# I thought everyone was an introvert.



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I am somewhat like that too. That's why I am not good at small talk. I used the analogy of city and highway driving. Small talk is city driving. It is stop and go, sputtering changing streets constantly. It is a trap for someone like me. Directed conversation is highway driving. I am good at talking about topics. A conversation like a long drive, more consistent and smooth. There was a thread in the INFJ forum recently about INFJ being good defenders in sports. And I can relate to that. I was always better at countering somebody else's move than initiating my own.


I am not opposed to brief casual human interaction, that stuff called small talk, if I am cheery and rested, or at least not drained, and the person is not a rambler who wants to be my new best friend. I like doing most things alone. I like walking alone, eating alone, shopping alone, et al. It's how I live. If people want to be with me constantly, I want to kill them, unless it's a boyfriend or very good friend. I have no understanding of people who always need a buddy or a small group to eat lunch or go see a movie. I can and will do nearly everything on my own and I like it that way.

However I still enjoy one on one conversation almost daily and am not happy locked in a room with dead thinkers. When I say I like being alone, I still want to leave the house, do things, and have one on one interaction. The days that I avoid live people completely are not common, but I am sure I spend a few days a month that way.

It's exactly as Jung describes it, imposing ones libido on the object, and it takes solitude to do this. However, different types do it in different ways. Like when I told ISTJ I like, say, to go to Target alone, to him he said, you are very controlling of your personal space. But doesn't that make sense for an Fi dom, since its introverted judging, and a highly personal highly subjective function? Difference being that as an Se aux I still want to experience the external world, just through my own aesthetic and ethical bias. He, on the other hand, said that sitting in a coffee shop with strangers makes him feel tired. I am not tired by that as long as I have my own space and some one isn't yammering in my ear, maybe he has to control his Si internal sense so much that for him its activities that sensorarily actually limit his experience, rather than controlling his personal space .

I don't know if that made sense. Im tired, time to get off the Internet.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I basically think that art shows us our highest potential. Something to aspire to. I saw a quote recently that said that modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings. We aren't quite there yet...
> 
> Well Jung said that the greatest dramas are not in the theatre or on stage, but inside everyday people who don't reveal it. They hide it. We all do to an extent. So that's why art is more true, because the hidden world is actually exposed like Aristotle said. If the world wasn't so hidden, it wouldn't be so powerful when exposed. If people weren't so emotionally repressed, art would have much less power. It depends on our running away from ourselves. (I am not talking about you btw, but people in general) We all have inner struggles, and art can be somewhat therapeutic.


I see. Isn't the attitude oriented to finding _potential_ in all these things a more Ne sentiment? Anyway, I agree that art can be more therapeutic, in different ways for different people. Besides, does all art have to show us our highest potential? Some works of art can depict those ideals, yes, but a lot of other works of art just portray the human condition as it is (and some portray it worse than it is), except more artistically. 

It's true that art brings out the inner world, and that makes it powerful. But imo the inner world isn't any less true whether or not it is depicted in art. It also depends on whose POV the art is being looked at from. If you show me beautiful art of someone else's inner world, I'm likely still not going to find it as perfect as simple art of my own inner world. Relatibility is important, and moreover, all art cannot resonate with everyone, and therefore the appreciation of art and how much it contributes to someone's understanding of themselves is subjective too. 

Also, one can equally say that there are as many emotionally expressive people as there are emotionally repressed ones. Art isn't always about finding oneself, because not everyone is running away from themselves, right?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Honestly it sounds like he has a bias against Pe as a Pi type.
> 
> How does a person get to be thirty without realizing everyone doesn't have a rich inner life? He must be VERY Pi, I believe he is most assuredly INxJ.


How sure are you about this making this statement? 
@FearAndTrembling a question, but which jungian portrait did you relate to? Also, could you describe this world of yours and how it works? Because I can't relate at all. I don't imagine things. I don't have a vast or deep or rich inner world or whatever people often describe their reality as when describing introversion (also why must this itself indicate it?). My world is empty, dried up, a wasteland, a black hole that sucks everything up and consumes it completely and yet longs for more. It's a hunger that never ends. Rich though? I don't understand what this means. It's the very opposite of rich. I have no great motivation, no fantastical escapades, no flights of fantasy. I don't do that. Rich, wtf does that even mean? @Amaterasu has a more rich world experience in general than I. I'm just an empty shell trying to fill myself up with whatever I can find because there is nothing there and nothing left for me.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> How sure are you about this making this statement?
> @FearAndTrembling a question, but which jungian portrait did you relate to? Also, could you describe this world of yours and how it works? Because I can't relate at all. I don't imagine things. I don't have a vast or deep or rich inner world or whatever people often describe their reality as when describing introversion (also why must this itself indicate it?). My world is empty, dried up, a wasteland, a black hole that sucks everything up and consumes it completely and yet longs for more. It's a hunger that never ends. Rich though? I don't understand what this means. It's the very opposite of rich. I have no great motivation, no fantastical escapades, no flights of fantasy. I don't do that. Rich, wtf does that even mean? @Amaterasu has a more rich world experience in general than I. I'm just an empty shell trying to fill myself up with whatever I can find because there is nothing there and nothing left for me.


What in the hell.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l think it is interesting when you can actually observe that introvert massive time-space energy vortex hole in another person in real life like what Fourtines mentioned.

l noticed it with an INTJ who unfortunate was called creepy by some people because you could feel the intensity, however l didn't notice it in my INFJ friend. 

She likely has the same headspace but she's just so ready to engage with people that it compensates for it, even if she still does not appear to be anywhere _near_ extroverted. lf we were rating on a 10 cale, l'd place her at 3.5 and the INTJ at 2 with 1 one being the most introverted energy.


That was one thing that helped me sort out that l'm not one, l do regard myself as having a similar inner life and monologue, but l'm just not quite that removed. Maybe 6.5.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> What in the hell.


Could you answer my question?


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

I'm an ENFP. I am currently working on a sci fi/ fantasy trilogy, and I spend about 12-15 hours a day working or researching. I am also a musician, and I've been an effective band leader, but it was all about getting *my* vision out. I had no interest in partying and in fact, I hated the whole 'fan' thing, but one has to collect fans in order to perform in nicer venues. As a strategy I relied on my band members to be extra social. To be blunt, I've had 8 marriage proposals, and many more try their best to be with me, but I am usually single. I am 33, and I've only been in one relationship that lasted more than a few months - not because I'm SHALLOW but because I need to spend an inordinate amount of time alone, and my lovers are seen as "too demanding." I need 12-15 hours a day alone wth my creative work, and I've been like this all my life - when I was a little kid, middle school etc, I spent lunch periods writing fantasy and practicing piano & singing, and stayed up all night to have time alone with my creative world. All I ever wanted to do in my life is sing and write. I'm an SX-4 and very very lusty, and I am apt to be obsessed with someone for up to 7 years who is a best friend, but for whatever reason won't commit to me. I have also had profoundly intense connections with friends or musicians that lasted many years, and when I did have a longer relationship, it was with a close friend who I connected with deeply, and needed just as much time alone as I did; so that we could share a studio apartment but do our own thing in opposite corners. However the battle between my alone-time and my lustiness has been a problem for me all these years. I am not conflicted about having no time for a social life.. I'm fine to keep up with friends here and there on facebook, and having to actually meet up is a chore because it's time away from my work.

Function wise, no matter how many times I go over this, it always comes out to Ne-Fi. I do not spread my seed wildly like described, as you can see. That being said, I make decent use of social network systems when I can operate from home, so that I can get my music heard by others.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Animal said:


> I'm an ENFP. I am currently working on a sci fi/ fantasy trilogy, and I spend about 12-15 hours a day working or researching. I am also a musician, and I've been an effective band leader, but it was all about getting *my* vision out. I had no interest in partying and in fact, I hated the whole 'fan' thing, but one has to collect fans in order to perform in nicer venues. As a strategy I relied on my band members to be extra social. To be blunt, I've had 8 marriage proposals, and many more try their best to be with me, but I am usually single. I am 33, and I've only been in one relationship that lasted more than a few months - not because I'm SHALLOW but because I need to spend an inordinate amount of time alone, and my lovers are seen as "too demanding." I need 12-15 hours a day alone wth my creative work, and I've been like this all my life - when I was a little kid, middle school etc, I spent lunch periods writing fantasy and practicing piano & singing, and stayed up all night to have time alone with my creative world. All I ever wanted to do in my life is sing and write. I'm an SX-4 and very very lusty, and I am apt to be obsessed with someone for up to 7 years who is a best friend, but for whatever reason won't commit to me. I have also had profoundly intense connections with friends or musicians that lasted many years, and when I did have a longer relationship, it was with a close friend who I connected with deeply, and needed just as much time alone as I did; so that we could share a studio apartment but do our own thing in opposite corners. However the battle between my alone-time and my lustiness has been a problem for me all these years. I am not conflicted about having no time for a social life.. I'm fine to keep up with friends here and there on facebook, and having to actually meet up is a chore because it's time away from my work.
> 
> Function wise, no matter how many times I go over this, it always comes out to Ne-Fi. I do not spread my seed wildly like described, as you can see. That being said, I make decent use of social network systems when I can operate from home, so that I can get my music heard by others.


This doesn't sound like Ne at all. Are you sure you're not an INFP or INFJ?

Extraversion is oriented by the object. Ne also obeys this rule. You sound like you are oriented by the subject. Your description does not sound like possibilities in the world, but rather expressing your own. Just sayin...



Jung on Ne said:


> Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because only thus can the appearance of a complete life be created, so intuition tries to encompass the greatest possibilities, since only through the awareness of possibilities is intuition fullysatisfied.* Intuition seeks to discover possibilities in the objective situation;* hence as a mere tributary function (viz. when not in the position of priority) it is also the instrument which, in the presence of a hopelessly blocked situation, works automatically towards the issue, which no other function could discover. *Where intuition has the priority, every ordinary situation in life seems like a closed room, which intuition has to open.* *It is constantly seeking outlets and fresh possibilities in external life.* In a very short time *every actual situation becomes a prison to the intuitive*; it burdens him like a chain, prompting a compelling need for solution. At times objects would seem to have an almost exaggerated value, should they chance to represent the idea of a severance or release that might lead to the discovery of a new possibility. Yet no sooner have they performed their office, serving intuition as a ladder or a bridge, than they appear to have no further value, and are discarded as mere burdensome appendages. A fact is acknowledged only in so far as it opens up fresh possibilities of advancing beyond it and of releasing the individual from its operation. Emerging possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> This doesn't sound like Ne at all. Are you sure you're not an INFP or INFJ?
> 
> Extraversion is oriented by the object. Ne also obeys this rule. You sound like you are oriented by the subject. Your description does not sound like possibilities in the world, but rather expressing your own. Just sayin...


I have to disagree with you. Animal is one of the most extraverted people I know. By that I mean cognitively. With that said I might suggest that you are right suggesting she might not be an irrational dom.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> This doesn't sound like Ne at all. Are you sure you're not an INFP or INFJ?
> 
> Extraversion is oriented by the object. Ne also obeys this rule. You sound like you are oriented by the subject. Your description does not sound like possibilities in the world, but rather expressing your own. Just sayin...





ephemereality said:


> I have to disagree with you. Animal is one of the most extraverted people I know. By that I mean cognitively. With that said I might suggest that you are right suggesting she might not be an irrational dom.


What is irrational dom?

I know about these rules.. my cognition is pretty clear Ne, but the way I see it, I'm an MBTI INFP (behaviorally introverted) while my cognition makes a clear case for Ne dominance and inferior Si.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Animal said:


> What is irrational dom?
> 
> I know about these rules.. my cognition is pretty clear Ne, but the way I see it, I'm an MBTI INFP (behaviorally introverted) while my cognition makes a clear case for Ne dominance and inferior Si.



An irrational function is a perceiving one (Ne, Ni, Se, Si). An irrational dom is a type that is led by an irrational function. NOTE: Irrational in this context just means that the function is not governed by reason. It is not to say that the person him/herself is irrational and won't listen to reason.


I am assuming that the "clear case" assumes that Ne = creativity? Because I just posted from Jung's definition of Ne and I just don't see how what you have described fits.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Could you answer my question?


Not without pointing out that you don't sound like an Ni dom but more like some one who needs to talk to his doctor about Celexa.

I can't use you as any sort of normal litmus of anything, do you realize that?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Not without pointing out that you don't sound like an Ni dom but more like some one who needs to talk to his doctor about Celexa.
> 
> I can't use you as any sort of normal litmus of anything, do you realize that?


What has my description of my own inner life got anything to do with this and why do you think the OP is Pi dom because of this supposed richness when I know for a fact I am myself an introvert and I do not relate to this description that is presented by the OP? Nevermind the fact you contradicted yourself at that point too. I don't think richness of experience can be used as any normal quantifier for introversion, let alone Pi. One might even argue that it is richness of experience the introverted type is lacking exactly because they deny themselves the information that exists outside the subject, _especially_ in the case of Pi. 

Also, what does an Ni dom sound like to you if I don't sound like one?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Animal said:


> I'm an ENFP. I am currently working on a sci fi/ fantasy trilogy, and I spend about 12-15 hours a day working or researching researching h. I am also a musician, and I've been an effective band leader, but it was all about getting *my* vision out. I had no interest in partying and in fact, I hated the whole 'fan' thing, but one has to collect fans in order to perform in nicer venues. As a strategy I relied on my band members to be extra social. To be blunt, I've had 8 marriage proposals, and many more try their best to be with me, but I am usually single. I am 33, and I've only been in one relationship that lasted more than a few months - not because I'm SHALLOW but because I need to spend an inordinate amount of time alone, and my lovers are seen as "too demanding." I need 12-15 hours a day alone wth my creative work, and I've been like this all my life - when I was a little kid, middle school etc, I spent lunch periods writing fantasy and practicing piano & singing, and stayed up all night to have time alone with my creative world. All I ever wanted to do in my life is sing and write. I'm an SX-4 and very very lusty, and I am apt to be obsessed with someone for up to 7 years who is a best friend, but for whatever reason won't commit to me. I have also had profoundly intense connections with friends or musicians that lasted many years, and when I did have a longer relationship, it was with a close friend who I connected with deeply, and needed just as much time alone as I did; so that we could share a studio apartment but do our own thing in opposite corners. However the battle between my alone-time and my lustiness has been a problem for me all these years. I am not conflicted about having no time for a social life.. I'm fine to keep up with friends here and there on facebook, and having to actually meet up is a chore because it's time away from my work.
> 
> Function wise, no matter how many times I go over this, it always comes out to Ne-Fi. I do not spread my seed wildly like described, as you can see. That being said, I make decent use of social network systems when I can operate from home, so that I can get my music heard by others.


You sound very INxx. To a painfully obvious degree.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> What has my description of my own inner life got anything to do with this and why do you think the OP is Pi dom because of this supposed richness when I know for a fact I am myself an introvert and I do not relate to this description that is presented in the OP? Nevermind the fact you contradicted yourself at that point too. I don't think richness of experience can be used as any normal quantifier for introversion.
> 
> Also, what does an Ni dom sound like to you if I don't sound like one?


You sound like an empty depressed person, not any developed personality type. An Ni dom with no imagination? Ok.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

double post


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> You sound like an empty depressed person, not any developed personality type. An Ni dom with no imagination? Ok.


I am not depressed and I can guarantee you that my psychological development is quite far ahead of many here. Ni does not equal imagination. Ni is merely the ability to intuit the archetype. When Jung speaks of the imaginary in his intuition description he's not necessarily referring to concrete images, concepts and ideas or flights of fancy or richness of experience or any of the sort. He's referring to the ability to see things for more than what they are.

So will you describe how an Ni type is like to you? What is Ni, how would you describe it and how do you find it in other people?


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> An irrational function is a perceiving one (Ne, Ni, Se, Si). An irrational dom is a type that is led by an irrational function. NOTE: Irrational in this context just means that the function is not governed by reason. It is not to say that the person him/herself is irrational and won't listen to reason.
> 
> 
> I am assuming that the "clear case" assumes that Ne = creativity? Because I just posted from Jung's definition of Ne and I just don't see how what you have described fits.





fourtines said:


> You sound very INxx. To a painfully obvious degree.


I am not one of these people who is attached to the idea of being N-dominant, and I don't see it as being associated with creativity. But if you see my posts over a span of time you'd probably decide on your own that I'm an ENFP.

I was typed by other people on the forum over a span of time, and I just came here to do enneagram and have no emotional or personal attachment to any function. None of it is 'painful' or better than another. It's just that I am typed based on who I am and how I think. I can almost guarantee that if you know MBTI/ JCF/ Socionics, you would eventually decide that I'm Ne-Fi rather than Fi-Ne. However I have nothing against typing myself as an INFP in MBTI, because the personality description is more suited to mine. Cognitively I am a pretty clear extrovert.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Animal said:


> What is irrational dom?
> 
> I know about these rules.. my cognition is pretty clear Ne, but the way I see it, I'm an MBTI INFP (behaviorally introverted) while my cognition makes a clear case for Ne dominance and inferior Si.


I don't see this at all. You have the intense focus that more likely resembles an Ni dom, you would still have inferior sensing. Twelve to fifteen hours a day? Ne is not that focused.

You also utterly lack any ENFP interest in "development" of others.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I don't see this at all. You have the intense focus that more likely resembles an Ni dom, you would still have inferior sensing. Twelve to fifteen hours a day? Ne is not that focused.
> 
> You also utterly lack any ENFP interest in "development" of others.


I usually test as an INTJ.

And I disagree, I don't see why an Ne-dom can't have focus? It is a way of perceiving the world. Focus is a personality trait and a choice.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> I am not depressed and I can guarantee you that my psychological development is quite far ahead of many here. Ni does not equal imagination. Ni is merely the ability to intuit the archetype. When Jung speaks of the imaginary in his intuition description he's not necessarily referring to concrete images, concepts and ideas or flights of fancy or richness of experience or any of the sort. He's referring to the ability to see things for more than what they are.
> 
> So will you describe how an Ni type is like to you? What is Ni, how would you describe it and how do you find it in other people?


I don't want to discuss type with you. You say you are basically black and empty but cognitively ahead of others. You don't even have a vision.

I think you are not a good source of information, frankly. I can't believe you think Animal is an extrovert.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

fourtines said:


> You also utterly lack any ENFP interest in "development" of others.


That's true to a degree. I do have tremendous interest in development of people I'm close to. I just don't like big wild parties.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I don't want to discuss type with you. You say you are basically black and empty but cognitively ahead of others. You don't even have a vision.
> 
> I think you are not a good source of information, frankly. I can't believe you think Animal is an extrovert.


I am not the only one who thinks that. People who are into typology and are close to her would be very hard-pressed to agree with your idea that she's a cognitive introvert. Those who know how to type, that is.

If you don't want to discuss this then fine, but then if you are incapable of making such logical conclusions as to discuss the theory with people, then don't expect me to be able to take your typings of others seriously either. Let me put this way: you don't know me. You've only seen a fraction of me. This here, a piece of how I experience my inner world. It doesn't mean it lacks vision. I never actually suggested such a thing. What I suggested is that it's empty of experience. So again, don't draw and don't judge people whose life circumstances you clearly don't know or understand.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Animal said:


> I usually test as an INTJ.
> 
> And I disagree, I don't see why an Ne-dom can't have focus? It is a way of perceiving the world. Focus is a personality trait and a choice.


God please save me from the wishful mistyped.

Yes you are an Ni dom. There is a reason you always test INTJ. How you picked Ne or ENFP defies gravity.

You certainly are very imaginative, but you might want to read up on what the Ne description says about focus.

Focus for you isn't a choice you made. It is the way your mind obsessively works, apparently.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I can't believe you think Animal is an extrovert.


He is referring to my cognition, not my personality. He has known me over a long span of time, which is a better way to type someone than basing your idea of their functions on one paragraph.

I've written 400-page books in the period of a month. My mind keeps going and going and going. I get one idea after another. Right now I have a vision for a fantasy series and I already have everything laid out in my mind up to book 4, even though I'm not finished with book 1. My visions are HUGE. I never just write one song; I write a concept album. My vision is always gigantic, expansive, a billion steps ahead of me. There is more to me than just the fact that I prefer my grand visions over useless socializing.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

fourtines said:


> God please save me from the wishful mistyped.
> 
> Yes you are an Ni dom. There is a reason you always test INTJ. How you picked Ne or ENFP defies gravity.
> 
> ...


Let me be clear about something:

I am not the _wishful_ mistyped. I could not give a crap what my type is. I am typed based on what I think is most accurate.

Please don't presume my motives. I have no problem with a discussion about cognition and theory, but my motive is not to type myself at Ne over Ni? Why would I care? I'm still the same person regardless of the label.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> I am not the only one who thinks that. People who are into typology and are close to her would be very hard-pressed to agree with your idea that she's a cognitive introvert. Those who know how to type, that is.
> 
> If you don't want to discuss this then fine, but then if you are incapable of making such logical conclusions as to discuss the theory with people, then don't expect me to be able to take your typings of others seriously either.


I don't take your typing seriously, and I also believe that you are clinically depressed, so I am not terribly concerned if we disagree. Best of luck to you with filling the black hole.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Animal said:


> He is referring to my cognition, not my personality. He has known me over a long span of time, which is a better way to type someone than basing your idea of their functions on one paragraph.
> 
> I've written 400-page books in the period of a month. My mind keeps going and going and going. I get o
> ne idea after another. Right now I have a vision for a fantasy series and I already have everything laid out in my mind up to book 4, even though I'm not finished with book 1. My visions are HUGE. I never just write one song; I write a concept album. My vision is always gigantic, expansive, a billion steps ahead of me. There is more to me than just the fact that I prefer my grand visions over useless socializing.


You are an Ni dom. Vision vision vision. Concept album, intense focus.

I don't care how long he's known you. You are one of the most OBVIOUS Ni doms I have ever observed.

You are a textbook Ni dom. You envision a hundred steps ahead. That's Ni, not Ne.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

fourtines said:


> You are an Ni dom. Vision vision vision. Concept album, intense focus.
> 
> I don't care how long he's known you. You are one of the OBVIOUS Ni doms I have ever observed.


Hmm, interesting. Many people have told me I'm one of the most OBVIOUS Ne-doms they've ever observed. Many, many people on this forum. So please don't single him out. This is the second time Ni-dom has been suggested, though a handful have posed Fi-dom.

The only types I could see for myself are ENFP, INFP, or INTJ. Because I see no case for Ti-Fe cognition over Te-Fi. Do you think INTJ is an option? I am actually interested in observations, and I'm not attached to a typing. I just want it to be understood that I have no _motive_ to be typed a certain way. With that in mind, let me ask a few questions, of you or anyone who wants to answer:

- Isn't Ni about focusing on one specific vision and then having a shifting perception, whereas Ne is about taking in a lot of different information at once and seeing a big picture?

- In what way would you describe visionary "Ni" vs. visionary "Ne?"


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I don't take your typing seriously, and I also believe that you are clinically depressed, so I am not terribly concerned if we disagree. Best of luck to you with filling the black hole.


Since when did others have the right to judge someone else's mental cognition based on a forum post? If you don't know me, I don't think you have the right to speak whether I am depressed or not either since you know nothing about me or my life or even my person. 



fourtines said:


> You are an Ni dom. Vision vision vision. Concept album, intense focus.
> 
> I don't care how long he's known you. You are one of the most OBVIOUS Ni doms I have ever observed.
> 
> You are a textbook Ni dom. You envision a hundred steps ahead. That's Ni, not Ne.


...

It's not just me who knows this fourtines. You're just the one who can't see it. You get so caught up in the details you lose sight of the actual vision that shows you that her cognition is not oriented towards Ni-Se. Just because it seems grandiose it doesn't make it Ni. Any person can have vision. Type 7 in the enneagram is known to be visionary for example.



Animal said:


> - Isn't Ni about focusing on one specific vision and then having a shifting perception, whereas Ne is about taking in a lot of different information at once and seeing a big picture?
> 
> - In what way would you describe visionary "Ni" vs. visionary "Ne?"


I think a way to understand introversion-extroversion in general is that introversion is essentially the logic of less is more, especially when we speak about Pi. I was thinking about an example in order to understand this better. Imagine we have two people at the cake buffet, one introvert and one extrovert. The introvert will choose his cake very carefully, picking the one that seems to fit his tastes the best. Once he's decided which one is important, he will eat this cake slowly, truly enjoy and savor its taste. The extrovert on the other hand sees all the cakes as equally worthwhile his attention. He tries all of them out but only a mouthpiece a time. He wants to experience all of them, the more the merrier. So whereas the introvert sits there alone with his one single cake and is really enjoying that cake, the extrovert comes back with a lot of cakes but only small pieces and might even mix them together as he eats them. He doesn't care. What matters is the quantity. He needs more cake. That the taste may turn out somewhat bland and uninteresting is of no concern to him.

So to answer your question about how Ne and Ni perceive information, Ni is more like a Rubik's cube. It wants to twist and turn and see all aspects or facets of one object while it still remaining the same object. Ne on the other hand wants to transform it. It seems the shape as limiting its experience. 

I think it is wrong to ascribe "vision" to any function. Vision or rich inner worlds do not qualify when making sense of someone's cognition. Anyone can have a vision and anyone can experience themselves as having rich inner lives. Extroverts aren't exempt from experiencing an inner experience the way we commonly understand it. What makes the extrovert an extrovert is that he denies himself the ability to understand something from a more personal and subjective point of view. The extrovert orients itself with and towards the world, as opposed to against it that the introvert does.

As for your type since you brought it up: I have been thinking ESFJ for some time now.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> It's not just me who knows this fourtines. You're just the one who can't see it. You get so caught up in the details you lose sight of the actual vision that shows you that her cognition is not oriented towards Ni-Se.


^ This isn't true, I don't get caught up in details and lose sight of the vision. It's always vision-first, details fill in.

Unless you were talking about her and not me, here, which I think maybe you were?



> Just because it seems grandiose it doesn't make it Ni. Any person can have vision. Type 7 in the enneagram is known to be visionary for example.


This is true. Enneagram idealist triad, especially 7s and 4s, have grand visions in terms of creativity. Creativity happens because of motives, more so than cognition. Cognition would simply dictate how someone goes about it.



> I think a way to understand introversion-extroversion in general is that introversion is essentially the logic of less is more, especially when we speak about Pi. I was thinking about an example in order to understand this better. Imagine we have two people at the cake buffet, one introvert and one extrovert.* The introvert will choose his cake very carefully, picking the one that seems to fit his tastes the best. Once he's decided which one is important, he will eat this cake slowly, truly enjoy and savor its taste. *The extrovert on the other hand sees all the cakes as equally worthwhile his attention. He tries all of them out but only a mouthpiece a time. He wants to experience all of them, the more the merrier. So whereas the introvert sits there alone with his one single cake and is really enjoying that cake, the extrovert comes back with a lot of cakes but only small pieces and might even mix them together as he eats them. He doesn't care. What matters is the quantity. He needs more cake. That the taste may turn out somewhat bland and uninteresting is of no concern to him.
> 
> *So to answer your question about how Ne and Ni perceive information, Ni is more like a Rubik's cube. It wants to twist and turn and see all aspects or facets of one object while it still remaining the same object. Ne on the other hand wants to transform it. It seems the shape as limiting its experience. *
> 
> I think it is wrong to ascribe "vision" to any function. Vision or rich inner worlds do not qualify when making sense of someone's cognition. Anyone can have a vision and anyone can experience themselves as having rich inner lives. Extroverts aren't exempt from experiencing an inner experience the way we commonly understand it. What makes the extrovert an extrovert is that he denies himself the ability to understand something from a more personal and subjective point of view. *The extrovert orients itself with and towards the world, as opposed to against it that the introvert does.*


based on all of this I would be an introvert. :/

To use one example: I've been listening to the same band almost exclusively for 2 years, and I'm a musician who loves music above all else.




> As for your type since you brought it up: I have been thinking ESFJ for some time now.


Me??? How come?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> ^ This isn't true, I don't get caught up in details and lose sight of the vision. It's always vision-first, details fill in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But does it apply to your psyche? I mean not how you actually behave when you go to the buffet. By that logic I'd be an extrovert then because I can go on food binges though one could argue that's simply an outlet of inferior Se, but where you orient yourself towards the world, how you see it. What data do you take in and focus on? You're clearly not self-focused, trying to understand it from some personal experience or vision. 



> Me??? How come?


Because I think you don't fit the definition of an Fi type. I have been thinking a lot about this though maybe you want to take this over Skype as to not derail? It's a lot of personal observations about you and our relationship I rather not spill out here. 

Since you are still an extrovert and a feeler and an Ne type, it leaves us with ESFJ left because ENTP you are not.


----------



## Damagedfinger (Oct 27, 2013)

Actually, I thought the other way around and I think this has to do with society.

I at once thought that everyone was extroverted and that introversion was something "bad" and a shouldn't be.

Luckily, MBTI and Jung type theory helped me clear this thought out.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Animal said:


> He is referring to my cognition, not my personality. He has known me over a long span of time, which is a better way to type someone than basing your idea of their functions on one paragraph.
> 
> I've written 400-page books in the period of a month. My mind keeps going and going and going. I get one idea after another. Right now I have a vision for a fantasy series and I already have everything laid out in my mind up to book 4, even though I'm not finished with book 1. My visions are HUGE. I never just write one song; I write a concept album. My vision is always gigantic, expansive, a billion steps ahead of me. There is more to me than just the fact that I prefer my grand visions over useless socializing.



A lot has been said on my drive in to work, so it's hard to reply to all of it. Just to offer up another perspective on this response is that Stephen King, arguably an INTJ, writes novels the same way. He envisions them as a whole. He can write book after book, much how you've described.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> But does it apply to your psyche? I mean not how you actually behave when you go to the buffet. By that logic I'd be an extrovert then because I can go on food binges though one could argue that's simply an outlet of inferior Se, but where you orient yourself towards the world, how you see it. What data do you take in and focus on? You're clearly not self-focused, trying to understand it from some personal experience or vision.


I don't know...




> Because I think you don't fit the definition of an Fi type. I have been thinking a lot about this though maybe you want to take this over Skype as to not derail? It's a lot of personal observations about you and our relationship I rather not spill out here.
> 
> Since you are still an extrovert and a feeler and an Ne type, it leaves us with ESFJ left because ENTP you are not.


We can talk about it over skype, but I don't want anyone reading into my motives and using that as a basis for my typing because I promise you, you don't know my motives when it comes to my personal life. But keeping that in mind, if you have observations about things I've actually done (rather than motives you filled in on your own), and you want to make a case, I'd listen. Still, I have to admit, that typing is the most ridiculous suggestion I think I've ever received.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> A lot has been said on my drive in to work, so it's hard to reply to all of it. Just to offer up another perspective on this response is that Stephen King, arguably an INTJ, writes novels the same way. He envisions them as a whole. He can write book after book, much how you've described.


TBH, I've been contemplating an INTJ case for myself for a few different reasons. I never thought I would, but I've noticed that my Te is strong... I've been wondering if it's an inferior (INFP) or if in fact, it is INTJ... but the way I understand Ne vs. Ni, I always thought that Ne made more sense for me. 

The problem is, with enneagram, I am deeply interested in the system and I've read a bunch of textbooks, as well as discussed it with other knowledgeable people, and so I feel confident in my own observations.. that I understand the system well enough to interpret it in my own way, and when something seems off to me, I am able to put it into words, why it makes no sense, or what alternative I would pose. When it comes to JCF, Socionics, MBTI... I have enough understanding to know when something is completely off, but I can not be entirely confident in my own assessment either, because I haven't taken the time to deeply study the system at its roots.


----------



## Emtropy (Feb 3, 2013)

Animal said:


> TBH, I've been contemplating an INTJ case for myself for a few different reasons. I never thought I would, but I've noticed that my Te is strong... I've been wondering if it's an inferior (INFP) or if in fact, it is INTJ... but the way I understand Ne vs. Ni, I always thought that Ne made more sense for me.
> 
> The problem is, with enneagram, I am deeply interested in the system and I've read a bunch of textbooks, as well as discussed it with other knowledgeable people, and so I feel confident in my own observations.. that I understand the system well enough to interpret it in my own way, and when something seems off to me, I am able to put it into words, why it makes no sense, or what alternative I would pose. When it comes to JCF, Socionics, MBTI... I have enough understanding to know when something is completely off, but I can not be entirely confident in my own assessment either, because I haven't taken the time to deeply study the system at its roots.


You remind me a little of myself, assuming that my internal self is expressed adequately through external means. However, from vibe (and your language) along, you do seem more INxx...I supposedly have Ne and I jump along in my writing quite a lot...you do seem to have the "Ni dremscape" that people describe; especially considering you spend all that time writing on the same topic. When I write, I digress a hell of a lot, but it's linking to the topic. Ni writers....is George R.R Martin an Ni dom?

Just to let you know, I can't really help you lol. I'm now just interested... my knowledge of this theory (and of others and myself) is somewhat lacking.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Emtropy said:


> You remind me a little of myself, assuming that my internal self is expressed adequately through external means. However, from vibe (and your language) along, you do seem more INxx...I supposedly have Ne and I jump along in my writing quite a lot...you do seem to have the "Ni dremscape" that people describe; especially considering you spend all that time writing on the same topic. When I write, I digress a hell of a lot, but it's linking to the topic. Ni writers....is George R.R Martin an Ni dom?
> 
> Just to let you know, I can't really help you lol. I'm now just interested... my knowledge of this theory (and of others and myself) is somewhat lacking.


The way I see it -

I mistyped a few times with enneagram, and it was always, "Well I know I don't seem like a 5, but I know I'm a 5 because xyz." And then, "I know I don't seem like a 3, but... xyz." or whatever. Then, when I finally typed correctly at 4w3SX, it's like.. "Damn, I am a perfect stereotype... and this is also my type." Not to mention, I'm a heavily stereotypical 8-fixer, and 8-fixed 4. Nothing about my enneagram typing is "off" anymore. But what's funny is, not many people suggested type 4 because my personality is so bold, and I'm not a stereotypical 4 in the sense that I don't have depression, and I'm bold. But if you know enneagram a little more deeply, you know that this is actually congruent with a "real 4 stereotype" if that makes sense. For example:










This is what 4s are really like, and also what I am like. But some people read short enneagram descriptions and when they see "tragic romantic" they think of someone crying in the corner. I don't cry... I WAIL.. in my music and writing. 

So the fact that my MBTI typing seems to confuse everybody, and that I'm not a 'typical ENFP' - does stand out to me. I realize that my personality is more suited to an INFP, INFJ or INTJ description. But my cognition, when broken down one function at a time, appears Ne-Fi, with decent use of tertiary Te and very clear symptoms of inferior Si, not inferior Se. So this confuses me also, and I want to figure it out.. but I don't have the time to invest in a deep study of another system now, so I'm typing in the way that I understand functions.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> As for your type since you brought it up: I have been thinking ESFJ for some time now.


Huh. 

Well, for the topic at hand: First of I'm not sure what exactly people mean when they talk of a rich inner world. Do they talk about an actual world that they've made up or their feelings or what? I mean, I spend a decent amount of time daydreaming, introspecting etc, but my mind tends to revolve around the same few things a lot so I don't know how "rich" it is. I can also feel like my mind (or inner world) is like an empty wasteland when I'm really bored. Other times it feels like a landfill. 

(I certainly don't spend a lot of time imagining up ideals. While I am more interested in fiction than real life for the most part, I feel like idealized characters and such can become too simplistic and boring.)

Anyway, I wouldn't say I ever thought other people's minds work exactly the same way as my own. I'm not sure it would be very interesting to interact with other people if there wasn't some kind of difference there.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Anyway, how I am I supposed to get in other people's heads like that? How did you know? How does anybody know? This is actually an old philosophical problem, but even on a more practical level: how does anyone know I have this richer inner world? I don't think anybody who knows me knows that. The only reason anyone would know was if I told them. I just assumed everyone else had their own hidden one too.


I've known from early on that I had a richer inner world than most because as a child I pretended more than other children. I created my own worlds with different languages and had their own numbers and alphabets (which I probably still have somewhere tucked inside an old box). When I shared these fantasies with other children they would either play along with it or laugh at me. Most of the time either way they would get bored of my constant fantasy games and usually want to stir up drama amongst themselves and leave me in the dust which in some ways I was glad to be left alone to not be distracted by other people.

It felt like from the beginning that art was the one thing I understood best and it understood me. Art spoke to me directly and described who I was better than anyone could. I feel I would have been altogether lost without paintings, poetry and Poe, Bronte, and Thoreau.

How others interpret art, I'm not sure. It speaks to everyone on some level or another, but I don't think everyone has a NEED for it as much as others.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Animal said:


> TBH, I've been contemplating an INTJ case for myself for a few different reasons. I never thought I would, but I've noticed that my Te is strong... I've been wondering if it's an inferior (INFP) or if in fact, it is INTJ... but the way I understand Ne vs. Ni, I always thought that Ne made more sense for me.
> 
> The problem is, with enneagram, I am deeply interested in the system and I've read a bunch of textbooks, as well as discussed it with other knowledgeable people, and so I feel confident in my own observations.. that I understand the system well enough to interpret it in my own way, and when something seems off to me, I am able to put it into words, why it makes no sense, or what alternative I would pose. When it comes to JCF, Socionics, MBTI... I have enough understanding to know when something is completely off, but I can not be entirely confident in my own assessment either, because I haven't taken the time to deeply study the system at its roots.



That's fair. The point of my posts was not to make claims on your type. I have a tendency to play a sort of devil's advocate without ever telling anyone that's what I'm doing (mostly because I don't realize it at the time). I was just pointing out that the one post is not congruent with any description of Ne or ENFP that I ever heard of.

The same goes for my post about Stephen King. It was not to suggest that you are an INTJ or Ni user, just that is what your description of writing reminds me of.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> That's fair. The point of my posts was not to make claims on your type. I have a tendency to play a sort of devil's advocate without ever telling anyone that's what I'm doing (mostly because I don't realize it at the time). I was just pointing out that the one post is not congruent with any description of Ne or ENFP that I ever heard of.
> 
> The same goes for my post about Stephen King. It was not to suggest that you are an INTJ or Ni user, just that is what your description of writing reminds me of.


Oh, it's totally fine! I wasn't taking it as an attack or a devil's advocate. It's typology forum, and I'm always interested in hearing people's opinions. I was just explaining why my arguments might not seem forceful or well-informed, even though I have been around this community for a year and a half now, and I do have some understanding. I don't tend to be very forceful unless I am confident that I have an excellent grasp on the roots of a system. But the lack of forcefulness doesn't mean that I have no opinion. If I had no opinion, I would type as "Unknown." And I might do just that, actually.. since I"m reassessing. But until very recently I saw no real reason to doubt Ne-Fi. What I am trying to figure out, is whether it matters that my "personality" seems a certain way, or if that is unrelated to functions, once you break down how my brain works. With enneagram that can be the case - someone's personality is a possible symptom, but the cause is basic motivation & basic fear. And this can manifest in a variety of ways. So I guess what I'm attempting to sort out is whether my personality can be congruent with the 'basics' of the system, when you break it down to its essentials.

I don't mind claims on my type at all. Of course I will argue or point out when I don't think a claim is correct, but actually the comparison with Stephen King was helpful. I have read his stuff and I can relate to his style.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> I don't know...


No?



> We can talk about it over skype, but I don't want anyone reading into my motives and using that as a basis for my typing because I promise you, you don't know my motives when it comes to my personal life. But keeping that in mind, if you have observations about things I've actually done (rather than motives you filled in on your own), and you want to make a case, I'd listen. Still, I have to admit, that typing is the most ridiculous suggestion I think I've ever received.


I don't know your motives? Do you mean me personally or people on this site? You know that I don't type people based on behavior in such a sense. I look at cognition, nothing else. I have zero interest to type you in say, the enneagram that would deal with motives in some sense.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> No?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know your motives? Do you mean me personally or people on this site? You know that I don't type people based on behavior in such a sense. I look at cognition, nothing else. I have zero interest to type you in say, the enneagram that would deal with motives in some sense.


I just can't help going.. wtf?? when someone suggests ESFJ for me. I realize my grasp on this system isn't as deep as some, but I think Fe-Si might be a serious case of over-thinking. 

When I did not know enneagram very well, I was equally perturbed when people would suggest a type that felt completely ridiculous, but the difference is that with enneagram I have the vocabulary and depth of understanding to explain why this is ridiculous in a thorough manner. I don't even know where to start with this...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> I just can't help going.. wtf?? when someone suggests ESFJ for me. I realize my grasp on this system isn't as deep as some, but I think Fe-Si might be a serious case of over-thinking.
> 
> When I did not know enneagram very well, I was equally perturbed when people would suggest a type that felt completely ridiculous, but the difference is that with enneagram I have the vocabulary and depth of understanding to explain why this is ridiculous in a thorough manner. I don't even know where to start with this...


Then why not get on skype so I can explain to you why? It has become very clear to me you are not an Fi type. Your feeling is not oriented towards the internal experience but if I need to explain why, I need to explain things about how I feel about you and our relationship and I don't want to do that in a public thread. It has a lot to do with my personal experience with you which has made me realize, especially after meeting a person who I know for certain is an ESFP, that you don't fit the criteria. Not at all. Not even close. Of someone with auxiliary Fi.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Then why not get on skype so I can explain to you why? It has become very clear to me you are not an Fi type. Your feeling is not oriented towards the internal experience but if I need to explain why, I need to explain things about how I feel about you and our relationship and I don't want to do that in a public thread. It has a lot to do with my personal experience with you which has made me realize, especially after meeting a person who I know for certain is an ESFP, that you don't fit the criteria. Not at all. Not even close. Of someone with auxiliary Fi.


But if it's based on my cognition rather than on something personal in which you are ascribing motives, can you at least summarize it here? What do you understand Fe or Si to signify that would relate to me? 

If you bring it up in a public thread, then you have to be ready to back it up in that context. Because... I'm not really interested in being pressured on the basis of my *personal life* and enduring accusations that my behavior toward a specific person doesn't fit their personal standard of how a type should behave. I'd rather stick with my cognition.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> But if it's based on my cognition rather than on something personal in which you are ascribing motives, can you at least summarize it here? What do you understand Fe or Si to signify that would relate to me?



It relates to cognition. What else would it be? You know I don't type based on motives, again. Different systems, different methods. I already explained it briefly to you - your ethics is not oriented towards the self, the subject. Your mind does not seem to orient itself towards the logos of Fi but as such, Fe. 



> If you bring it up in a public thread, then you have to be ready to back it up in that context. Because... I'm not really interested in being pressured on the basis of my *personal life* and enduring accusations that my behavior toward a specific person doesn't fit their personal standard of how a type should behave. I'd rather stick with my cognition.


You misunderstand me, again. Why would I type you on anything else but cognition if I am suggesting a _cognitive type pattern_?


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> It relates to cognition. What else would it be? You know I don't type based on motives, again.
> 
> 
> You misunderstand me, again. Why would I type you on anything else but cognition if I am suggesting a _cognitive type pattern_?


The point is that I'm asking you to explain how Fe and Si relate to my cognition. You brought it up here, and I want to know.

I can talk to you on Skype soon but I'm trying not to start any in-depth conversations now because I need to get work done and I'm doing a few things at once. Still if this is about my cognition, I don't see why it's too personal to explain that here. And if it isn't, and you want to talk about something personal that has occurred between us, then I will set aside time to do so, for reasons unrelated to typing. 

For various reasons this whole thing does not feel right to me, and not because of the specific type suggestion, but only because of the manner in which it's being presented. Last time we spoke - a few months ago - your assessment of my type was different, and now, out of nowhere, you've changed it - during a period when we didn't talk to each other on Skype. And you say it's about cognition but it's too personal to write it here. 

I just find that strange.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

@Animal is not an INTJ, and not an ESFJ. She is correctly typed as an ENFP. 

The reason people are not seeing it is because they are 



Comparing their interpretation of an online forum post to what they think Jung says
In turn not understanding that functions don't always look exactly as they are described in text

Comparing their interpretation of an online forum post to catchwords and slogans in MBTI that have nothing to do with type and shouldn't be in MBTI to begin with.


If we want to get into a real discussion as to whether a sample of something matches Jungian Ne or not, then that would entail less bullshit than this. Start here: http://personalitycafe.com/entp-art...n-extraverted-intuitive-type-ne-dominant.html


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yeah, I'm just at the general functions now. So I haven't gotten to much finer details yet.
> 
> The way Jung describes it, is that introverts use the outside world as a mirror. Well, he didn't describe it that way, that is my analogy of his thoughts. The introvert projects his libido onto objects, the objects reflect them back to introvert, and the introvert absorbs them. We are really our own source of energy, but the outer world is like an amplifying filter. The extrovert keeps a continual projection. It doesn't reflect back quickly. He's basking the environment in his libido all day every day. The libido becomes like a permanent resident in the objects. It becomes like a part of their essence. But to us, the objects are just a conduit for libido. The extrovert kind of builds his libido into the outer world. We only let the outside world borrow ours in intervals.
> 
> Does this make all introverts "dreamers"? I know the NFs in particular get that label. Are there extrovert "dreamers"?


This looks like the point that got all the chaos started on this thread.

This does _not_, okay I'm going to put it more boldly: _*not*_ make introverts all dreamers, nor does it exclude extraverts from becoming or being dreamers.

It makes introverts more interested in their subjective impressions. The only sense in which you can call this 'dreaming' is that it is removed from objective reality. You cannot rightly call it 'imagination', 'vision' what have you because anyone and everyone can use their minds to come up with fanciful ideas or thoughts of what the future might be like, or whatever else have you - this depends on motivation. What you can see it as is cognitive self-centeredness, a reliance on one's own perception of how a thing appears to be as opposed to what it appears to be objectively/recognizably to everyone.

Keeping in mind that everyone needs both these types of understanding, combining them with the functions, they form axes to complete a person's view of the world.

Fi/Te yields a subjective sense of relation/value with an objective sense of differentiation/order.
Ti/Fe yields a subjective sense of differentiation/order with an objective sense of relation/value.
Si/Ne yields a subjective impression of what the world is (one's experience is given priority, typically) with an objective sense of how it could evolve in whatever direction (technically, the possibilities are treated equally in one's vision).
Ni/Se yields a subjective impression of how the world evolves (some possibility/ies is/are treated as more probable than others) with an objective sense of what the world is (experience is unbiased and superficial).

What the _fuck_ does any of this have to do with imagination or vision? No offense to you, you've admitted that you're new to this, but some of the people in this thread probably ought to know better. To hone in on intuition, since it seems to be predominantly in question here, what it actually does is just fill in beyond what is sensed. It doesn't do this with rational classification like Thinking or Feeling, it does this by creating a perspective outside it. 

Hence Ne skips over seeing objects 'as they are' in a strict sense and uses Si perceptions of what things appear to be to you yourself, projecting those into different concepts of how an object could transform. Ni works on a vision of things 'as they are' in bland form via Se and translates this into what appears to most likely explain how a thing came to be, what it will do, what it means etc - its underpinnings. Neither of these is exactly time specific, so Ne can project to see possibilities in whatever direction, and Ni probabilities.

As the person grows up from childhood, if Ne or Ni is in a dominant position, it ought to become more rational, not simply stay in the realm of child's play, because it is constantly being honed through attempts at use. All factors being equal, if you put someone with dominant intuition next to someone with it in the tert or inf position, you're going to find that the dominant intuitive will probably have _less_ tendency toward dismissing their intuition or treating it childishly, and _more_ tendency to use it to level with the world in a realistic way. As a separate issue, you can have a person who focuses on imagination or envisionment and uses that to make a life for themself, but this is not necessarily childish and does not inherently hinge on cognitive function - anyone of any type can choose to do it, their ideas are just likely to be shaped differently by what perspectives they happen to prefer.


----------



## INFJRoanna (Dec 20, 2012)

I suppose that makes sense. I hadn't really thought of it that way, though. I think I've always been painfully aware of how different people are inside their heads, after all I was completely unaware until I found this website that there was anyone else like me. Personalities for me are fascinating, baffling and at times confusing.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> This looks like the point that got all the chaos started on this thread.
> 
> This does _not_, okay I'm going to put it more boldly: _*not*_ make introverts all dreamers, nor does it exclude extraverts from becoming or being dreamers.
> 
> ...


But subjective impressions is what those dreams are made of, objective reality thwarts them. The extrovert accepts the judgement of reality, the introvert does not. 

Jung uses a bunch of examples. One he uses is a man who has seen that the political system is broken. He has seen that 99 times before. But still votes the 100th time with hope. He rejects objective facts, for subjective feelings. How is a man who rejects reality for his own wishes, not a dreamer? That man is dreaming. When you don't let the objective world touch your subjective vision, you are a dreamer. 

Jung basically makes extroverts sound like scientific empiricists, and introverts like dreamy feelers.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But subjective impressions is what those dreams are made of, objective reality thwarts them. The extrovert accepts the judgement of reality, the introvert does not.
> 
> Jung uses a bunch of examples. One he uses is a man who has seen that the political system is broken. He has seen that 99 times before. But still votes the 100th time with hope. He rejects objective facts, for subjective feelings. How is a man who rejects reality for his own wishes, not a dreamer? That man is dreaming. When you don't let the objective world touch your subjective vision, you are a dreamer.
> 
> Jung basically makes extroverts sound like scientific empiricists, and introverts like dreamy feelers.


Jung was the pioneer of this specific thinking, so he left a lot to be desired in clarification with even his ultimate formulation. He was dealing mostly with a psychiatric population so he's using or talking about more extreme examples, people who would found their entire personality around specific ways of thinking and apparently require treatment for it as it is pathological.

A lot of what's been done since is an attempt to normalize this system of thought to cover the more average population. I use it in those terms myself because otherwise few people will have significant 'types'. Most people, introvert or extravert in tendency, are not irrational enough to completely reject 'objective facts' for 'subjective feelings', though perhaps the other way around happens a little more regularly since this society tends to encourage a factual basis more.

As for this interpretation of 'dreaming' in a more overall sense, I conceded it at the beginning of my post.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Mzansi said:


> "I am reading Jung's psychhe'llical types, and he uses a Blake quote that describes introverts as the "devouring" and extroverts as the "prolific". Jung uses a biological analogy of evolution. Both introverts and extroverts are species trying to struggle for survival. Social survival. They both need to propagate. The extrovert is like flowers that shoot a ton of their shit, and just hope it hits anything. A ton is wasted in the process, but it doesn't matter. Enough was shot so that enough will survive. The other strategy is to increase defense/hunker down, have less "seeds" and guard them more closely. Put your few eggs in a basket, and defend that basket. That is the introvert strategy."
> 
> ^This just makes anything else you say seem hateful and pretentious.
> And make sure you're an "INFJ" before painting the whole word with the same brush,
> ...


Just out of curiosity... I read your post thrice and I don't see how the hell it is *hateful* and pretentious on Jung's or OP's part? Wtf...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Jung uses a bunch of examples. One he uses is a man who has seen that the political system is broken. He has seen that 99 times before. But still votes the 100th time with hope. He rejects objective facts, for subjective feelings.


That example isn't ringing a bell for some reason. Can you remind me where it comes from? Was Jung talking about introverts generally or one of the four specific introverted types?


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

the perception functions feed off of each other, because there isn't a true separation between each pole--it just appears this way to the users because, in most cases, they are unaware of the part this "other side" plays in their lives; so, it's really a single whole or continuum, with half of itself hidden from the view of the individual. 



Ne/Si:

Si is the significance of the impression of the world around oneself--the impact of unique perception, to the point that the world is no longer "what is", because it has taken on characteristics that don't truly exist in any other place other than the person's mind. it's a method of orientation that imbues the surroundings with--what would seem to a non-dominant user--fantasy-like qualities, that become a sort of "essence" of the object, something telling of its nature. 

So if you imagine a bubble that houses this perception, and protects it from interference of a more objective perception, Ne would be a piercing of that bubble, allowing it's contents of essence to flood outward as is natural based on the current environment. it's an unconscious extrapolation of this essence, and a look to see where the fluid will travel--without allowing the impression to sink in, to strengthen the protective confines of this barrier, but instead to do the exact opposite: to stop all distraction from observing what would seem to be the natural movement of this inner fluid among the lines and planes of what is currently in the here and now. 



Ni/Se:

Se _is_ "what is". it bases life around this form of perception--triangulates with points of reality, compares and contrasts facts, and uses these facts (facets of the world that are constant) as absolutes as a point of orientation. 

Ni does this too, but the emphasis isn't on aligning oneself with the fact, but in attempting to re-create an imaginary plane the fact can sit on, in regards to the rest of reality--almost like "virtual reality" (stick with me here, i'm not trying to spread a mental hard-on, just trying to enunciate this). there's what we can see and touch, hear and smell, but there is also an interconnecting plane between all these things, in way that a "fact" isn't just a point within a concept, but is instead a possible entity capable of becoming a movable shape, with sides and facets that are hidden away from view upon first glance. it's after translating the objective point towards this other view of reality that introverted intuition can begin to "side-step" a fact, moving around it, finding it's nooks and crannies and attempting to find the real fit in regards to this other view of reality that exists nowhere but in their own heads (no matter how much it measures up to the rest of the world, it's still just a subjective mirror to make sense of "what is", when one's own mentality is against believing in the deception of what is immediately tangible). 




as far as auxiliaries and what not: 

there's no reason someone couldn't be Ne-Fe-Ti-Si--and in most cases, it seems that a person's aux's will flip as needed, as most peoples' aux's are not solidified within their own personality to begin with, but are instead used as tools--and not a further adaptation of one's self upon this world. 

in fact, to give an example, i see most INTJs on here as being something closer to Ni-Fi-Te-Se--not to downplay their thinking, but it seems to be more of a tool than something that is "central" to themselves...

and this side of the argument (the last two paragraphs of what i've said) can be endlessly split again and again, so i'm just going to stop.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

reckful said:


> That example isn't ringing a bell for some reason. Can you remind me where it comes from? Was Jung talking about introverts generally or one of the four specific introverted types?


He was talking about the two "general types". Which are introvert and extrovert. From Psychological Types:



> One submits to a given state of affairs because his experience argues nothing else to be possible, another is convinced that, although it has repeated itself a thousand times in the same way, the thousand
> and first will be different. The former is orientated by the objective data; the latter reserves a
> view, which is, as it were, interposed between himself and the objective fact. Now, when the
> orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and
> ...


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Eh, I would attribute the "introvert style" to other things, such as Fi and enneagram instincts.

Also, this seems to make the wrong assumption that extroverts have no discretion in their social tendencies, which is wrong.

EDIT: upon reflection, I think this could also be attributed to a variety of disorders/biases that are not necessarily personality based. For example, someone with a codependency problem is more likely to exhibit the "extrovert style" described than say an extrovert with a healthy sense of self.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Nightchill said:


> Just out of curiosity... I read your post thrice and I don't see how the hell it is *hateful* and pretentious on Jung's or OP's part? Wtf...


Already said why,
Check my replies to other posters.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Since we are again discussing Ni and teetering on the topic of how "difficult it is to define," here is Jung again on Ni:



Thanks @_Agent Blackout_ for:

A verbatim excerpt taken from Chapter 10 of Carl Gustav Jung's work "Psychological Types" (1921):

=============================================


(III) PECULIARITIES OF THE BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS IN THE INTROVERTED ATTITUDE

8. Intuition

Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within. 

Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person. 

Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type. 

The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive. To the one just as much as to the other, it is an ae[]sthenic problem, a question of perception, a 'sensation'. In this way, the consciousness of his own bodily existence fades from the introverted intuitive's view, as does its effect upon others. The extraverted standpoint would say of him: 'Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless phantasies'. A perception of the unconscious images, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility. But, since these images represent possible ways of viewing life, which in given circumstances have the power to provide a new energic potential, this function, which to the outer world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel. 

Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are [p. 508] represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates. 

Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things. 

9. The Introverted Intuitive Type

The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509] 

If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels. 

Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'. 

The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete 'sublimation' is prevented. But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude. The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects. [p. 511] 

[ Web Source: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10 ]
*
*


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I feel sad inside.


Gentlepeople... Can we not simply agree to disagree and move on? The battle of egos is childish and unbecoming of intelligent human beings.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Because social extroversion =/= cognitive extroversion. That's one of the most basic things people should learn to differentiate between when they move from the MBTI to Jungian cognition.


Did somebody say "Jungian"...?


* *






Jung said:


> [Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.





Jung said:


> [The introvert] holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. ... He is not in the least "with it," and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to people. His better qualities he keeps to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them. He is easily mistrustful, self-willed, often suffers from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also envious. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear of making a fool of himself, is usually very touchy and surrounds himself with a barbed wire entanglement so dense and impenetrable that finally he himself would rather do anything than sit behind it. ...
> 
> For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His own company is the best. He feels at home in his world, where the only changes are made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative, and in his own way. ...
> 
> His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.





Jung said:


> Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote. ...
> 
> The actual subject, the extravert as a subjective entity, is, so far as possible, shrouded in darkness. He hides it from himself under veils of unconsciousness. The disinclination to submit his own motives to critical examination is very pronounced. He has no secrets he has not long since shared with others. Should something unmentionable nevertheless befall him, he prefers to forget it. Anything that might tarnish the parade of optimism and positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, intends, and does is displayed with conviction and warmth. ...
> 
> The psychic life of this type of person is enacted, as it were, outside himself, in the environment. He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a "complex," he finds refuge in the social whirl and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order. Provided he is not too much of a busybody, too pushing, and too superficial, he can be a distinctly useful member of the community.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Thank god for the BBCode bag of holding. Only a thing so mighty could hold a post so egomaniacally huge. 

* *







fourtines said:


> Because my ESTJ step monster was always externally busy and some times mocked me and my ISTJ grandfather for our inner lives. I also noticed by high school I had more of an inner world than some of my peers. My ESFJ friend avoids inner life like death. She used to sleep with the tv on and told me that she always kept busy and noisy because it creeps her out to sit and think too much.


You did later say these weren't good examples... but I have say again, this does not sound like healthy xSTJ to me. At all. I know STJs do not do these things. Any description that has a negative connotation is almost certainly bound to be wrong or at least very badly representative. I am sure you know that, though.



FearAndTrembling said:


> I wonder if introversion causes more mental health issues. For example, I created a total false narrative in my head that I have health problems. When I am healthy as hell. I wonder if other introverts cause false narratives like this that cause problems.


false narrative = subjective = introverted function, perhaps two in tandem?



Animal said:


> I'm an ENFP. I am currently working on a sci fi/ fantasy trilogy, and I spend about 12-15 hours a day working or researching. I am also a musician, and I've been an effective band leader, but it was all about getting *my* vision out. I had no interest in partying and in fact, I hated the whole 'fan' thing, but one has to collect fans in order to perform in nicer venues. As a strategy I relied on my band members to be extra social. To be blunt, I've had 8 marriage proposals, and many more try their best to be with me, but I am usually single. I am 33, and I've only been in one relationship that lasted more than a few months - not because I'm SHALLOW but because I need to spend an inordinate amount of time alone, and my lovers are seen as "too demanding." I need 12-15 hours a day alone wth my creative work, and I've been like this all my life - when I was a little kid, middle school etc, I spent lunch periods writing fantasy and practicing piano & singing, and stayed up all night to have time alone with my creative world. All I ever wanted to do in my life is sing and write. I'm an SX-4 and very very lusty, and I am apt to be obsessed with someone for up to 7 years who is a best friend, but for whatever reason won't commit to me. I have also had profoundly intense connections with friends or musicians that lasted many years, and when I did have a longer relationship, it was with a close friend who I connected with deeply, and needed just as much time alone as I did; so that we could share a studio apartment but do our own thing in opposite corners. However the battle between my alone-time and my lustiness has been a problem for me all these years. I am not conflicted about having no time for a social life.. I'm fine to keep up with friends here and there on facebook, and having to actually meet up is a chore because it's time away from my work.
> 
> Function wise, no matter how many times I go over this, it always comes out to Ne-Fi. I do not spread my seed wildly like described, as you can see. That being said, I make decent use of social network systems when I can operate from home, so that I can get my music heard by others.


Let me put my weight behind the 'you are definitely not an Ne-dom' camp. That much is clear. I think Te dom, in some sort of extraverted loop. I thought ENTJ at this point.. but as the thread continued on, you never engaged the conceptual aspect despite countless opportunities to do so. You brought the conversation back to the sensory, again and again. Can we argue Te/Se from this? No, likely not. Te/Ne? That gives you your Ne, and the extraverted loop handles the fact that you don't manifest 'J' stereotypes. I know @_ephemereality_ doesn't see Fi in you, but that doesn't mean Fe... your extraversion can be washing it out. ExTJ, I say. ESTJ, is my hipshot guess. No way in hell you are an Ne/Fi. I get the ESFJ typing, but I think it hinges entirely on lack of Fi, and I don't follow it to the same place as ephemereality. I actively see Te. 



ephemereality said:


> I have to disagree with you. Animal is one of the most extraverted people I know. By that I mean cognitively. With that said I might suggest that you are right suggesting she might not be an irrational dom.


I know you don't buy loops, but we are ultimately saying the same thing here.. I am just using loaded terminology.



fourtines said:


> Not without pointing out that you don't sound like an Ni dom but more like some one who needs to talk to his doctor about Celexa.
> 
> I can't use you as any sort of normal litmus of anything, do you realize that?


 @_ephemereality_ is an Ni-dom. He engages and works within the conceptual aspect. "intuits the archetype" is a great way of stating it. Whether or not you think it works or has a good product, it is nevertheless true. Also, that someone blasts you with Te does not mean Te-dom. One must consider it's role in cognition.. and also remember that it is the extraverted judging function. What in the world else would be used to blast someone?



fourtines said:


> You sound very INxx. To a painfully obvious degree.


I get the triggers here. But, why don't you see the more clear triggers for extreme cognitive extraversion?



Animal said:


> He is referring to my cognition, not my personality. He has known me over a long span of time, which is a better way to type someone than basing your idea of their functions on one paragraph.
> 
> I've written 400-page books in the period of a month. My mind keeps going and going and going. I get one idea after another. Right now I have a vision for a fantasy series and I already have everything laid out in my mind up to book 4, even though I'm not finished with book 1. My visions are HUGE. I never just write one song; I write a concept album. My vision is always gigantic, expansive, a billion steps ahead of me. There is more to me than just the fact that I prefer my grand visions over useless socializing.


This does indeed sound very Te/Ni (not Ni/Te)... but, talk of vision is not vision. Evoking the sensory to prove intuition is telling. It always shifts once we see it directly, and not through your filter. 



Animal said:


> Let me be clear about something:
> 
> I am not the _wishful_ mistyped. I could not give a crap what my type is. I am typed based on what I think is most accurate.
> 
> Please don't presume my motives. I have no problem with a discussion about cognition and theory, but my motive is not to type myself at Ne over Ni? Why would I care? I'm still the same person regardless of the label.


This is T, Te I think... and it's leading. It's strong. No surprise there. I think it's dominant, not tertiary. 



Figure said:


> @_Animal_ is not an INTJ, and not an ESFJ. She is correctly typed as an ENFP.
> 
> The reason people are not seeing it is because they are
> 
> ...


Those reasons do not apply. 



FearAndTrembling said:


> How does filling your family life with family make it rich?
> 
> My god, you are so incapable of seeing past the concrete that you actually thought I was literally envisioning a sofa and cave in my mind. It was a metaphor. How could I even attempt to communicate with somebody who takes things so literally? You are not Ni, as has been pointed out.


Aggravating, right? Tell me about it. But, what does that have to do with Ni? It's much much much more simple that this. Does he "intuit the archetype" or not? Does he engage the conceptual aspect or not? It's as simple as can be and the answer is clearly Ni-dominance. Ni is not a superpower that lets you never interpret something literally. It's not some pass/fail quality test. It is what it is... if it doesn't catch the pattern in something, it will call it dross, and Ni (unlike Ne) doesn't always immediately get the gist of things. As a Ti, I don't always size up the logic of things right or at all, but when I do get it in there... watch out. I typically do, but if I can't see the logic of something straight off... and I not a Ti-dom? Silliness. That is how to think of Ni.






ephemereality said:


> Because social extroversion =/= cognitive extroversion. That's one of the most basic things people should learn to differentiate between when they move from the MBTI to Jungian cognition.
> 
> And my inner world isn't factual or concrete necessarily. Where did I even put it in such terms? I may have described it as a landscape, but that is simply how it's described to others and why one should not use the idea of an inner world as any form of qualification whatsoever in order to determine someone's psychological type.



This whole question got me thinking. Do I have an inner world? What does that even mean? I hear INFJs say that a lot... and ENFJs I guess. What is it? 

I realize, no, I don't have an inner world, rich or not. What is an inner world? Is it a place you go around in? Is it a narrative of the outside world? Is it a fantasy setting? Are there people in this world? 

I have an incredibly robust and quick imagination... but I know not from whence it came. When asked to think about something, usually stuff just comes to me and I say it. When I write stories, I write them on paper and leave them there. When I think about the people on that paper, it is much like I'd think of someone I know... except that some part of my brain that I do not control also provides the content... but, honestly, we surely know that our minds do that anyway with all sorts of things. Our minds fill in an incredible amount. It's just that mine goes further, and most importantly, is ALWAYS engaged into the archetype. When I think of a character in my mind... I think of them for what they symbolize. This is not deliberate, but instant and intrinsic. EDIT: No, I simply perceive it. It is simply how I think. Some other might choose to think of them as a reflection of an archetype, of nuance of intangible aspects... but I don't. That comes no matter what, I'd have to think, expend a bit, to add in the sensory aspects. 

Everything reflects the archetype, everything echoes the symbol, and speaks to something intangibly greater. That is the dominant perceiving aspect of my cognition. Simple as a pimple. 

I could have come in here and given you all sorts of data about me, and then said that people think I am super intuitive.. but what does that mean? It means my cognition relies on a lot of sensory data and delegates logic. Proof of Ti/Ne, right? Nah.

I don't think I fully get what an inner world is. My imagination is extraverted in every sense. It is not subjective, it begs to be shared, to be validated, to have an impact... when I come at the world, I come at it with Ne/Fe - to make it better with my perspective and much spraying of conceptual and value judging shit. My 'inner world' is my incisive logic and the way I separate the world by nuanced impressions of all that I have observed. So, no, no inner world to speak of.... I do think a whole lot, though. Like, a really a lot. A scary a lot.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The sad thing is, I actually transferred this argument over the real world...

After work, I hit a bar in the city. There was an extremely attractive young woman who struck up a conversation with me, and informed me she was a structural engineer. I immediately accused her of being a "worshipper of facts", and saying she can't see beyond the physical. I held up my Red Bull and Vodka, stuck it close to her face, and dared her to find something interesting in the materials of which the glass is made. I then said her silence was proof of the dullness of her thinking. She just looked at me in astonishment, I mean she wasn't even arguing. I was just going on a tirade.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

arkigos said:


> Those reasons do not apply.


Yes, they do. You simply disagree with the typing. I disagree with yours, with absolutely zero evidence of Te-dominance, and zero overlap with writing samples from other ENTJ or ESTJ on the forum. Additionally, I have spoken with with @_Animal_ off forum, so my typing is based off what I have noticed in real time. Unless you have similar experiences, then your opinion is based on useless data, as is most forum typing.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

arkigos said:


> Let me put my weight behind the 'you are definitely not an Ne-dom' camp. That much is clear. I think Te dom, in some sort of extraverted loop. I thought ENTJ at this point.. but as the thread continued on, you never engaged the conceptual aspect despite countless opportunities to do so. You brought the conversation back to the sensory, again and again. Can we argue Te/Se from this? No, likely not. Te/Ne? That gives you your Ne, and the extraverted loop handles the fact that you don't manifest 'J' stereotypes.


Or she could be an ENFP in a Ne-Te loop. =)



FearAndTrembling said:


> After work, I hit a bar in the city. There was an extremely attractive young woman who struck up a conversation with me, and informed me she was a structural engineer. I immediately accused her of being a "worshipper of facts", and saying she can't see beyond the physical. I held up my Red Bull and Vodka, stuck it close to her face, and dared her to find something interesting in the materials of which the glass is made. I then said her silence was proof of the dullness of her thinking. She just looked at me in astonishment, I mean she wasn't even arguing. I was just going on a tirade.


You sound like a lovely person.

(I considered writing out a longer response earlier, but didn't have the energy. Oh well, I haven't actually read Jung outside a few quotes here and there so I probably wouldn't have anything valid to say anyway.)


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Figure said:


> Yes, they do. You simply disagree with the typing. I disagree with yours, with absolutely zero evidence of Te-dominance, and zero overlap with writing samples from other ENTJ or ESTJ on the forum. Additionally, I have spoken with with @_Animal_ off forum, so my typing is based off what I have noticed in real time. Unless you have similar experiences, then your opinion is based on useless data, as is most forum typing.


What is 'evidence of Te-dominance' to you? 

People can mistype in person just as well as online. I am certainly not asking you to accept a typing that contradicts your own.... though I would hope you'd consider it on it's own merit, and not lumped into some generalization. 



Nonsense said:


> Or she could be an ENFP in a Ne-Te loop. =)


I think I already addressed that in mentioning that she doesn't engage in "N" discussion, but offers more and more sensory data. That isn't an Ne/Te loop, or Ne/Fi or any of that. Ne dom is Ne dom. The best sign of an Ne-dom mistype is that there is a ton of talk about all the examples of how Ne they are, but where is the Ne here and now? We get a lot of Je, but where is the DOMINANT N? It's a thing. A real thing.... not an anecdote that probably happens somewhere. You know what Ne dom is... is it going to bear down on a conclusion and talk about life details or is it going to engage the theory in a free and objective way? Here. Now. If this person is an Ne dom, we'll know it because of their role in this conversation.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I think I already addressed that in mentioning that she doesn't engage in "N" discussion, but offers more and more sensory data.


I figured that was because she's not as interested in this particular theory.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> I figured that was because she's not as interested in this particular theory.


Met many ENFPs? They are interested in every theory. Any theory. All Ne all the time. This is yet another common Ne descriptor that happens to be true... all 'theories' are naturally engaged and are voraciously inducted. They have to be inducted to be judged.

Ne not being interested in a dynamic theory is like Se not being interested in a dynamic experience. 

They usually can't help it, or don't think about it. If they are here, they are in the thick of it because that is what Ne is. 

An ENFP isn't suddenly going to manifest as another type because they don't like the specifics of a theory. They will manifest like an ENFP and say they don't like the specifics of a theory, and then, using Ne, will offer a counter theory, or how it speaks to some essential pattern, or what it means, or whatever but it will be dealing with the conceptual/intangible/archetypal aspect of the thing... not the sensory rendering of them. Remember that ENFP is very similar to ENTP... and you think that ENTP is going to say 'blah, I don't like this theory so I'll just tell you that other people think this and that's it'. No way. If they aren't theorizing about that, they'll just tangent off onto something else... but it's all Ne. Not somewhere else. Not offline, not in a book somewhere, not in a conversation they once had.... here, and now.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I think I already addressed that in mentioning that she doesn't engage in "N" discussion, but offers more and more sensory data. That isn't an Ne/Te loop, or Ne/Fi or any of that. Ne dom is Ne dom. The best sign of an Ne-dom mistype is that there is a ton of talk about all the examples of how Ne they are, but where is the Ne here and now? We get a lot of Je, but where is the DOMINANT N? It's a thing. A real thing.... not an anecdote that probably happens somewhere. You know what Ne dom is... is it going to bear down on a conclusion and talk about life details or is it going to engage the theory in a free and objective way? Here. Now. If this person is an Ne dom, we'll know it because of their role in this conversation.


That is not the way it works on a constant basis.

People have cognitive sets and they can come from different points of view at different times depending on what befits the situation, or what they feel appropriate, or what have you. Just because you lead with dominant Ne doesn't mean you're gonna be 24-7 ideas or theory; the way people use their minds is potentially far more complex and individual than some archetypal representations. Speaking about this specific instance, @_Animal_ has been through a lot in her life that others may not have and it's further shaped her cognition in some interesting ways. For instance, you see a lot of Si-style content show up because her life's been rich, she's reached more personal maturity than a lot of others probably have, and she's got a lot of content to talk about - but if you actually had a glimpse into what her life seems to have been like from an earlier age, and put it together with the current picture, you'd get a longitudinal glimpse of why ENFP appears to be correct over ExTJ. I won't go into detail because I don't like to talk about other people's business.

Further to note is that people get into different modes of thinking with different levels of cognitive maturity. Someone who may have started out looking purely like an Ne dom even in your conception may end up looking more Te later in life because they've grown into using that sort of perspective in their cognition and interaction with the world. Then you take that developed perspective and ask it to reminisce on youth..and you see where confusion can come in. Actually analyzing a person can be a long and involved process, much more so than reading some posts of theirs on a forum and declaring them a type.

Also, roles in conversations are variable depending on how the conversation is relevant to a person.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> That is not the way it works on a constant basis.
> 
> People have cognitive sets and they can come from different points of view at different times depending on what befits the situation, or what they feel appropriate, or what have you. Just because you lead with dominant Ne doesn't mean you're gonna be 24-7 ideas or theory; the way people use their minds is potentially far more complex and individual than some archetypal representations.
> 
> Roles in conversations are variable depending on how the conversation is relevant to a person.


There are variances, sure... lots of them, but you run the risk of taking it too far in the other direction... and you can type someone who consistently shows X as Y because a lot of obvious signifiers are washed away as data variance - and something pulled out of a single conversation is given a lot of weight that it doesn't deserve. 

...and I certainly wouldn't say that my opinion wouldn't change if Ne were suddenly to appear, but .... no, an ENFP is not going to come into a conversation with data and Je and then not engage the theoretical aspect of the conversation. That's just too much. 

You showed at least your top three functions just in that one paragraph. Te/Se gave us the 'the observable data is too variant, it's a wash' bit - Se providing the perception of variance. Obviously a strong T user, and the direct and objective use of it would show Te... 

...and, of course, you engaged the conversation at a conceptual/archetypal/generalized/theoretical level. You approached it without anecdote or a dump of details... and showed rather than told that engaging theory is something that is very natural to you... a 'go-to'. Every N user here is doing that. It's the nature of the conversation... and if someone comes on and pulls it to anecdote about how they are such an N somewhere else... that's just people being dynamic? Really?

I don't know her type, and may have mentioned nothing on my own... but, I figured I'd chime in for what it was worth, but then also felt inclined to tangent about the fact that Ne is a manifest thing, not something somewhere else that people talk about themselves doing but don't do.

That is, of course, divested from the specific situation here... and may or may not apply to the subject at all. It's a generalization, a theory, a concept... and the situation that spawned it is somewhat peripheral. That would be Ne. Well, N.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

There is so much derpy piddle in this fucking thread that I don't even know where to begin. How about we make a new rule? If you don't grasp the concept of types, Jung's work, or whatever the fuck else is being argued about, how about you keep your damn mouth closed? LULZ. The only one in this thread who is offering up any speckle of sense or rationality is Flatlander. At least someone is keeping me from losing my sanity. This whole thread is so full of bullshit, and people are reading wayyy too much into shit that actually has nothing to do with a person's type. And if you people want me to go on a rant about why typing people over the internet is a senseless, lulzy, and worthless effort, I would be happy explain that for the 500th time since I've been on PerC. The bottom line is that most of you don't really grasp the theory, and the ones that do are being ambushed by stupid ass stereotypical myth bull shit that's being presented by hardcore n00bs as well-studied opinions. I can't believe I really just walked into this shit expecting anything better than what I just got. Mother fucking fackfdj xD


----------



## Aryn2 (Jul 25, 2013)

This started a lot of debate....but personally I found this to be true and it helped me affirm my extroversion, despite my reclusive nature. So thank you, @FearAndTrembling for sharing.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Aryn2 said:


> This started a lot of debate....but personally I found this to be true and it helped me affirm my extroversion, despite my reclusive nature. So thank you, @_FearAndTrembling_ for sharing.


Most of what's been said here doesn't even constitute as a real debate in my opinion. It's mostly just senseless rambling about a topic which most people show no real understanding of, and to be honest, I'm not sure what most of it had to do with the original post? Ha. Intelligent discussion is just too much to expect I suppose, and staying on topic is for damn sure too much to expect apparently >_> I came here to call a thing a thing. I'm not going to beat around the bush. Most of this thread is full of bull shit--unrelated bull shit at that, lulz. Just calling it like I see it. Someone had to. If you don't like it then...


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Figure said:


> Yes, they do. You simply disagree with the typing. I disagree with yours, with absolutely zero evidence of Te-dominance, and zero overlap with writing samples from other ENTJ or ESTJ on the forum. Additionally, I have spoken with with @_Animal_ off forum, so my typing is based off what I have noticed in real time. *Unless you have similar experiences, then your opinion is based on useless data, as is most forum typing*.


Exactly.

If someone wants "samples" of me writing, all you have to do is look around the enneagram board. But luckily I blog some of my posts when I want to save them up in one spot for reference. So I can link this thread to a few posts I've blogged.

Sex is Communication - Blogs - PersonalityCafe

Inspiration - Blogs - PersonalityCafe

Power - Blogs - PersonalityCafe

Style - Blogs - PersonalityCafe

Lust & Limerance - Blogs - PersonalityCafe

What is 4's core? - Blogs - PersonalityCafe

Type 4: Stereotypes - Blogs - PersonalityCafe

Summary of my Trauma-Reaction - Blogs - PersonalityCafe

What is 4's core? More general post about Type 4. - Blogs - PersonalityCafe

A post from my Recent Typing Thread - Blogs - PersonalityCafe


This will give insight as to who I am, how I write, my priorities, my mind, some of my past experience that made me into who I am (in the trauma-reaction post), etc. I'd love to hear a case for ENTJ or ESFJ after that! This would thoroughly amuse me if someone wants to present it. Feel free to rip into my blog posts and find a case. 

None of this will be as useful as talking to a person in real time, but it's better than nothing.



Nonsense said:


> I figured that was because she's not as interested in this particular theory.


Just to comment on this - it's not that I'm not interested, but that I'm still questioning some things, so I was offering less information and asking questions. Because I already made the mistake of marching into the forum when I knew less about enneagram than I thought I did, and then realized how much I needed to learn, about 100 long rambles too late. ;D

Beyond that, I was hoping to get some writing done that day, so I was trying not to over-engage, but kind of failed..



Flatlander said:


> That is not the way it works on a constant basis.
> 
> *People have cognitive sets and they can come from different points of view at different times depending on what befits the situation, or what they feel appropriate, or what have you.* *Just because you lead with dominant Ne doesn't mean you're gonna be 24-7 ideas or theory; the way people use their minds is potentially far more complex and individual than some archetypal representations.* Speaking about this specific instance, @_Animal_ has been through a lot in her life that others may not have and it's further shaped her cognition in some interesting ways. For instance, you see a lot of Si-style content show up because her life's been rich, she's reached more personal maturity than a lot of others probably have, and she's got a lot of content to talk about - but if you actually had a glimpse into what her life seems to have been like from an earlier age, and put it together with the current picture, you'd get a longitudinal glimpse of why ENFP appears to be correct over ExTJ. I won't go into detail because I don't like to talk about other people's business.
> 
> ...


This.. I wish I could thank this post 100 times. 

The bolded is a much better phrasing of what I was trying to explain, but I was engaging people earlier because I want to learn more about Ne, Ni, how these manifest in me; I was also looking for some explanation of why my Te is used so well, and why I feel like a social introvert; but this doesn't invalidate everything I have learned about the functions in the past year and a half, and how Ne and Si make so much sense for me as a life-long axis, along with their development. What you wrote here is what I was trying to say, but worded eloquently and concisely. The bolded needs to be said on this forum on almost any thread... I am glad you were here to say it.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

All of that being said, the villain in my novel that I'm currently writing is an ENTJ, and I have been waiting for the day when someone called me an ENTJ.  I write a damn convincing ENTJ, if I may say so myself. Part of the reason I un-retired and came back to PerC is because I feared I was turning into him. *giggle* So aside from the fact that I don't agree with the typing for myself, I'm not offended, I am actually thoroughly amused.

I type my characters after skeletal drafts are complete, in order to understand them better for editing. He is based loosely on an INFJ I know IRL, but this rendition came out as an ENTJ. And I've had this character typed by others who know the theory very well. His ENTJ'ness is pretty blaring whereas some of the other characters are not developed as well, or their functions aren't as obvious. I really love writing him <3 And oddly enough I think he's helped me to develop my Te.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Animal said:


> All of that being said, the villain in my novel that I'm currently writing is an ENTJ, and I have been waiting for the day when someone called me an ENTJ.  I write a damn convincing ENTJ, if I may say so myself. Part of the reason I un-retired and came back to PerC is because I feared I was turning into him. *giggle* So aside from the fact that I don't agree with the typing for myself, I'm not offended, *I am actually thoroughly amused.*


As well you should be :kitteh:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ace Face said:


> There is so much derpy piddle in this fucking thread that I don't even know where to begin. ... And if you people want me to go on a rant about why typing people over the internet is a senseless, lulzy, and worthless effort, I would be happy explain that for the 500th time since I've been on PerC.


You give off a @#&$%NTJ vibe to me.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

reckful said:


> You give off a @#&$%NTJ vibe to me.


Thanks for teh gigglez


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

arkigos said:


> What is 'evidence of Te-dominance' to you?


Evidence of any function is when a person consistently and compulsively demonstrates a pattern of cognition that matches an archetype.

Te as a function assesses what is explicit in experience to be objectively important. Te dominance synthesizes factual information that is explicit in experience. When someone compulsively depends on Te, their focus is almost always on either directly synthesizing and assessing data, or articulating what they believe is objective. 

Which is why we do not see many/any Te dominants writing several blogs on poetry, or style, or self-discovery as a type 4, or whatever else Animal has decided to muse on. These serve little objective purpose, and a lot of subjective purpose. 





> People can mistype in person just as well as online. I am certainly not asking you to accept a typing that contradicts your own.... though I would hope you'd consider it on it's own merit, and not lumped into some generalization.


As I said - it's the data that you're working with that is stupid, not your opinion given the data.


----------

