in the description of Antisthenes:
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, Jung describes Antisthenes as an example of extraverted feeling and sensation, or perhaps feeling-sensation, or perhaps just concrete extraversion. What he means by that is a more complicated thing, which I have many thoughts on that I will spare you. Nevertheless, this another example of a lot of describing of someone that in no way strongly correlates to a single function description in Chapter X alone. I am certainly curious to see which you think it correlates to... or which you think Jung correlates it to, or whatever.
> 
> Jung does indeed provide fragmented and sporadic descriptions of a pretty large number of different people, which of course do not tend to sync well with a single Chapter X description... but that is attributable as much to the lack of depth or effort Jung put into them toward that end. It wasn't, in a sense, his intention and thus not applicable. It would therefore be somewhat misleading to say that they are examples of full descriptions at all. Really, the aim of all of the descriptions should be noted as not being toward that end, though they are, in fact, descriptions, regardless of their end. Jung also states in many of these descriptions that we cannot know enough about the individual to type them for sure, outside of using them as examples to illustrate a point. Such is certainly worth mentioning.
> 
> While he doesn't do much toward actually describing Schiller, he does use him as an example of introverted thinking, and Schiller seems fairly consistent with that. However, I think it can be cited as a deviation from an overly binary reliance on Chapter X descriptions when he uses Schiller as a jumping off point into describing how an introvert or an extravert might be characterized by their inferior relationship with what he here calls 'feeling-sensation'. These interactions are often cited in Jung's Chapter X descriptions, but in this case:
> 
> 
> 
> This state, which the introvert has "no sort of guarantee against his repeated and unwitting lapse into", which the introvert is "continually prone" to mistake with 'true extraversion'... and thus show the same contempt for it as his own inferior manifestation of it.
> 
> Jung further assists the point here in the last sentence. He notes that a 'pure presentation' of the introverted thinking type would amputate this aspect of himself entirely. THIS correlates with Jung's description of introverted thinking in Chapter X. I think this could be easily qualified as 'extreme', given one's own preference.
> 
> It seems unlikely that Jung had any intention of portraying the latter 'pure presentation' as the typical one. I don't see that at all, and it appears Jung repeatedly states or implies otherwise.


Actually, Jung types him here as a thinking-intuitive of some sort. Concrete functions are relatively underdeveloped and undifferentiated, so he is saying something caused his unconscious, ignored functions to be pulled up to the surface.


----------



## Psychopomp

EthereaEthos said:


> Actually, Jung types him here as a thinking-intuitive of some sort. Concrete functions are relatively underdeveloped and undifferentiated, so he is saying something caused his unconscious, ignored functions to be pulled up to the surface.


What, who? Antisthenes?


----------



## reckful

EthereaEthos said:


> Actually, Jung types him here as a thinking-intuitive of some sort. Concrete functions are relatively underdeveloped and undifferentiated, so he is saying something caused his unconscious, ignored functions to be pulled up to the surface.


As discussed at great length (with lots of Jung quotes) in this post and the posts it links to, Jung used "abstract" vs. "concrete" in two very different ways in Psychological Types, and he specifically noted that in his Abstract definition in Chapter 11.

As I mentioned in my previous post in this thread, Jung sometimes referred to _unconscious_ functions as "concrete" in the sense of being _undifferentiated_ and "fused" with the other unconscious functions, but he also associated abstract and concrete with introversion and extraversion, with the introverted form of each function being relatively abstract and the extraverted form being relatively concrete.

So Jung thought a person's thinking could be concrete _either_ because it was Te — even though it was differentiated (i.e., in a Te-dom) — or it could be concrete because the person was an F-dom or F-aux whose thinking was largely unconscious (and therefore undifferentiated). But the meaning of "concrete" was substantially different in those two cases.


----------



## Tranquility

reckful said:


> As discussed at great length (with lots of Jung quotes) in this post and the posts it links to, Jung used "abstract" vs. "concrete" in two very different ways in Psychological Types, and he specifically noted that in his Abstract definition in Chapter 11.
> 
> As I mentioned in my previous post in this thread, Jung sometimes referred to _unconscious_ functions as "concrete" in the sense of being _undifferentiated_ and "fused" with the other unconscious functions, but he also associated abstract and concrete with introversion and extraversion, with the introverted form of each function being relatively abstract and the extraverted form being relatively concrete.
> 
> So Jung thought a person's thinking could be concrete _either_ because it was Te — even though it was differentiated (i.e., in a Te-dom) — or it could be concrete because the person was an F-dom or F-aux whose thinking was largely unconscious (and therefore undifferentiated). But the meaning of "concrete" was substantially different in those two cases.


Even so, I am assuming the latter, as he speaks of Antisthenes's concrete functions as a beast rearing it's ugly head. And, I actually believe the ormer is only applicable with differentiated thinking-sensation types, as noted in the section on the auxiliary in chapter 10.


----------



## Tranquility

arkigos said:


> What, who? Antisthenes?


Yes.


----------

