# J.H. van der Hoop’s descriptions of Ne and Ni



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

What do we think of these descriptions? 


__
https://mbtidatabase.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F119930674946


__
https://mbtidatabase.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F119930670731

The Fi and Fe stickies were written by him. He did “analysis with Jung.”


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

I like some parts of his descriptions, he has a bit more clarity than a certain someone


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

That was a good reading. In introverted intuitive fashion I'll comment on this part:
"The main thing is, however, that ordinary practical things and the world of facts are far removed for them, and they try to confine their contact with them to that which they can regulate according to their wishes. Everything else appears to them as something disquietingly incalculable, against which they must defend themselves as far as they possibly can. "
That these 'facts' that are spoken of are proven time and again to be wrong, hence the assuredness and sense of knowing is being displayed to others as extreme rigidity.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

I found several things enlightening and some off.
For Ne he is wrong that we only want to cause a sensation in others with our ideas ans not work things out. At least that would be the immature aspect. 

For Ni he discusses something I’ve never seen brought up before in a description, that sense of evil in oneself. Its been discussed by Ni doms with me who were surprised that I didn’t have this sense about myself.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Reading was good but it made my head hurt, pretty vague and confusing 

Still wondering why it couldn't be explained straight to the point instead of walls of arbitrary text?  When I threw Jung's introverted intuition explanation to my partner, she was immediately able to point out lines which actually describe it, making it very easy to understand and imagine for myself, especially when backed up by real life examples how the person experiences it. She said why it has to be explained so complex way if it can be told in maybe 3-4 simple sentences which anyone could understand  No unnecessary mystery and fuzz needed around it. One thing is clear - you either have it or not, can't be trained, learned or practised. Also can't lose that.

I have harder time to understand extraverted intuition though - prob because I have a few close Ni doms around me who can explain it (even without knowing theories) while I don't have good sources of Ne around me.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

I don’t think Van der Hoop’s descriptions are the end-all. We have to note that he was working with sick people. With his SI description he says people with Si come across as lazy and not inclined to activity. This is in direct conflict with most descriptions of Si. 

@tarmonk. Since these are cognitive processes they affect many things. In my experience when people try to say cognitive functions are simple, they don’t actually understand them or anything they affect. Basically if they are so simple then they can’t have to do with X,Y,Z and there is nothing more to understand. Why would there be many website and hundreds of descriptions out there. 

Sometimes simplifying means you get it wrong. As if the only thing to understand about an elephant is that it is a mammal. Same as a mouse. 

But still Van der Hoop isn’t going to be the only description out there. I really like Dario Nardi’s work on MBTI. I highly recommend his first book on MBTI to you. He is an INTJ. He boils things down (like Ni likes to do) but then he also adds much more information about the effects of the functions and about what the brain is actually doing when using those functions. I will make a thread about his more recent book in the ENFP forum for you with his simplifications. Although… like I said…simplifying sometimes means not seeing deeper aspects to the nature of the thing.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Llyralen said:


> I don’t think Van der Hoop’s descriptions are the end-all. We have to note that he was working with sick people. With his SI description he says people with Si come across as lazy and not inclined to activity. This is in direct conflict with most descriptions of Si.
> 
> @tarmonk. Since these are cognitive processes they affect many things. In my experience when people try to say cognitive functions are simple, they don’t actually understand them or anything they affect. Basically if they are so simple then they can’t have to do with X,Y,Z and there is nothing more to understand. Why would there be many website and hundreds of descriptions out there.
> 
> ...


Could you reference his introverted sensing descriptions? Worth to take a look and see how it feels.

Agreed that it all is not THAT simple but it's not that mysterious either and depends on what's anybody's goal - is it more about being a theoretical bookworm or seeing how things actually work in real life. I'm more interested in imagining how any process really worked if I had them in my mind and best source for studying that is a real person whom you know and who uses particular processes as actually usable tools and is able to describe them. The more similar people you ask about the same, the clearer picture you get - works better than studying dry details of theories only, for me at least.

Got very good understanding of NI by hearing my partner's and friend's explanation and comparing them to how Jung explained it - and very clear that I don't have any similar capability. It won't benefit me or them to dig into every detail of theory as I'm unable to actually experience NI in practically usable way anyway, no matter how hard I try or study it. But for them it's an actually usable tool for their own sake.

It's the fastest way to put together theory with reality - and if you can't link them, what's the use of theory then


----------



## Internal (Nov 4, 2020)

Llyralen said:


> For Ni he discusses something I’ve never seen brought up before in a description, that sense of evil in oneself. Its been discussed by Ni doms with me who were surprised that I didn’t have this sense about myself.


This made me wonder a bit. According to Jung: _"Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious."_ (Taken from Ch. 11 of Psychological Types)
Then its relation to the unconscious is brought up a few more times.

I also know that Jung refined the idea of the Shadow - a part of our unconscious that's considered negative in the eyes of our conscious mind; containing repressed desires, qualities we don't want to identify with for different reasons (usually by societal pressure), but even talents and potential. It doesn't have to be "evil" per the expectations of society, but everyone will think about their own shadow as evil itself. (This is my understanding of the concept.)

So what I wonder, is - as introverted intuition is in touch with the unconscious, it might be in a sense overlapping with the shadow. Or, rather, receiving impressions from it that other function users otherwise don't have. Which would explain that "sense of evil".

I must confess I'm more confident in my knowledge of the shadow than that of the functions, so feel free to correct if I made a blunder.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> I found several things enlightening and some off.
> For Ne he is wrong that we only want to cause a sensation in others with our ideas ans not work things out. At least that would be the immature aspect.
> 
> For Ni he discusses something I’ve never seen brought up before in a description, that sense of evil in oneself. Its been discussed by Ni doms with me who were surprised that I didn’t have this sense about myself.


Working things out would be something any decent person would like to accomplish, so yeah he might be looking for things specific to the type which might paint a more extreme and one sided picture. As to the sense of evil, it comes from Ni's perception of archetypes. It could indeed be the case as @Internal has described, but for me, I think because I integrated my shadow and am an 8 this internal friction is much less common, instead the focus is put on the external and which archetype I need to convey in order to bring forth the results I'm looking for. I know that in the past I was holding myself back from considering to use certain archetypes that I considered as evil, and perhaps that's the difference between Ni doms and auxs, that this sense of archetype for them is themselves, while for me it's a very valuable source of wisdom which needs to be filtered through the judging process. (EDIT: and Te by itself has its own definitions of good and evil, which I wouldn't override)

Enneagram 1 comes to mind when thinking about that internal good/evil struggle.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

tarmonk said:


> Could you reference his introverted sensing descriptions? Worth to take a look and see how it feels.
> 
> Agreed that it all is not THAT simple but it's not that mysterious either and depends on what's anybody's goal - is it more about being a theoretical bookworm or seeing how things actually work in real life. I'm more interested in imagining how any process really worked if I had them in my mind and best source for studying that is a real person whom you know and who uses particular processes as actually usable tools and is able to describe them. The more similar people you ask about the same, the clearer picture you get - works better than studying dry details of theories only, for me at least.
> 
> ...


I am on PersonalityCafe for this very reason, to take Jung then ask questions of people using that function, but then you run the risk of 2 things:
1. Meeting people with similar traits, linking it to the function, when meeting a few other people would show there was not a pattern. (By the way, this is what Ne does… learns by seeing patterns and able to see when they are not linked as well by keeping open…making sure you get enough data.)

2. Many people are mis-typed. Most people have not taken official MBTI as one thing and there are poor online tests. After a while though of finding the hallmarks and asking questions of a wide group, you can notice when something is off or something stands out in opposition of that type.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Fru2 said:


> Working things out would be something any decent person would like to accomplish, so yeah he might be looking for things specific to the type which might paint a more extreme and one sided picture. As to the sense of evil, it comes from Ni's perception of archetypes. It could indeed be the case as @Internal has described, but for me, I think because I integrated my shadow and am an 8 this internal friction is much less common, instead the focus is put on the external and which archetype I need to convey in order to bring forth the results I'm looking for. I know that in the past I was holding myself back from considering to use certain archetypes that I considered as evil, and perhaps that's the difference between Ni doms and auxs, that this sense of archetype for them is themselves, while for me it's a very valuable source of wisdom which needs to be filtered through the judging process. (EDIT: and Te by itself has its own definitions of good and evil, which I wouldn't override)
> 
> Enneagram 1 comes to mind when thinking about that internal good/evil struggle.


Usually the sense of evil I’m talking about has been brought up by Ni dom not aux with me and usually in a somewhat positive light, actually. @Internal See if this makes any sense.

1.Ni doms talk about having a “dark side”. And they talk about it very positively. 
2. Ni doms talk about dark being beautiful. Dark in the soul, dark at night, etc. 
3. Ni doms often ask me where my dark side is. Or where the ENFP dark side is. “I’m too dark for you guys.” “Do INFPs have a dark side since you guys don’t seem to.” LOL. 

The Fi feeling of bad inside us is very different because it is a decision process. This is just different. Id have to really dig into it and make a post, but I think I have before— yes, I actually remember a thread where this happened—and it didn’t meet its mark. All the Fi people were writing me, crying, saying what I wrote was one of the most touching things ever and so like their own soul and the feeling of it went completely over the INFJs heads, one who make a joke and then a few INFJs got mad at me for acting indignant after he made the joke because they didn’t see how something very deep had been offered and I had to say… go look! That was personal stuff! Notice the Fi reaction. And anyway, this is two areas that really don’t translate well across Fe and Fi… and one of them coming from Fi and one from Ni. Not exactly equal. I’m not sure what the Ne concept of dark is…which you would think would be the equivalent. I think we see it as a concept like other concepts, it’s not personal. I’m not sure though, there should be some kind of mirror going on. It’s the Fi that is personal and intensely so.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

@Llyralen oh dark side in that regard.. very different from what I'd consider evil. It's more a recognition of the more twisted meaning behind things which can be done without hurting a soul in the process. I think it's beneficial since it makes that whole realm somewhat conscious for Ni users, so they can recognize a trend leading towards it from the get go. And won't engage in things that lead towards it in the first place and warn others when they spot it. 

I can't really comment on your Fi/Fe experience because I don't have any other context than your personal view of what you've experienced. Could you provide a link to the thread?


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Fru2 said:


> @Llyralen oh dark side in that regard.. very different from what I'd consider evil. It's more a recognition of the more twisted meaning behind things which can be done without hurting a soul in the process. I think it's beneficial since it makes that whole realm somewhat conscious for Ni users, so they can recognize a trend leading towards it from the get go. And won't engage in things that lead towards it in the first place and warn others when they spot it.
> 
> I can't really comment on your Fi/Fe experience because I don't have any other context than your personal view of what you've experienced. Could you provide a link to the thread?


Afraid not, but know I would give you a hug and smilingly shake my head while I say no. I have no idea where it is (I didn’t start the thread, but it was in an answer) and even though I think it was some of my best writing ever and meant something to Fi people who responded with a lot of feeling and warmth. I still find it to be extremely embarrassing that I gave so much of myself in it and that wasn’t understood well by Fe users. I’m still very embarrassed by the whole thing. I’m not going back there.

But I will give you this story: 
I recently had discussions with 2 different INFJs about Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. I really respect the mastery of Dostoevsky, but his reasoning for Crime and Punishment almost seems unneeded by the Fi-Te axis. We have such a strong gut reaction to the murder that we don’t seem to feel like that we need reasoning not to kill. One of the INFJs I said this to said “Oh come on, don’t you sense that dark part of yourself? You can’t be so immune to this idea.” Something close to that. So there I was again with the discussion of the “dark side”. I said “Nope. Not myself. Not in that way. But I hear from a few INFJs that you feel almost the same about Shakespeare. Can appreciate the mastery, but don’t “need” it? Its very interesting. For Fi the MC in Crime and Punishment (I’m being lazy about doing italics and looking up names, please excuse) seems messed up before the murder. For Fi it would mean we were very very messed up to murder someone and for the INFJs I spoke to it seemed logical that the MC was messed up only after the murder. The murder seemed warranted to the INFJs but as Dostoevsky writes, even what they consider a justified murder would take its toll and ruin the murderer. To me (and I think I checked with my husband and probably @ai.tran.75 ) we could hardly see what the old woman had done wrong and definitely not done anything personally wrong to warrant murder, which for Fi-Te you only commit for self-defense and then let the (Te) law take over. There’s more to explain there and discuss. We were able to discuss for at least an hour. It’s very interesting


Usually with INFJs there is something equal going on with me in just a very inside-out way… so I actually think it’s that I accurately see the dark in the outside world. Actually, now that I remember, I KNOW it is that. Sometimes when I talk about truly horrific things that have happened in this world then I am glad to know about them, so that maybe I can find a way to combat it! But often Ni (INTJs too) say “Why would you choose to spend time looking into that?” “Man, that is dark! Why would you think about that!” 

I think your idea on it is very well-put. 

Okay, there we are. THAT’s the inside-out with Ne and Ni. Actually my favorite passage from Dostoevsky is about that, about finding as an adult that the world is ugly cold and lonely, but INFJs and ENFPs are passing each other with our experiences going the opposite direction. NFP knows it is alone from day 1 and is working towards feeling less alone. NFJ feels a part of everything at the beginning and slowly emerges to find they are more on their own than they had previously known. It’s very interesting. It can be respected when we know we are headed opposite directions in growth in these areas.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> I still find it to be extremely embarrassing that I gave so much of myself in it and that wasn’t understood well by Fe users.


Fair point, no worries.


Llyralen said:


> recently had two discussions with INFJs about Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. I really respect the mastery of Dostoevsky, but his reasoning foe Crime and Punishment almost seems unneeded by the Fi-Te axis. We have such a strong gut reaction to the murder that we don’t seem to feel like that e need a reasoning not to kill. One of the INFJs I said this Ti said “Oh come on, don’t you sense that dark part of yourself? You can’t be so immune to this idea.” Something close to that. So there I was again with the discussion of the “dark side”. I said “Nope. Not myself. Not in that way. But I hear from a few INFJs that you feel almost the same about Shakespeare. Can appreciate the mastery, but don’t “need” it? Its very interesting.


Dostoevsky always starts his novels with a certain existential question that he aims to explore and answer through the characters he introduces. He deals with hypotheticals because the idea behind it is what he aims to understand. It's a personal search of ultimate principles and where they lead. In Crime and Punishment the main conclusion was that traditional morals and values triumph over the more modern rationale based morals. It was simply an exercise of understanding what happens when a person acts out a belief system he himself doesn't truly stick by and thus suffers in consequence. 

Mulling over the idea is certainly a plausible option, when you're introduced to such a scenario and allow yourself to put yourself in the evil character's shoes, you gain insight into what it may entail, and partly feel the anguish of the consequences from the sin committed. It seems to me like you've alienated yourself from the main character from the get go because he didn't have the same values you pride yourself of, am I right? (not meaning to accuse, simply trying to understand)


Llyralen said:


> Usually with INFJs there is something equal going on with me in just a very inside-out way… so I actually think it’s that I accurately see the dark in the outside world. Actually, now that I remember, I KNOW it is that. Sometimes when I talk about truly horrific things that have happened in this world then I am glad to know about them, so that maybe I can find a way to combat it! But often Ni (INTJs too) say “Why would you choose to spend time looking into that?”


If you had to name 3 of the most horrific things that have happened/are happening in the world, what would those be?
In my experience Ni doms can very much live in a bubble, but some Ni doms I know are the most exposed than anybody else to the horrors of the world because they dive deep into topics that fascinate them, and one of those topics is usually morality. But I do think that ENFPs can be very passionate and outspoken about societal wrongdoings. When you encounter people with different beliefs from yours, do you try to discuss things with them or do you more so keep your differences to yourself?


Llyralen said:


> Okay, there we are. THAT’s the inside-out with Ne and Ni. Actually my favorite passage from Dostoevsky is about that, about finding as an adult that the world is ugly cold and lonely, but INFJs and ENFPs are passing each other with our experiences going the opposite direction. NFP knows it is alone from day 1 and is working towards feeling less alone. NFJ feels a part of everything at the beginning and slowly emerges to find they are more on their own than they had previously known. It’s very interesting. It can be respected when we know we are headed opposite directions in growth in these areas.


I've certainly been more popular in gradeschool than I am now, but part of it was from understandin that my mindset just doesn't fit that of most of other people. What I see and understand doesn't cross peoples heads and isn't seen as important, being discarded at first exposure. They simply can't see the implications and think I come with the wrong intent. NFPs on the other hand share their perceptive functions with the majority of the people, so as they grow up and balance out they bride the gaps with their SJ counterparts and operate on a similar axis. At least that's a way I could explain this difference you're speaking of.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Fru2 said:


> Dostoevsky always starts his novels with a certain existential question that he aims to explore and answer through the characters he introduces. He deals with hypotheticals because the idea behind it is what he aims to understand. It's a personal search of ultimate principles and where they lead. In Crime and Punishment the main conclusion was that traditional morals and values triumph over the more modern rationale based morals. It was simply an exercise of understanding what happens when a person acts out a belief system he himself doesn't truly stick by and thus suffers in consequence.


I disagree with Dostoyevsky’s thesis the way you have it worded here. Dostoyevsky is not thinking about tradition at all, even though he wrote it in response to the “superman” idea.



> Mulling over the idea is certainly a plausible option, when you're introduced to such a scenario and allow yourself to put yourself in the evil character's shoes, you gain insight into what it may entail, and partly feel the anguish of the consequences from the sin committed. It seems to me like you've alienated yourself from the main character from the get go because he didn't have the same values you pride yourself of, am I right? (not meaning to accuse, simply trying to understand)


Yes, that’s what I said— and of course! I have strong Fi. Strong Fi would immediately reject doing something like this unless they were very mentally sick. Of course I would immediately alienate myself from someone who murdered someone and not in self-defense. I’m not alone on that is also what I was saying. Most people with high Fi would draw the line and we wouldn’t need the whole book to tell us it took a toll on the main character. But that is where Fi-Te and Fe-Ti differ. For the INFJs I discussed the book with they saw a reason for him to murder and then they saw Dostoevsky show that after the murder it had taken its toll and made the character sick. For Fi we would have thought he was very sick before-hand anyway. Which kind of negates the need for the book for us. But of course I’m very glad he wrote it for anyone on the Ti-Fe axis— or whoever was thinking the “Uberman” made perfect sense. 



> If you had to name 3 of the most horrific things that have happened/are happening in the world, what would those be?


. I’m not sure why I’m answering except to humor you.
1. Human trafficking and slavery.
2. Wars, especially child soldiers
3. Domestic violence especially against those dependent, usually children and women
4. Women and girls being punished for education.
5. Mass species extinction— largely due to human greed.



> In my experience Ni doms can very much live in a bubble, but some Ni doms I know are the most exposed than anybody else to the horrors of the world because they dive deep into topics that fascinate them, and one of those topics is usually morality. But I do think that ENFPs can be very passionate and outspoken about societal wrongdoings. When you encounter people with different beliefs from yours, do you try to discuss things with them or do you more so keep your differences to yourself?


It depends on the person. This whole post was showing how obviously I love exploring differences in people. I am not saying all Ni people keep themselves in a bubble. Actually since for many ENFPs our biggest passion is understanding the human condition in all of its aspects, I think it might be somewhat the same, in a very inside-out way that I would have to think of for a while, for INFJs.



> I've certainly been more popular in gradeschool than I am now, but part of it was from understandin that my mindset just doesn't fit that of most of other people. What I see and understand doesn't cross peoples heads and isn't seen as important, being discarded at first exposure. They simply can't see the implications and think I come with the wrong intent. NFPs on the other hand share their perceptive functions with the majority of the people, so as they grow up and balance out they bride the gaps with their SJ counterparts and operate on a similar axis. At least that's a way I could explain this difference you're speaking of.


I was talking about feelers along the Fi-Te axis and the Fe-Ti axis headed opposite directions in N types over a lifetime. Fe starts out feeling one with humanity and are slowly cut out of the cloth. Fi starts out being its own thing and is slowly unraveled and woven into cloth—- maybe by the time we are 80 years old, depending. Lol. And it was that part of (actually I think it was out of the Brothers Karamazov) that I was able to discuss with INFJs and compare differences. I don’t know how higher Te or higher Ti sees things in this sense. But this is also sometimes why some INFJs have told me they don’t get very much out of Shakespeare who is an NFP and probablh lessons learned and Fi-Te philosophy feels “unneeded” as well to INFJs? But at the same time we all see the mastery there in each author, and I just love the differences.

I’m not sure it’s as interesting to anyone else, though, to point out Ni-Fe and Ne-Fi in literature.

I will have to think of a Ni-Te or Te-Ni writer for you (although I still am not sure you’re typed correctly). Comparing INTJ writing with ENTP writing would be interesting. There are many ENTP writers, Steven King being one. Let’s see, if ENTJ then the inside-out is INTP writers. There are some INTP writers. The guy who wrote Dune, I believe, likely Kafka, likely DH Lawrence. I am not as practiced at figuring out T writers. I will work on that.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Llyralen said:


> I really like Dario Nardi’s work on MBTI. I highly recommend his first book on MBTI to you. He is an INTJ. He boils things down (like Ni likes to do) but then he also adds much more information about the effects of the functions and about what the brain is actually doing when using those functions. I will make a thread about his more recent book in the ENFP forum for you with his simplifications. Although… like I said…simplifying sometimes means not seeing deeper aspects to the nature of the thing.


Welp, this answers my question about the other thread.

… carry on.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Llyralen said:


> 1. Meeting people with similar traits, linking it to the function, when meeting a few other people would show there was not a pattern. (By the way, this is what Ne does… learns by seeing patterns and able to see when they are not linked as well by keeping open…making sure you get enough data.)


The risk/error here, in my opinion, comes more from false expectation / relying too much on that certain traits/roles/functions need to clearly display in a certain way for different people, which isn't actually always the case as you've seen by yourself while discussing me 

Btw other perceptions see patterns too, just in different way than Ne. For example, I'd say I see information partially as trendlines and their changes (or no changes) and use that for judgements a lot. This clearly isn't related to any intuition, it's just tangible data but can easily be confused like it's intuition. Linking and associating are just how thinking in general works regardless of type - without that we most likely couldn't form any thought.

Practically this is inside my mind and you can easily see why it's not an intuition, yet it's pretty accurate and reliable:







It's just another way to visualise what I've explained in my posts and if you know where to look, you prob can see this pattern in what I tell and why it's not Ne. I can rather easily see other similar people using the same mechanism now when I know where to look for it. Any perception really is a different way of experiencing the world and processing information - it's not a trait which can be trained, learned or practised like some function, in order to be better at it  



> 2. Many people are mis-typed. Most people have not taken official MBTI as one thing and there are poor online tests. After a while though of finding the hallmarks and asking questions of a wide group, you can notice when something is off or something stands out in opposition of that type.


Most tests are not accurate but I guess it's mainly for the same reason that they focus mainly on external behaviours not how the mind actually works - and it's pretty hard to tell objectively for yourself how you look from outside. Also too much wrapping people into boxes. "Is your desk messed up or neatly tidy?" - bwahaha, what can be concluded from it?  It depends on your personal preferences not type.

Doesn't matter if it's called official or not - the logic is still mostly the same. That's why I've abandoned idea of typing others and mainly focus on understanding myself as well as I can


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> . I’m not sure why I’m answering except to humor you.


Was just a hunch of mine that it was worth asking, and I was right because it helped figure things out a bit. In the following manner:
1. I wasn't sure what to write myself as the 3 most evil things when asking you. But I knew that I would have a better idea after getting some external input.
2. I definitely did get feedback of what I think those 3 things are through the use of contrast and interaction with the 5 points you've layed forward.
3. For you it comes from an internal ethical standpoint, it's very hard for me to reach that, while having external interaction allows me to logically process my standpoint in comparison with the external very easily. I tend to make good leaps in understanding and realization when discussing things with others, watching things, reading things. It allows me to allocate the relevant formula, if I were to use Jung's terms.
4. This brings me to how Fe would need the same kind of external exposure in order to operate. Fi brings forth content from within thus not being reliant on external sources and in fact limiting them, while Fe is pretty reliant on such things for judgment, processing interpersonally what leads a person to do this and that, while Fi doesn't really require it because it's all already internalized.

So yeah, I guess I agree with your position on the Fi/Fe dichotomy. That said, both functions highly depend on their perceptive functions because that's what lets them refine and understand their judgment process further. Which brings a good question forward - how do you know that your morality is ultimate morality and not relative to what you're exposed to? If for instance you were born in north korea, do you think you'd have the same morals?

My top 3 most evil aspects of the world:
1) Money as a central belief system - people kill without a second thought if it's their job to do so even though they gain nothing else from it, objectively.
2) Mass technology and infrastructure that makes individuals reliant on an already morally bankrupt system(because morality was sold for money)
3) Propaganda - its earliest form being mass religion. The use of deceptive techinques for mental manipulation, such as fearmongering and hegelian dialectics.
All three support and propagate eachother.


Llyralen said:


> Fe starts out feeling one with humanity and are slowly cut out of the cloth. Fi starts out being its own thing and is slowly unraveled and woven into cloth—- maybe by the time we are 80 years old, depending.
> I don’t know how higher Te or higher Ti sees things in this sense.


That's interesting, because I see both T dom as relevant sources. F is focused on personal relationship with something or a very subjective and personal standpoint while T is more detached from the object in order to have a more objective understanding of it, and to be able to judge what source of information is really the most accurate and all encompassing. But this can create blindspots due to not understanding the personal relation to the object. My biggest blindspot is myself, I don't really have a sense of self, it's more comprised of what I know, what I know others don't know and how I differ from my surroundings at any specific moment, which can be a bother at times, especially when others have a very good sense of self and criticize my own. That's why I never forgive gaslighting and have developed ways to spot it.

That said I haven't been exposed to a lot of creative literature, I read more so informational sources and authors such as Julius Evola, Ted Kaczynski, Bill Mollison, Carl Jung. But there are sources of sci-fi and fantasy which I find important because it provides the terrain for the spiritual battleground in which we're in - Tolkien, Berserk(manga) on one side and Orwell, Huxley on the other. One side tries to encourage individuation and the other side tries to eradicate it(or warn/foreshadow its eradication).


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

tarmonk said:


> The risk/error here, in my opinion, comes more from false expectation / relying too much on that certain traits/roles/functions need to clearly display in a certain way for different people, which isn't actually always the case as you've seen by yourself while discussing me
> 
> Btw other perceptions see patterns too, just in different way than Ne. For example, I'd say I see information partially as trendlines and their changes (or no changes) and use that for judgements a lot. This clearly isn't related to any intuition, it's just tangible data but can easily be confused like it's intuition. Linking and associating are just how thinking in general works regardless of type - without that we most likely couldn't form any thought.
> 
> ...


I don’t even know where to start with the shape you posted. I guess you are trying to define what is a pattern? But you used a shape? I’m trying to help you understand Ne. You keep saying you don’t understand it, but then you are trying to teach others what it isn’t? I know what Ne is and isn’t. Do you want to learn or not? I think “not” might be the answer? 

If you are a T dom on the Ne-Si axis then you would use both Si qnd Ne (in whatever order) for perception/learning. Which you do. It’s easy to see the axis in you and that you are a T. Every function is on an axis and that is a very important part of understanding Jung or MBTI. You can’t have one function without the other. It won’t be balanced, but it will be there.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

tarmonk said:


> Reading was good but it made my head hurt, pretty vague and confusing
> 
> Still wondering why it couldn't be explained straight to the point instead of walls of arbitrary text?  When I threw Jung's introverted intuition explanation to my partner, she was immediately able to point out lines which actually describe it, making it very easy to understand and imagine for myself, especially when backed up by real life examples how the person experiences it. She said why it has to be explained so complex way if it can be told in maybe 3-4 simple sentences which anyone could understand  No unnecessary mystery and fuzz needed around it. One thing is clear - you either have it or not, can't be trained, learned or practised. Also can't lose that.
> 
> I have harder time to understand extraverted intuition though - prob because I have a few close Ni doms around me who can explain it (even without knowing theories) while I don't have good sources of Ne around me.


It can be done, just carefully and staying open and asking a lot of questions to a lot of people. It is when startling differences between types come up that you know you’re being led to understand something more and I can ask questions and really get a good feel for exactly how that type works and why.


----------

