# Have I Identified Thinking?



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

@Ksara To me, this seems like Ti. It could also be Te-Si but definitely not Te-Ni or Ni-Te.

You seem very focused on the *process* of reaching a conclusion rather than the *conclusion* itself. Using your example when buying phone, Te user would think of the phone they need, look up something that's closeest to it and affordable and then buy it. Making elaborate comparison of multiple phones seems like a waste of time which Te hates. (Speaking as a Te-dom who also knows plenty Te users.)

Making sure that the process is the best it can be is something Ti would do. Overanalysing (from my POV) to reach the most desirable result. Te is more focused on reaching an acceptable result and moving on to more important things.

Ni-Te would have an idea of the ideal phone before even looking them up and refusing everything which too different. Te-Ni would have an idea of phone but it would want to buy it asap so they can use it for work right away. Si-Te would probably try to buy a phone very similar to one previously used while Te-Si might want the most important aspects (to them) to be similar to their previous phone. None of these seems like something you did. (Si examples are mostly just assuming based on experience with Te users and Si users, unfortunately, I don't have close Te-Si/Si-Te friends so I'm not 100% sure this information is correct.)

Also, Te wouldn't focus on tables and comparing, that seems like internal/subjective logic because you judge it based on what you consider the most useful, your own (internal) standards. Te would ask friends and look up information on the internet about what phones are cheap and good. Objective, outside information. Then go for a type which seems to be mentioned the most. No subjective comparing.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Prada said:


> @Ksara To me, this seems like Ti. It could also be Te-Si but definitely not Te-Ni or Ni-Te.
> 
> You seem very focused on the *process* of reaching a conclusion rather than the *conclusion* itself. Using your example when buying phone, Te user would think of the phone they need, look up something that's closeest to it and affordable and then buy it. Making elaborate comparison of multiple phones seems like a waste of time which Te hates. (Speaking as a Te-dom who also knows plenty Te users.)
> 
> ...


I think I see. Bear with me as I am trying to understand.

Whilst I am using facts external to me (what specs the phones have, what specs are recommended, that I know phones are designed to fail, etc)
I am placing them into my subjective criteria (must be good value for money, must be easy to use, must have a removable back to reduce chance of screen breakage, only rear camera as I don't take selfies, etc). This is essentially the Ti process.

Essentially I am fitting the facts to my ideal image (the perfect phone?).

It's weird seeing it this way as I am working with external information which led me to think extroversion.

Its also interesting as I see what Im doing as efficient. Not in the development of the process, but for the outcome.
That is to me its inefficient to buy an expensive phone over and over again as it doesn't work.
I just want to buy the phone I want once haha.

A lot if the time the process is done in my head so when I come around to doing it I don't have to spend more time than I need, especially on mistakes.

Funny, out of the four options you suggested demonstrating Te/Pi, I identify closest with Ni/Te haha.

A lot of the time I do have an ideal image of what I want beforehand. This does make me fussy haha. Be it the sort of partner I believe works best for me, the sort of dog I will one day have as a companion, the lifestyle and area I'd like to live. Often I don't settle unless I find what I am looking for, find something better than expected, evaluate my ideal and change it or decide I don't care that much about it after all.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

@Ksara Everyone works with external criteria. The difference between Te and Ti is that Te accepts external criteria for what it is. Ti wants to understand it in its own way. If I should put it in simple terms, Te asks "What is it?", Ti asks "Why does it work this way?". Te looks for external factors to explain external factors. Ti looks for answers inside of itself for external factors.

As for Ni-Te, is going to compare everything to their idea of it. Especially not phones when buying. Because it already KNOWS what it wants/needs. When Ni-Te looks to buy something, it doesn't ask itself if A is better than B, not, it asks itself "Is this my ideal *insert thing here*?" It knows what it wants before it starts looking for it. Another example, I had an INTJ female friend who was very interested in romance. However, she compared all of her potential boyfriends with her ideal relationship. She pretty much kept asking herself in anything "Does this fit m idea of my future?", if it didn't, she removed it from her life. But she was working purel with ideas, not with logic. She ever once stated, that this was a logical decision, she was very aware of the fact that her focus on her goals and future guided her ever decision.

However, what you do (if I understand it correctly) is to judge the facts logically. This is something Te would never do. For Te, facts are facts, not something to be judged. But for Ti, facts need to be judged to be understood and to reach the most ideal conclusion. Te wants an efficient conclusion (good one and fast), Ti wants the best possible conclusion even if it takes a very long time. Te sees facts as objective truths while Ti tries to understand them in their own subjective logic. How you described looking for a phone is exactly that. Once you got facts, you started applying your own logic to them. You evaluated them subjectively because the evaluation was yours only. Te wouldn't do this because it wants to be objective and it will look for professional reviews of phones and decide by that (been there done that, taking these facts out of context and comparing them separately never even occurred to me because it lowers my ability to see them objectively).

So, the question would be how you view facts in general. Do you just store them or do you try to understand them through our own logical conclusions?

As for your future ideals, that seems like weak Ni. Possible stack I see for you is Ti-Se-Ni-Fe. ISTP But I could be wrong, if you use weak Te and strong Si, it could behave like Ti in some cases.


----------



## Jippa Jonken (Jul 20, 2015)

What you've described is not typological. It is simply association networks, a basic cognitive feature of the mind. Typology is about higher-order features.

The thinking functions in short:

Ti: Truth at the expense of rhetoric. 

Te: Fulfillment of goals at the expense of goal choice.

These are two distinct character traits - not cognitive processes.

The Ti types will be characterized by an intellect that is as reliable, precise and epistemically sound as it is difficult to translate. Loved ones will appreciate a wealth of information and perspectives, but most people will only see someone awkward, defiant, goofy, stiff and hard pressed to conceal a seemingly unwarranted sense of intellectual superiority.

The Te types will be characterized by a pronounced compulsion to fulfill goals and obtain results, and an equally pronounced ignorance about what goals and results are truly desirable - to themselves, their loved ones and humanity at large. They are not conscious about their motives and needs which means they cannot imagine any other and have extreme difficulties understanding other people. Compare to Ti types who have extreme difficulties getting understood by other people.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Jippa Jonken said:


> What you've described is not typological. It is simply association networks, a basic cognitive feature of the mind. Typology is about higher-order features.
> 
> The thinking functions in short:
> 
> ...


I have no idea where you got this but this is just wrong on so many levels.

First of all, your short description of Ti and Te makes no sense. Second of all, your long description of Ti and Te makes no sense as well. Because you are not even describing a thinking process, you are describing behaviour.

I know Ti-doms and vast majority of them aren't perceived as awkward by anyone. Also, how can Fe be defiant? Fe is all about harmony and all Ti users have Fe. Also, I'm yet to meet a Ti-dom who would have a lot of information. That's much more commonly Te. Ti is all about making own logical conclusions than collecting external information.

And saying that Te users don't know their goals or don't understand people is just bullshit. Te-doms can be very good at motivating (and also at manipulating) people because they understand them. And what goals are Te users even following if not their own? Whose goals are they following? Do you seriously believe that all Fi user follow goals of someone else? Because if so, then you need how functions act rather than making wrong assumptions and conclusions.


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

Prada said:


> @Ksara Everyone works with external criteria. The difference between Te and Ti is that Te accepts external criteria for what it is. Ti wants to understand it in its own way. If I should put it in simple terms, Te asks "What is it?", Ti asks "Why does it work this way?". Te looks for external factors to explain external factors. Ti looks for answers inside of itself for external factors.
> 
> As for Ni-Te, is going to compare everything to their idea of it. Especially not phones when buying. Because it already KNOWS what it wants/needs. When Ni-Te looks to buy something, it doesn't ask itself if A is better than B, not, it asks itself "Is this my ideal *insert thing here*?" It knows what it wants before it starts looking for it. Another example, I had an INTJ female friend who was very interested in romance. However, she compared all of her potential boyfriends with her ideal relationship. She pretty much kept asking herself in anything "Does this fit m idea of my future?", if it didn't, she removed it from her life. But she was working purel with ideas, not with logic. She ever once stated, that this was a logical decision, she was very aware of the fact that her focus on her goals and future guided her ever decision.
> 
> ...



Hmm your Ni-Te description sounds more like Ni dominance to me. I use Ni-Fe myself and I can actually relate to what you wrote about your INTJ female friend.  

I am very idealistic about my future. When it comes to my future, I actually have an idea in mind of how I want my future to look like. When I think about my future, I start seeing an image flash through my mind. In that image, I saw myself living my ideal life. I saw myself working happily in my ideal career, I saw myself living in my ideal house, I saw myself surrounded by my ideal family, 
I saw myself living my ideal life every day, I saw myself smiling and I saw how happy I am. 

But of course, reality doesn't always match up to what I saw inside my mind. 

My ideal job is something that is creative and doesn't have 9-5 hours, but I can't find such jobs in where I live. In where I live, there are only office jobs everywhere. But whenever I imagine myself working in office jobs, I start getting suicidal thoughts. I don't want to settle for anything less than what I want. I don't want other options, I only want this option. I want my ideal job to become reality. I don't want to work in any other jobs except my ideal job. 

Even when I go out shopping for clothes, I also have an idea in mind of what I want my clothes to look like. It must have a specific design with a specific color. If I'm unable to find a clothes that match this specific design and color that I'm looking for, I start walking away from the shop. All other clothes aren't able to match up to the image of the clothes that I saw in my mind.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

@Schizoid Yes, that is Ni-dom. My point was to show Te in different places of xxTJ stack and how it relates to the dominant/auxiliary function with focus on the other function (since I described Te in other places). So, the fact that you can relate to it proves my point. :laughing:


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I think someone named Jung defined these things once.
BUT...that was in the old days before colour TV even.
So don't mind that.

Thinking = truth
Feeling = Falsehood
Sensing = being a pervert
Intuition = being loco

Cause why the hell not...


----------



## Jippa Jonken (Jul 20, 2015)

Prada said:


> I have no idea where you got this but this is just wrong on so many levels.


Thank you.



Prada said:


> First of all, your short description of Ti and Te makes no sense. Second of all, your long description of Ti and Te makes no sense as well.


That sounds horrible. I'm sorry.



Prada said:


> Because you are not even describing a thinking process, you are describing behaviour.


I stated in my previous post that typology isn't about thinking processes. Maybe that could imply that my deviation from standard theory is deliberate and purposeful, rather than a mistake for you to correct. 




Prada said:


> I know Ti-doms and vast majority of them aren't perceived as awkward by anyone. Also, how can Fe be defiant? Fe is all about harmony and all Ti users have Fe. Also, I'm yet to meet a Ti-dom who would have a lot of information. That's much more commonly Te. Ti is all about making own logical conclusions than collecting external information.


Why do you describe these people as Ti-doms?

Fe is the opposite of Ti. Ti dominance means poor Fe.

Te-doms are very frivolous and aggressive with information. Ti-doms are more careful and won't deploy facts needlessly. To say they don't collect information is outrageous. They are likely the most factually correct people around. Besides that, information needn't be "external".



Prada said:


> And saying that Te users don't know their goals or don't understand people is just bullshit. Te-doms can be very good at motivating (and also at manipulating) people because they understand them. And what goals are Te users even following if not their own? Whose goals are they following? Do you seriously believe that all Fi user follow goals of someone else? Because if so, then you need how functions act rather than making wrong assumptions and conclusions.


For example, you didn't understand that i was presenting my own take on typology rather than failing to recite the standard, although it was obvious. You are devoted to the linear task of spotting the unorthodox and deriding it. You don't stop to think whether the orthodox warrants its status. Your standard of reference is fixed: MBTI is a given and there's no messing with the rules.

Fi is the opposite of Te.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@KalimofDaybreak thankyou for your response.
I had written something in return but accidentally deleted it haha.

I do relate to the type confusion. And have been through a number of tests myself with varying results. And like you, moved to cognitive functions for a better understanding. I have been able to identify as an introvert. There are many reasons for this so I am convinced. It is most obvious next to my ENFP partner, and our miscommunication is often due to this I/E factor.

So following the process of elimination that leaves four main possibilities.

For me looking at the inferior has not been as helpful. I haven't been in any really stressful situations. If I look at what my brain sucks at, that would be paying attention to my surroundings. I am very good at focusing my attention, so the world is literally dead to me when focused lol. With this focus I also suck at multitasking haha.

The other aspect I struggle to handle is the emotional aspect of conflict. Debates are fine, but I tend to be sensitive to mine and others emotions and tend to freeze up, especially when I don't know what to do to make it better. Its really like a bad smell hanging around. It really is the worst when I can not see any path out of the current uncomfortable situation.

I have not experienced forgetting body parts. To me that is a strong sign towards strong use of Ni, a sign you are an INxJ 
At times I can be hypersensitive. Too much caffeine makes me anxious, reaching extreme hunger is annoying, I am sensitive to pain and hate nothing more than the falling sensations felt on a rollercoaster. To me this seems quite body related. If anything I put this under introversion in general.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Ksara said:


> At times I can be hypersensitive. Too much caffeine makes me anxious, reaching extreme hunger is annoying, I am sensitive to pain and hate nothing more than the falling sensations felt on a rollercoaster. To me this seems quite body related. If anything I put this under introversion in general.


This sounds like inferior Se. As an inferior function, Se usually struggles with dealing with overload of sensory stimuli.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@Jippa Jonken
I'll help you save some time 
I am not interested in where I fit into others typology especially where similar labels are used. At this point I am interested in where I would stand with Jung, and increasing that bubble, with the MBTI as well.

Other wise it just all becomes meaningless and confusing. By your system I could be labelled as ESTJ which =/= the ESTJ others on here are speaking about. Its like me referring to a chair as a table, that would just confuse everyone around me haha.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Prada said:


> So, the question would be how you view facts in general. Do you just store them or do you try to understand them through our own logical conclusions?
> 
> As for your future ideals, that seems like weak Ni. Possible stack I see for you is Ti-Se-Ni-Fe. ISTP But I could be wrong, if you use weak Te and strong Si, it could behave like Ti in some cases.


In regards to the question, generally I come across facts and will associate to something else I my mind as if to fit with other facts. That is how I experience it. With this will often come understanding, and assumptions..
So not Te, much more like Ti.

I don't think thinking is dominant here. For it to be dominant then I would expect these connections to be made consciously and deliberately to the point all possible associations would be made to put the fact in its correct place. Jung does specifically mention the rational functions require such reflection. I could very well have misunderstood.

For me these associates appear automatically not deliberately. I am not really reflecting on them. Its really when I move into the planning stages of a project do I move into that mode as described in how I chose my phone.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Schizoid said:


> Even when I go out shopping for clothes, I also have an idea in mind of what I want my clothes to look like. It must have a specific design with a specific color. If I'm unable to find a clothes that match this specific design and color that I'm looking for, I start walking away from the shop. All other clothes aren't able to match up to the image of the clothes that I saw in my mind.


Haha that's my shopping experience


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> @KalimofDaybreak thankyou for your response.
> I had written something in return but accidentally deleted it haha.


Haha, don't worry about it. It happens.



Ksara said:


> I do relate to the type confusion. And have been through a number of tests myself with varying results. And like you, moved to cognitive functions for a better understanding. I have been able to identify as an introvert. There are many reasons for this so I am convinced. It is most obvious next to my ENFP partner, and our miscommunication is often due to this I/E factor.


I think that's a fair assessment, especially with your preference for depth over breadth as you mention later on.



Ksara said:


> So following the process of elimination that leaves four main possibilities.
> 
> For me looking at the inferior has not been as helpful. I haven't been in any really stressful situations. If I look at what my brain sucks at, that would be paying attention to my surroundings. I am very good at focusing my attention, so the world is literally dead to me when focused lol. With this focus I also suck at multitasking haha.


Perhaps another approach might help in discerning that, then. I've noticed that my path to bringing out my Se is through my feeling (one of the reasons I'm considering Ni-Ti, actually). It usually only comes out strongly in the presence of my ESFP friend. However, even though this is technically the 'healthy' way to use get to my Se, I get very childish around him, and I tend to be overly physical and expressive. What brings out your inner childish side? How does your child manifest? Both of these can be clues to your unconscious mind.

Another thing I've noticed is that when I'm feeling negative or stressed out or something like that, I bypass my feeling (or don't, again, I'm not sure about my T-F placement) and go straight from Ti to Se. I have that 'practical thinking' that Jung talked about, and I can be overly critical about small details in this respect (again, inferior Se poking out, although through a more sophisticated Ti). If you're feeling negative (not to the point of wallowing, just frustrated and a little petulant), how does that usually manifest?

I feel like the term stress is a little strong for what actually triggers the inferior. Like I said, it can be activated in a good way (through feeling for me, although with a healthy dose of Ti discretion), or in a bad way, usually through bypassing its auxiliary. In either case, it's not necessarily extreme stress, just the presence of a strong animus or irritation and annoyance that brings out the little quirks.



Ksara said:


> The other aspect I struggle to handle is the emotional aspect of conflict. Debates are fine, but I tend to be sensitive to mine and others emotions and tend to freeze up, especially when I don't know what to do to make it better. Its really like a bad smell hanging around. It really is the worst when I can not see any path out of the current uncomfortable situation.


This actually sounds a little bit like inferior Fe to me--awareness of emotions but not really knowing how to handle them and freezing up when the pressure becomes too great.



Ksara said:


> I have not experienced forgetting body parts. To me that is a strong sign towards strong use of Ni, a sign you are an INxJ
> At times I can be hypersensitive. Too much caffeine makes me anxious, reaching extreme hunger is annoying, I am sensitive to pain and hate nothing more than the falling sensations felt on a rollercoaster. To me this seems quite body related. If anything I put this under introversion in general.


As an aside, I forget if I mentioned this to you or not, but I've found I actually can't focus on more than one body part (or set of body parts, like arms or legs) at a time without losing track of the rest. It's kind of weird, but unless I consciously focus on my body, it just disappears for me.

Anyway, back to you. Since you haven't experienced this, that would lend credence to an auxiliary/tertiary intuiton, and my inferior Fe theory. Hypersensitivity to physical experience could go either way; I can see auxiliary sensation, but in a roundabout way, it makes a little more sense as tertiary--becoming more aware of your body as the sensation increases (which, incidentally, is about the only way I can remember I have a body in the first place), but otherwise not thinking about it. Of course it could also go under introversion, but I would add the caveat that it is a sign of aux/tert sensation. I would disagree that this is inferior Se; I personally am not affected by coffee, so I can't relate to that, I really hate having to cook because honestly, hunger isn't that bad since I don't notice it until a day or so has passed (and at the risk of sounding lazy, I only learned this when I was ill and therefore fasting, not because I chose not to cook. ). I'm really insensitive to pain (again, usually because I don't register it). It seems to me that inferior Se is an almost totally separation from the body, either that or I'm just literally crazy intuitive. I could see this being auxiliary Si, which if I'm correct so far, would make you Ti-Si? I don't know. I get an N vibe from you.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

Ksara said:


> In regards to the question, generally I come across facts and will associate to something else I my mind as if to fit with other facts. That is how I experience it. With this will often come understanding, and assumptions..
> So not Te, much more like Ti.
> 
> I don't think thinking is dominant here. For it to be dominant then I would expect these connections to be made consciously and deliberately to the point all possible associations would be made to put the fact in its correct place. Jung does specifically mention the rational functions require such reflection. I could very well have misunderstood.
> ...


I feel like your Ti is rather weak. My guess it tertiary. Which is why I suspect you might be an INFJ. You seem to be a Ni-dom due to you relating to their behaviour and because you show hints of inferior Se.


----------



## Jippa Jonken (Jul 20, 2015)

Ksara said:


> @Jippa Jonken
> I'll help you save some time
> I am not interested in where I fit into others typology especially where similar labels are used. At this point I am interested in where I would stand with Jung, and increasing that bubble, with the MBTI as well.
> 
> Other wise it just all becomes meaningless and confusing. By your system I could be labelled as ESTJ which =/= the ESTJ others on here are speaking about. Its like me referring to a chair as a table, that would just confuse everyone around me haha.


I'm closer to Jung than the other people you've got here.

They're reciting mainstream MBTI forum doctrine, which is a cumulative misinterpretation of Jung. If you want to speak their language, that's fine and i understand you. But real typology is a superior insight tool.

There is a difference between misinterpretation and critical development. Most people on here are doing the former, while i am doing the latter.

Here is an example of a misinterpretation of Jung:



Prada said:


> Also, how can Fe be defiant? Fe is all about harmony and all Ti users have Fe.


Misinterpretations such as this one largely stem from directionless over-intellectualization fuelled by exaggerated reverence for the source material.


----------



## Jippa Jonken (Jul 20, 2015)

Ksara said:


> In regards to the question, generally I come across facts and will associate to something else I my mind as if to fit with other facts. That is how I experience it. With this will often come understanding, and assumptions..


What you describe, again, is not any of the functions. It's just associative cognition, a basic feature of the mind. You might as well be asking what jungian function is responsible for your autonomous bodily processes.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Jippa Jonken said:


> What you describe, again, is not any of the functions. It's just associative cognition, a basic feature of the mind. You might as well be asking what jungian function is responsible for your autonomous bodily processes.


So this is not apperception which tends to accompany the rational functions?


----------



## Jippa Jonken (Jul 20, 2015)

Ksara said:


> So this is not apperception which tends to accompany the rational functions?


You couldn't be a mammal, maybe not even a vertebrate, certainly not a human, without it. It's hard to assign any specific function or class of functions to it.

If i were forced to pick, i'd say it resembles Ne the most out of all the jungian functions.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Jippa Jonken said:


> You couldn't be a mammal, maybe not even a vertebrate, certainly not a human, without it. It's hard to assign any specific function or class of functions to it.
> 
> If i were forced to pick, i'd say it resembles Ne the most out of all the jungian functions.


Well Jung had a go at defining it 

This what I believe I may observing. I can't find the example Jung gave of thinking involving apperception. Actually seemed quite similar to some describe Si in some ways. He also describes feeling in context to apperception.


> APPERCEPTION is a psychic process by which a new content is articulated with similar, already existing contents in such a way that it becomes understood, apprehended, or “clear.” 9 We distinguish active from passive apperception. The first is a process by which the subject, of his own accord and from his own motives, consciously apprehends a new content with attention and assimilates it to other contents already constellated; the second is a process by which a new content forces itself upon consciousness either from without (through the senses) or from within (from the unconscious) and, as it were, compels attention and enforces apprehension. In the first case the activity lies with the ego (q.v.); in the second, with the self-enforcing new content.


So you believe what I am describing is the perceiving of possibilities?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Jippa Jonken said:


> What you've described is not typological. It is simply association networks, a basic cognitive feature of the mind. Typology is about higher-order features.


Can you expound upon this?


----------



## Jippa Jonken (Jul 20, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Can you expound upon this?


I struggle to add anything non-trivial. It really is that simple. 

Getting to think of other things when you perceive a thing is simply too basic to be subject to typology. One might as well be asking what swimming style "skeletal muscle activation" corresponds to. Well, all of them. You couldn't swim at all without it.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Jippa Jonken said:


> I struggle to add anything non-trivial. It really is that simple.
> 
> Getting to think of other things when you perceive a thing is simply too basic to be subject to typology. One might as well be asking what swimming style "skeletal muscle activation" corresponds to. Well, all of them. You couldn't swim at all without it.


So I know you've already explained this at this point, but I'm still a little curious. How would this be different from thinking and intuition? Jung calls thinking 'intellect' more often than not, as did you, so would the idea of thinking be more a set of characteristics that define a person's thought than processes? And the same with intuition?

With that, then, how does that allow room for the rational/irrational distinction? Or has MBTI just screwed that up too?


----------



## Jippa Jonken (Jul 20, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> So I know you've already explained this at this point, but I'm still a little curious. How would this be different from thinking and intuition? Jung calls thinking 'intellect' more often than not, as did you, so would the idea of thinking be more a set of characteristics that define a person's thought than processes? And the same with intuition?
> 
> With that, then, how does that allow room for the rational/irrational distinction? Or has MBTI just screwed that up too?


Yes, although i prefer to think of one characteristic rather than a set. I think all the function dualities describe fundamental value conflicts that manifest variably across the population. Something that is a prerequisite for cognition cannot be a function (in this sense).

I'm not sure about the rational/irrational distinction. Admittedly, it is difficult to incorporate in my analysis. I tentatively reject it and consider the four dualities as entirely distinct. However, as this removes constraints on function stacks, it implies a vast number of permissible complete stacks: 384.

Is it perhaps so that those 16 particular configurations are just patterns we've become accustomed to using? But oh, i so love to fashion myself ENTP, this very thing ENTP. And i actually think it benefits me.

Tricky stuff.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Jippa Jonken said:


> Yes, although i prefer to think of one characteristic rather than a set. I think all the function dualities describe fundamental value conflicts that manifest variably across the population. Something that is a prerequisite for cognition cannot be a function (in this sense).
> 
> I'm not sure about the rational/irrational distinction. Admittedly, it is difficult to incorporate in my analysis. I tentatively reject it and consider the four dualities as entirely distinct. However, as this removes constraints on function stacks, it implies a vast number of permissible complete stacks: 384.
> 
> ...


Okay, I think I'm starting to get this then. It calibrates nicely with the view I've been developing for a while--that the functions aren't really processes or anything like that, just perspectives or fields of conscious or something like that. It makes sense, then, that each of these fields could be reduced to a single core trait that influences how that person thinks. So you could reduce each function to a simple statement


Sensation: concrete perception (by the internal or external reality)
Intuition: abstract perception (by the internal or external reality)
Thinking: impersonal evaluation (by the internal or external reality)
Feeling: personal evaluation (by the internal or external reality)

like those.

A function, then, would be a prolonged focus on one of those things; if one was preoccupied with their abstract perceptions, then they would be intuitive-preferring, and if those perceptions were oriented towards their inner reality, that would make them an introverted intuitive. Or, if one showed a preference for impersonal evaluation using their own system of logic, then you would call them an introverted thinker. It isn't the content of the thoughts or even their thought process, but the general attitude or 'essence' of their cognition? That's a little trickier to define--the sort of nugget at the heart of how they think.

I guess the rational/irrational piece comes in to play when you consider what each function is concerned with doing, so maybe the judging/perceiving distinction isn't totally false. Rational functions would naturally be concerned with evaluating information in some way, which neither sensation nor intuition do. As far as a non-constrained function stack, I do think that there is some structure to the functions, even in the absence of rational/irrational. At least with the polarity of the dom-inf. You're right though, I think there are probably more types than the 16 we're used to, but that would also mean that there is a difference between an Ni-Ti INTJ and an Ni-Te INTJ. Personally, I think it would be much better to move away from the J/P letter altogether and use a system similar to Socionics:

INT--introvert who prefers introverted intuition with auxiliary thinking (extraverted, introverted, or undifferentiated).
ITN--introvert who prefers introverted thinking with auxilary intution, (e, i, or x).

The first letter gives you the conscious attitude, the second the dominant function (the two thereby determining the preferred function-attitude), and then the final letter the auxiliary. The rest is fairly self-evident.

INT, then, would essentially be the equivalent of an INTJ, except it wouldn't necessarily imply 'judging' traits or a preference for extraverted thinking.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Haha, don't worry about it. It happens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm, inner child. That's not something I have thought about. More those moments where you feel silly?

Well generally when I am in a silly state tend to be more outspoken, say what I am thinking, can be cheeky, can say vulgar things/jokes often to get a reaction, tend towards friendly banter that takes shots at others that shoot back (kind of like a game of one-upmanship, who can outwit who in a funny way haha).

Not sure what brings it out. I think around friends who are close to me.



> Another thing I've noticed is that when I'm feeling negative or stressed out or something like that, I bypass my feeling (or don't, again, I'm not sure about my T-F placement) and go straight from Ti to Se. I have that 'practical thinking' that Jung talked about, and I can be overly critical about small details in this respect (again, inferior Se poking out, although through a more sophisticated Ti). If you're feeling negative (not to the point of wallowing, just frustrated and a little petulant), how does that usually manifest?
> 
> I feel like the term stress is a little strong for what actually triggers the inferior. Like I said, it can be activated in a good way (through feeling for me, although with a healthy dose of Ti discretion), or in a bad way, usually through bypassing its auxiliary. In either case, it's not necessarily extreme stress, just the presence of a strong animus or irritation and annoyance that brings out the little quirks.


Hmm, the point I begin to feel negative.

Internally I feel the stress, a heavy brick in the stomach. I notice I am more emotional and unable to think clearly. If I have time I will rationalise what is going on internally, remind myself reacting wont make it better and to be open to this being my insecurity triggered. My emotional reactions can be more intense than usual and can take me by surprise.

Externally I can become short with others, have less concern about being pleasant, more likely to say what's on my mind unfiltered to the point, become impatient with others, less tolerant of others mistakes, may become stubborn, defiant and may become too assertive about my wants/needs as I am less able to think of the other person. My impatience can prompt me to start doing something to fix the problem hastily and overlooks the emotional recuperation others may need.

If there is no break to regroup I may make rash decisions. I am less in control, emotional and volatile. Either I shut down and freeze to contain my emotions, or I get reactive (yelling, crying, being quite vocal, really like the idea of throwing it breaking something). Sigh, an unglamorous tantrum in which hopefully I am able to contain until alone.

A good way for me to engage more intense emotions is to listening to music or watching movies 
Watching the news can trigger an intense emotional reaction :/

Other quirks. I can also be unaware that I am coming across as emotional to others. That is seem upset about an issue when I am not internally upset, or appear to worry about events when I am not feeling anxious at all. 




> This actually sounds a little bit like inferior Fe to me--awareness of emotions but not really knowing how to handle them and freezing up when the pressure becomes too great.


This is more when another person is involved. I just don't know what to do. I cant make them change their emotional state, and when I am responsible for why they are upset it really is a dark cloud over my head.

Its like my emotional state is dependent on theirs and adjusts to their mood. The only control I have is to move away, or somehow manage to take a mental step back. I just don't know how to engage them to better the situation.

On my own I am often able to deal with my emotions, realise inner truths or insecurities and do something to change my mood.


I think I may be coming to a realisation.
I seems to be when I am stuck in an uncomfortable moment where I can't see the path to take to better the situation is when I become stressed/frustrated.
Either there are no options or bad options which leads to an emotional reaction. If I do see an option I will hastily work towards that path and become impatient with what holds me back.



> As an aside, I forget if I mentioned this to you or not, but I've found I actually can't focus on more than one body part (or set of body parts, like arms or legs) at a time without losing track of the rest. It's kind of weird, but unless I consciously focus on my body, it just disappears for me.


That is interesting.


> Anyway, back to you. Since you haven't experienced this, that would lend credence to an auxiliary/tertiary intuiton, and my inferior Fe theory. Hypersensitivity to physical experience could go either way; I can see auxiliary sensation, but in a roundabout way, it makes a little more sense as tertiary--becoming more aware of your body as the sensation increases (which, incidentally, is about the only way I can remember I have a body in the first place), but otherwise not thinking about it. Of course it could also go under introversion, but I would add the caveat that it is a sign of aux/tert sensation. I would disagree that this is inferior Se; I personally am not affected by coffee, so I can't relate to that, I really hate having to cook because honestly, hunger isn't that bad since I don't notice it until a day or so has passed (and at the risk of sounding lazy, I only learned this when I was ill and therefore fasting, not because I chose not to cook. ). I'm really insensitive to pain (again, usually because I don't register it). It seems to me that inferior Se is an almost totally separation from the body, either that or I'm just literally crazy intuitive. I could see this being auxiliary Si, which if I'm correct so far, would make you Ti-Si? I don't know. I get an N vibe from you.


How do you not register pain? I don't want to register pain. Ark I am frustrated because I know its how my brain has learnt to perceive it :/

That aside, I generally have to be preoccupied with something else to not notice these things. Daydreaming whilst exercising then I don't notice the burn. (Cant always do this as I have to pay attention.)
When not paying attention I guess I just assume my body is there.

I would say I struggle more with paying attention to my external surroundings. The world seems to cease to exist and I miss alot as I'm more preoccupied with my thoughts. I struggle to find objects right in front of me, often don't notice smells, and when daydreaming (or anything else in my head) have noticed I will have no memory of what was happening around me.

I have seen someone suggest sensitivity is link to inferior sensing. Don't know the validity. I also believe Jung seemed to describe inferior sensation leading to hypochondrial tendencies (maybe that's my sensitivity is hypochondrial? Haha)
Complete separation to body was something Jung did deal with an Ni dom patient. I don't experience my body as being non existent, I don't however see it as a part of me. Its that fleshy machine that keeps me here. Its a lot of effort to maintain, its uncomfortable, and is liable to wear and tear. More it reminds me of my mortality. Whilst me is not my body, I have to rely on it to remain me.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Hmm, inner child. That's not something I have thought about. More those moments where you feel silly?
> 
> Well generally when I am in a silly state tend to be more outspoken, say what I am thinking, can be cheeky, can say vulgar things/jokes often to get a reaction, tend towards friendly banter that takes shots at others that shoot back (kind of like a game of one-upmanship, who can outwit who in a funny way haha).
> 
> Not sure what brings it out. I think around friends who are close to me.


This actually sounds like Ti and Se working together, with Se being the lower function there. More on that later.



Ksara said:


> Hmm, the point I begin to feel negative.
> 
> Internally I feel the stress, a heavy brick in the stomach. I notice I am more emotional and unable to think clearly. If I have time I will rationalise what is going on internally, remind myself reacting wont make it better and to be open to this being my insecurity triggered. My emotional reactions can be more intense than usual and can take me by surprise.


Superficially, the first part sounds like Si, which leads me to believe you could exhibit tendencies for both, with a slight Se leaning. I find it interesting that first response to stress to rationalize it, which could also point to a dominant thinking process. Emotions suddenly feeling more intense could also point to inferior feeling; I know that with middle feeling my emotions tend to be rather calm without sudden flares (even when I'm upset). I suppose it could be dominant feeling, but I'm hesitant to say that because it doesn't seem to me that an Fi-dom would be surprised by having intense emotions, at least not in the same way you're describing here.



Ksara said:


> Externally I can become short with others, have less concern about being pleasant, more likely to say what's on my mind unfiltered to the point, become impatient with others, less tolerant of others mistakes, may become stubborn, defiant and may become too assertive about my wants/needs as I am less able to think of the other person. My impatience can prompt me to start doing something to fix the problem hastily and overlooks the emotional recuperation others may need.


To me, this indicates that you've learned to do all of those things that you stop doing when you're upset. I know that I only get this way when I'm really, _really_ stressed out, so it seems possible that staying aware of the emotions of others is more difficult for you, which is once again a quality of inferior extraverted feeling. The things you start doing also sound like dominant thinking when it's stressed out, which, with your introversion, again means Ti.



Ksara said:


> If there is no break to regroup I may make rash decisions. I am less in control, emotional and volatile. Either I shut down and freeze to contain my emotions, or I get reactive (yelling, crying, being quite vocal, really like the idea of throwing it breaking something). Sigh, an unglamorous tantrum in which hopefully I am able to contain until alone.


This also sounds like you falling into the grips of lower feeling and sensation--becoming more expressive, vocal, and outwardly emotional, which seems to be quite counter to the general coolness you normally exude. I get the impression that handle strong emotions might be a bit of a struggle for you, which (I swear I sound like a broken record) again makes me thinking lower feeling.



Ksara said:


> A good way for me to engage more intense emotions is to listening to music or watching movies
> Watching the news can trigger an intense emotional reaction :/


Interesting. I'm fairly unemotional unless I have a personal connection to a song or movie. I don't really watch the news, but there have been times when that triggered something in me. I tend to be rather emotionally flat unless I feel something strongly. Is that your experience?



Ksara said:


> Other quirks. I can also be unaware that I am coming across as emotional to others. That is seem upset about an issue when I am not internally upset, or appear to worry about events when I am not feeling anxious at all.


Still seeing the lower Fe here.



Ksara said:


> This is more when another person is involved. I just don't know what to do. I cant make them change their emotional state, and when I am responsible for why they are upset it really is a dark cloud over my head.


This also sounds like Fe coming out. I don't think dominant thinking would mean that you're not compassionate or caring towards other people. Or that you wouldn't get upset if you caused someone grief.



Ksara said:


> Its like my emotional state is dependent on theirs and adjusts to their mood. The only control I have is to move away, or somehow manage to take a mental step back. I just don't know how to engage them to better the situation.


And this is definitely Fe absorption. I say lower here because you have a little more difficulty managing their emotions (either that or I am just profoundly unflappable), and you need to be able to distance yourself from them in order make decisions. Sounds like you would be trying to return to a preferred thinking frame of mind.



Ksara said:


> On my own I am often able to deal with my emotions, realise inner truths or insecurities and do something to change my mood.


I can see this being Fi or Ti, but at this point I'm fairly convinced that you have Fe in your lower two functions, so I'll just Ti for consistency's sake.



Ksara said:


> I think I may be coming to a realisation.
> I seems to be when I am stuck in an uncomfortable moment where I can't see the path to take to better the situation is when I become stressed/frustrated.
> Either there are no options or bad options which leads to an emotional reaction. If I do see an option I will hastily work towards that path and become impatient with what holds me back.


Not being able to make decisions seems like a dominant rational problem. That's a really shallow analysis, but once again I'm looking at myself, and I get stressed out when I have to make decisions because I just can't find a decision, even when there is no 'right' one, I struggle with that constantly. Hastily shooting for a decision just to make it seems like a thinking approach to this predicament to me.



Ksara said:


> How do you not register pain? I don't want to register pain. Ark I am frustrated because I know its how my brain has learnt to perceive it :/


Paradoxically, I've noticed that the stronger the pain is, the less I register it. It's little things that are more annoying that say, getting a nice cut. I remember when I was in Europe a few years ago I was walking along the street and a barb from the chain link fence that was sticking out sliced my shoulder right open. I didn't actually feel anything, and if I remember correctly I didn't even notice it until I saw the blood. I don't really know why I don't register pain, I just never have. I remember as a child I told my aunt that pain was all in the mind, and that if you could someone stop believing the pain existed, it would stop. Maybe I was right? 



Ksara said:


> That aside, I generally have to be preoccupied with something else to not notice these things. Daydreaming whilst exercising then I don't notice the burn. (Cant always do this as I have to pay attention.)
> When not paying attention I guess I just assume my body is there.
> 
> I would say I struggle more with paying attention to my external surroundings. The world seems to cease to exist and I miss alot as I'm more preoccupied with my thoughts. I struggle to find objects right in front of me, often don't notice smells, and when daydreaming (or anything else in my head) have noticed I will have no memory of what was happening around me.


Both of these actually fairly accurately describe my relationship with the physical, and are both things I can relate to well. These both definitely suggest lower sensation.



Ksara said:


> I have seen someone suggest sensitivity is link to inferior sensing. Don't know the validity.


I think it's valid. Inferior sensors tend to be overwhelmed by the physical from time to time.



Ksara said:


> I also believe Jung seemed to describe inferior sensation leading to hypochondrial tendencies (maybe that's my sensitivity is hypochondrial? Haha)


Maybe. I know that I can hypochondrial at times. Another aspect of inferior Se I've noticed is that I can be anal about keeping my things nice (I still won't let anyone touch my acoustic-electric guitar without asking and I've had it for two years), yet I'm totally oblivious to my own body (Se vs Si, I'm assuming). Anything like that for you?



Ksara said:


> Complete separation to body was something Jung did deal with an Ni dom patient. I don't experience my body as being non existent, I don't however see it as a part of me. Its that fleshy machine that keeps me here. Its a lot of effort to maintain, its uncomfortable, and is liable to wear and tear. More it reminds me of my mortality. Whilst me is not my body, I have to rely on it to remain me.


This also sounds quite a lot like my relationship to my own body. I think this tendency is muted or exacerbated with respect to the strength of intuition in a person. I suspect you use Ni.

With that, the general impression I'm getting from you is an INTx of some kind. I could maybe see INFJ, but that would be assuming that you prefer Ni, which I'm not totally sold on, and I'm not sure how I feel about Ni-Fe as your top two (partially because I don't really like Grant's stack, partially because you don't strike me as particularly extraverted in your judgments). Then again, we've only really talked about your rational functions, so i'm not really in a position to make that analysis. Anyway, if I had to guess, I'd say that your functions are Ti-Ni-(Se-Fe). I could also see Ni-Ti-(Fe-Se). You don't strike me as a feeler; you seem to impartial in your decisions for that, and you're definitely not a sensor. You intuition and thinking seem to be relatively close in strength, but I can't really help you decide which you prefer (Jung called the same predicament a 'painful question', so it's not just you.)

Anyway, that's my initial analysis. We can keep talking if you want, or if you think you have enough here that's fine too.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> This actually sounds like Ti and Se working together, with Se being the lower function there. More on that later.
> 
> 
> Superficially, the first part sounds like Si, which leads me to believe you could exhibit tendencies for both, with a slight Se leaning. I find it interesting that first response to stress to rationalize it, which could also point to a dominant thinking process. Emotions suddenly feeling more intense could also point to inferior feeling; I know that with middle feeling my emotions tend to be rather calm without sudden flares (even when I'm upset). I suppose it could be dominant feeling, but I'm hesitant to say that because it doesn't seem to me that an Fi-dom would be surprised by having intense emotions, at least not in the same way you're describing here.


Well the rationalising is a process of identifying the emotional reaction, understanding why I am having an emotional reaction, then make a choice on how to deal with it.

Say someone does something that 'annoys' me. I will notice the annoyance, then speculate why I am annoyed (perhaps I identify they did some action). Mentally I reason, they don't know they annoyed me with said action, because they don't know I cant hold them accountable, now either I must accept they will continue to do said action or I can speak up to let them know said action annoys me. I do this rather than just react annoyed towards the person.

Other times the above process leads to inner truths. Say in that example, I realise that it isn't the other person who is annoying, rather they have triggered an insecurity within myself and I am actually annoyed with myself.

Or even the realisation the situation has nothing to do with me but another persons insecurity projecting onto me.

And if too stressed I can not manage this frame of mind. I think that captures what I mean by rationalise. I think this is also why others have pointed to Fi dom for me.


Decision wise, they are more often made based on consequences to come. I buy an item based on need and if I can afford it, go to bed early because I will be up early and don't work well tired, appear agreeable because the argument to come isn't worth my time, the guy I am with due to what will work best with me long term not strong infatuation, etc.
Not often do I give into a want or desire just to enjoy the moment now and suffer later unless I have accepted the consequence to come.

Strong emotional responses do disrupt this as I am more inclined to stand firm and assert myself. I'm always stuck in this situation, is this an insecurity for me to manage or a line the other person has crossed? I don't know. Maybe this is where I get stuck rationalising, or perhaps unwilling to make a hard decision.


Perhaps the sudden flare of emotion is more about emotional stability (I think the big 5 measures this, MBTI doesn't).
I am usually emotionally level and prefer it. Perhaps life events are a little more intense currently.



> To me, this indicates that you've learned to do all of those things that you stop doing when you're upset. I know that I only get this way when I'm really, really stressed out, so it seems possible that staying aware of the emotions of others is more difficult for you, which is once again a quality of inferior extraverted feeling. The things you start doing also sound like dominant thinking when it's stressed out, which, with your introversion, again means Ti.


Yes, emotions of others. Sometimes. I'm naturally more internally focused and miss this. It can be after that fact I realise someone is upset or getting annoyed.
As I explain in the OP how I converse with others I am aware of ideas/concepts connecting, may miss my excitement but am aware of emotional changes, not thinking about my delivery for the other person at all...

At the same time I don't often rub people the wrong way. I guess its because I let others talk away and don't really share ideas/opinions if they are to be negatively received. This is a fluke and not deliberate haha.

I wouldn't be surprised if its learnt behaviour. Agreeableness comes with considering others, important where my parents are often reactive and don't handle conflict effectively. Was easier to do what they wanted and in turn got my way (could be trusted), rather than rebel.




> This also sounds like you falling into the grips of lower feeling and sensation--becoming more expressive, vocal, and outwardly emotional, which seems to be quite counter to the general coolness you normally exude. I get the impression that handle strong emotions might be a bit of a struggle for you, which (I swear I sound like a broken record) again makes me thinking lower feeling.


Haha yes my demeanor tends to be cool and calm. I have even had a friend who commented I was the calmest person he knew lol.

For me strong emotions are something that's been popping up since getting to my early 20s otherwise I have been quite content. Never any real big ups and downs. The bizarre thing, things of interests younger I cant handle now. Learn about medieval torcher methods in high school, no problem. Was a topic of discussion between friends. And now, cant watch the end of brave heart. Any human suffering and I want to leave the room.

Growing up is weird lol.




> Interesting. I'm fairly unemotional unless I have a personal connection to a song or movie. I don't really watch the news, but there have been times when that triggered something in me. I tend to be rather emotionally flat unless I feel something strongly. Is that your experience?


I'd say similar. I'm emotionally level until something triggers a reaction, often by surprise. It takes a lot in life for me to be on an emotional rollercoaster. I have been at an even level of content, as mentioned it I more recently I have notice more intense reactions.

Music, don't know why but I enjoy feeling through the music coupled with watching my mind daydream to the music. It amazes me how some music can be calm and free flowing, fluid like water, and other music powerful. The images seem to symbolise or tell a story coloured by these elements.




> Still seeing the lower Fe here.
> 
> This also sounds like Fe coming out. I don't think dominant thinking would mean that you're not compassionate or caring towards other people. Or that you wouldn't get upset if you caused someone grief.
> 
> And this is definitely Fe absorption. I say lower here because you have a little more difficulty managing their emotions (either that or I am just profoundly unflappable), and you need to be able to distance yourself from them in order make decisions. Sounds like you would be trying to return to a preferred thinking frame of mind.


Perhaps. Yeah I would say I am trying to return to a prefered way of thinking. Essentially to not make emotional decisions in the moment that backfire :/




> I can see this being Fi or Ti, but at this point I'm fairly convinced that you have Fe in your lower two functions, so I'll just Ti for consistency's sake.


I have had others suggest I use Fi, some saying quite well and others convinced I'm Fi dom. Maybe for this reason 




> Not being able to make decisions seems like a dominant rational problem. That's a really shallow analysis, but once again I'm looking at myself, and I get stressed out when I have to make decisions because I just can't find a decision, even when there is no 'right' one, I struggle with that constantly. Hastily shooting for a decision just to make it seems like a thinking approach to this predicament to me.


Interesting. Hadn't looked at it as a need to make a decision. I see it as a need to get out of the situation haha. Its being trapped in a moment in time that seems like it will never end


When not stressed I'm not fussed. Sometimes I can't make a decision as there is no real difference between options. Its a curiosity not a bother haha.

A struggle when put on the spot however and don't have the time to consider options.




> Paradoxically, I've noticed that the stronger the pain is, the less I register it. It's little things that are more annoying that say, getting a nice cut. I remember when I was in Europe a few years ago I was walking along the street and a barb from the chain link fence that was sticking out sliced my shoulder right open. I didn't actually feel anything, and if I remember correctly I didn't even notice it until I saw the blood. I don't really know why I don't register pain, I just never have. I remember as a child I told my aunt that pain was all in the mind, and that if you could someone stop believing the pain existed, it would stop. Maybe I was right?


Hmm, my closest similarity was when I hit my shin into a metal pole. I was confused why it didn't hurt lol.

I hold a similar view on that. It is the brain that learns and interprets pain signals. So it annoys me I cant just turn it off. I get why its important (pain stops movement and allows for the body to rest and heal itself) but why must I perceive it the way I do. Even better, why does the feeling of pain 'hurt'? Same for an itch, what about that feeling makes me want to scratch? Why can't I experience it without the repulsion?

...yes I have tried many times to not scratch bug bites and to just observe what an itch is.



> Both of these actually fairly accurately describe my relationship with the physical, and are both things I can relate to well. These both definitely suggest lower sensation.
> 
> I think it's valid. Inferior sensors tend to be overwhelmed by the physical from time to time.
> 
> Maybe. I know that I can hypochondrial at times. Another aspect of inferior Se I've noticed is that I can be anal about keeping my things nice (I still won't let anyone touch my acoustic-electric guitar without asking and I've had it for two years), yet I'm totally oblivious to my own body (Se vs Si, I'm assuming). Anything like that for you?


Not that I have noticed...
Lending objects is not an issue as I will get them back. Overall I tend to hold little value for objects. Simply I forget their existence unless in sight haha.

I do want to keep things nice in general but I'm not going to go to the effort to cover everything in plastic.

Really I want to discard useless objects from my life. A personal choice as I have decided I want to live a relative happy life.



> This also sounds quite a lot like my relationship to my own body. I think this tendency is muted or exacerbated with respect to the strength of intuition in a person. I suspect you use Ni.
> 
> With that, the general impression I'm getting from you is an INTx of some kind. I could maybe see INFJ, but that would be assuming that you prefer Ni, which I'm not totally sold on, and I'm not sure how I feel about Ni-Fe as your top two (partially because I don't really like Grant's stack, partially because you don't strike me as particularly extraverted in your judgments). Then again, we've only really talked about your rational functions, so i'm not really in a position to make that analysis. Anyway, if I had to guess, I'd say that your functions are Ti-Ni-(Se-Fe). I could also see Ni-Ti-(Fe-Se). You don't strike me as a feeler; you seem to impartial in your decisions for that, and you're definitely not a sensor. You intuition and thinking seem to be relatively close in strength, but I can't really help you decide which you prefer (Jung called the same predicament a 'painful question', so it's not just you.)
> 
> Anyway, that's my initial analysis. We can keep talking if you want, or if you think you have enough here that's fine too.


I'm not sold on the Grant stack either.

As for Fe I'm not sure where I sit with that. What I have described to you others have suggested its Fi/Se.
The way Jung describes an Fe dom that isn't me. Im more off in my own world doing my own thing than focusing on what others consider appropriate. Social norms I will ask the question why. Its hard to explain seeing such norms as fluid entities that appear to exist due to the perspective on holds.

As for Ni, the way Jung describes it for me its more a choice to see images rather than a happening. Not sure if that makes sense :/ Inner images don't seem to impose themselves very often unexpectedly.
I tend to relate more to Ni descriptions about possibilities involving the perspective one takes.

MBTI wise I have been semi sure of intuition over sensation. Thinking and feeling have been close, really to close to call. The only part I'm sure of is introversion so I'm type Ixxx lol.
Even went through the facets and came up even for thinking/feeling haha.

I'm still happy to keep talking. My lack of response is due to a current road trip. You are welcome to PM if its getting too much off topic. And thankyou for your time thus far, it is appreciated


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Well the rationalising is a process of identifying the emotional reaction, understanding why I am having an emotional reaction, then make a choice on how to deal with it.


I'd still say this sounds more like thinking than feeling. This isn't a measurement of value or meaning, you're evaluating the emotion by defining it and then figuring why you're having it. There's nothing Fi about this.



Ksara said:


> Say someone does something that 'annoys' me. I will notice the annoyance, then speculate why I am annoyed (perhaps I identify they did some action). Mentally I reason, they don't know they annoyed me with said action, because they don't know I cant hold them accountable, now either I must accept they will continue to do said action or I can speak up to let them know said action annoys me. I do this rather than just react annoyed towards the person.


I would even go so far as to say that this is probably a really good example of Ti dealing with emotions. Again, I'm fairly sure than an Fi-user would be more concerned about whether or not they are justified in being annoyed or if they are okay with feeling that emotion (gauging the emotion's worth), but like I said above, you're not asking yourself that. It's very formulaic: "what this emotion, why do I have it, what do I do with it?"



Ksara said:


> Other times the above process leads to inner truths. Say in that example, I realise that it isn't the other person who is annoying, rather they have triggered an insecurity within myself and I am actually annoyed with myself.


As someone who is just _now_ learning that my Ni perceptions are often more representative of my own mental state than anything else, I can attest to this being a function of Ji. Depending on your approach here, it could either be feeling or thinking, but this would indicate strong introverted rational.



Ksara said:


> Or even the realisation the situation has nothing to do with me but another persons insecurity projecting onto me.


This is probably just behavior normal to rational functions, but my guess is that this is your own Ji getting inside the other person's head.



Ksara said:


> And if too stressed I can not manage this frame of mind. I think that captures what I mean by rationalise. I think this is also why others have pointed to Fi dom for me.


Just because emotions trip up your judgment doesn't necessarily make you a feeler. That's just part of being human. My psyche is neutral towards thinking and feeling, and when I'm stressed, depending on the issue, I can get downright psychotic about my decisions. My Ni will try to help, but that really only makes things worse; it starts interpreting every little detail in a billion different ways until three hours have passed and I'm just in an awful mental state. It's really, really not good. Thankfully this is rare, but my point is that emotional stress doesn't mean feeling. It's how your deal with it that distinguishes between the two. In my case, I get out of it through my emotions, which indicates a more sophisticated feeling than thinking.



Ksara said:


> Decision wise, they are more often made based on consequences to come. I buy an item based on need and if I can afford it, go to bed early because I will be up early and don't work well tired, appear agreeable because the argument to come isn't worth my time, the guy I am with due to what will work best with me long term not strong infatuation, etc.
> Not often do I give into a want or desire just to enjoy the moment now and suffer later unless I have accepted the consequence to come.


This is all pretty characteristic of a dominant thinking function. I someone a lot like you in this respect, and I'm pretty sure they're either INTP or ENTJ. I personally think that the last letter of the MBTI code is evil; INTPs can exhibit as much 'J' tendency as ENTJs do, and what you're describing here is very J behavior. I would attribute that to a preferred rational function, and more specifically, thinking.



Ksara said:


> Strong emotional responses do disrupt this as I am more inclined to stand firm and assert myself. I'm always stuck in this situation, is this an insecurity for me to manage or a line the other person has crossed? I don't know. Maybe this is where I get stuck rationalising, or perhaps unwilling to make a hard decision.


And, since my thinking is often introverted, I very much relate to this overthinking of emotions. I would still say that this is preferred Ti.



Ksara said:


> Perhaps the sudden flare of emotion is more about emotional stability (I think the big 5 measures this, MBTI doesn't). I am usually emotionally level and prefer it. Perhaps life events are a little more intense currently.


It could be. I would say that flares in emotions are beyond the scope of MBTI/Jung; like I've said before, it's how you approach it that matters, not what is happening in of itself.



Ksara said:


> Yes, emotions of others. Sometimes. I'm naturally more internally focused and miss this. It can be after that fact I realise someone is upset or getting annoyed.


Well, you definitely don't prefer Fe, but we already knew that. I suppose this leaves room for Fi, but it seems that an IxFP would still be a little more in tune with others' emotions. Of course, I am not an IxFP, so I can't really judge that.



Ksara said:


> As I explain in the OP how I converse with others I am aware of ideas/concepts connecting, may miss my excitement but am aware of emotional changes, not thinking about my delivery for the other person at all...


And this sounds a lot like thinking and intuition. Focusing on the abstract could be both intuition and Ti, and not thinking about delivery is pretty T of you. Being aware of your emotional changes could be Fi, but I think that could just fit under introversion in general. That's part of what being inward focused means.



Ksara said:


> At the same time I don't often rub people the wrong way. I guess its because I let others talk away and don't really share ideas/opinions if they are to be negatively received. This is a fluke and not deliberate haha.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if its learnt behaviour. Agreeableness comes with considering others, important where my parents are often reactive and don't handle conflict effectively. Was easier to do what they wanted and in turn got my way (could be trusted), rather than rebel.


Yeah, I don't think there's much to this in terms of type. Probably just means that you're not a one-sided person.



Ksara said:


> Haha yes my demeanor tends to be cool and calm. I have even had a friend who commented I was the calmest person he knew lol.
> 
> For me strong emotions are something that's been popping up since getting to my early 20s otherwise I have been quite content. Never any real big ups and downs. The bizarre thing, things of interests younger I cant handle now. Learn about medieval torcher methods in high school, no problem. Was a topic of discussion between friends. And now, cant watch the end of brave heart. Any human suffering and I want to leave the room.
> 
> Growing up is weird lol.


Haha, yeah. It does sound like you're developing a feeling function. Based on this, I can see why people would type you as Fi, but then again that seems like a superficial reason for doing so. More to the point, it seems like an Fi-dom would have been uncomfortable about that, even in high school. I'd say this more characteristic of anything but dominant feeling. It took me a little bit to be uncomfortable around human suffering like you said, and feeling's my aux.



Ksara said:


> I'd say similar. I'm emotionally level until something triggers a reaction, often by surprise. It takes a lot in life for me to be on an emotional rollercoaster. I have been at an even level of content, as mentioned it I more recently I have notice more intense reactions.


Sounds like your life is going through some changes. 



Ksara said:


> Music, don't know why but I enjoy feeling through the music coupled with watching my mind daydream to the music. It amazes me how some music can be calm and free flowing, fluid like water, and other music powerful. The images seem to symbolise or tell a story coloured by these elements.


No shortage of intuition here.



Ksara said:


> Perhaps. Yeah I would say I am trying to return to a prefered way of thinking. Essentially to not make emotional decisions in the moment that backfire :/


Yeah. I don't think anyone really _wants_ to make emotional decisions, but would I be correct in saying you're distrustful of emotions in general?



Ksara said:


> I have had others suggest I use Fi, some saying quite well and others convinced I'm Fi dom. Maybe for this reason


Maybe, and I can see where they're coming from, but I'm hardly convinced. At the very least, I'm sure you're a dominant introverted rational, but I think that a dominant feeler would be, well, more feeling, than you've presented yourself here. Like I said in the beginning, there's nothing feeling about the process of evaluating your emotions like you do. It's very impersonal, focused on definitions and precise measurements instead of subjective valuation or a more personal approach. I wouldn't keep beating Ti horse unless I saw it elsewhere, but you seem to have this very precise, Ti character to your personality, and I think that's fairly evident through your desire to actually find a type that fits you (IxFPs are rarely this intense about typing themselves; it's one of the things that drove me away from INFP in the first place) and your approach to the question. You're not just settling for what feels right or what other people are saying--_you_ want to be convinced, and _you_ want to _know_ that your type fits you, which is very, very Ti.



Ksara said:


> Interesting. Hadn't looked at it as a need to make a decision. I see it as a need to get out of the situation haha. Its being trapped in a moment in time that seems like it will never end


Well, you know yourself better than I do. Don't let me put words in your mouth (or keyboard...?).



Ksara said:


> When not stressed I'm not fussed. Sometimes I can't make a decision as there is no real difference between options. Its a curiosity not a bother haha.


This would also indicate a proficiency at decision-making that I profoundly lack. My irrational (in both senses) mind always thinks there is a difference.



Ksara said:


> Hmm, my closest similarity was when I hit my shin into a metal pole. I was confused why it didn't hurt lol.
> 
> I hold a similar view on that. It is the brain that learns and interprets pain signals. So it annoys me I cant just turn it off. I get why its important (pain stops movement and allows for the body to rest and heal itself) but why must I perceive it the way I do. Even better, why does the feeling of pain 'hurt'? Same for an itch, what about that feeling makes me want to scratch? Why can't I experience it without the repulsion?
> 
> ...yes I have tried many times to not scratch bug bites and to just observe what an itch is.


I'm not sure why pain has to hurt and itches make you want to scratch. It is a very strange phenomenon, and I can't really think of any evolutionary advantage to it. Maybe there were no humans who had genes that prevented them from being hurt/feeling itches? I don't know.

Anyway, this does strike me as lower sensation, not totally repressed but not preferred either. I noticed a long time ago that I always hate having to keep track of my sensations; I prefer to be comfortable and then not think about it ever again. You seems have a similar mindset about it.



Ksara said:


> Not that I have noticed...
> Lending objects is not an issue as I will get them back. Overall I tend to hold little value for objects. Simply I forget their existence unless in sight haha.


This sounds fairly Si, actually. Compare this to my Se; I value my things (the ones I care about, anyway), and I hate lending them out for fear that someone will not take as much care of them as I do or because I'll miss having it around. My own physical form, while I cannot loan it out, is rather out of my mind most days.



Ksara said:


> I do want to keep things nice in general but I'm not going to go to the effort to cover everything in plastic.


Yeah. I would. Dust and whatnot. 



Ksara said:


> Really I want to discard useless objects from my life. A personal choice as I have decided I want to live a relative happy life.


If that was as easy as you make it sound, that would also probably make you seem more Si than Se. I'm rather opposed to the physical world just as a rule, but I also like having nice things, so...



Ksara said:


> I'm not sold on the Grant stack either.


As a fellow member @OtterSocks once said, there is a certain undeniable truth to the Grant stack, but it takes some weird logical jumps to actually end up with the conclusion Grant did. This it he reason both he and I think that the Ax-B-C-Dy function model is the best; it allows room for the truth of the Grant stack while still being consistent with Jung's understanding of the function stack, however inconsistent that was.



Ksara said:


> As for Fe I'm not sure where I sit with that. What I have described to you others have suggested its Fi/Se.
> The way Jung describes an Fe dom that isn't me. Im more off in my own world doing my own thing than focusing on what others consider appropriate. Social norms I will ask the question why. Its hard to explain seeing such norms as fluid entities that appear to exist due to the perspective on holds.


Frankly the fact that you don't really relate to Fe much makes me think that it is indeed your inferior. In theory, you shouldn't relate to the way Fe-doms work because you yourself are not one. You don't, however, seem to have much of a struggle understanding how they work or what goes on in their heads. Questioning social norms is also fairly Ti; it seems to me that unless Fi was augmenting an intuition of some sort, it wouldn't question them so much as it just wouldn't care about social norms. The very fact that you are questioning why the norms we have are in place indicates that there is an underlying assumption that there _should_ be social norms and structure, which is very Fe of you.



Ksara said:


> As for Ni, the way Jung describes it for me its more a choice to see images rather than a happening. Not sure if that makes sense :/ Inner images don't seem to impose themselves very often unexpectedly. I tend to relate more to Ni descriptions about possibilities involving the perspective one takes.


It does make sense. This is why I think you're an INxP of some kind. Ni is rather involuntary, so the fact that it isn't for you makes me think dominant rational. Being an INxP puts your intuition in the middle, so it wouldn't have a preferred attitude (if we're going by the model I proposed earlier), which means it would exhibit tendencies of both. I'm fairly certain you prefer intuition over sensation fairly strongly, so having a pretty solid intuition in an introverted conscious would definitely give it some more introverted tendencies, hence your possibilities of perspective.



Ksara said:


> MBTI wise I have been semi sure of intuition over sensation. Thinking and feeling have been close, really to close to call. The only part I'm sure of is introversion so I'm type Ixxx lol.
> Even went through the facets and came up even for thinking/feeling haha.


I really don't trust the Myers-Briggs instruments. I've already said that I think the last letter is evil and should probably die, but as for the other dichotomies, they just don't do a good job of actually representing what Jung was talking about. Moreover, while I agree that framing all of this in terms of dichotomies was the right call, I think that if you study Jung, he was essentially posing different dichotomies, he just took it another layer deeper; if you're an introvert who prefers intuition, then you're an introverted intuitive. Overall though, contemporary MBTI is just too simplified to be of any real worth, to me at least.

It is possible that you show no preference. Jung said that he figured most people didn't have a type (although he was talking about introversion and extraversion there, so who knows if he thought people could be neutral with the functions). I don't think you're neutral, though. Like I've said, I'm fairly certain you're a dominant rational with intuition. I'm still not sold on you being Fi, I'll have to go back an read why people have said another time. But at this point, I'm still fairly convinced you're an INTP: Ti-N-(S-Fe). Your intuition and sensation do seem to have introverted leanings, so it's likely that you've differentiated them a good bit.



Ksara said:


> I'm still happy to keep talking. My lack of response is due to a current road trip. You are welcome to PM if its getting too much off topic. And thankyou for your time thus far, it is appreciated


As am I. I enjoy these conversations.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'd still say this sounds more like thinking than feeling. This isn't a measurement of value or meaning, you're evaluating the emotion by defining it and then figuring why you're having it. There's nothing Fi about this.


Hmm yeah, more what "it is" rather than what "it's worth".



> I would even go so far as to say that this is probably a really good example of Ti dealing with emotions. Again, I'm fairly sure than an Fi-user would be more concerned about whether or not they are justified in being annoyed or if they are okay with feeling that emotion (gauging the emotion's worth), but like I said above, you're not asking yourself that. It's very formulaic: "what this emotion, why do I have it, what do I do with it?"


I have to laugh, you summed it up nicely.

I find it interesting this would be a good example of Ti.

When I read about Ti I get the impression its about following it's own subjective logic, kind of like thinking about thinking to ensure logical consistency with its process. There are also the description of Ti breaking an idea/concept /process apart to better understand the pieces, in turn reassembling it.

Which I don't identify with... Which is why I have been confused about Ti and somewhat dismissed it lol.

Rather I am comparing/contrasting ideas/concepts/processes to other ideas/concepts/processes with I think my own criteria, this being Ti right?





> As someone who is just now learning that my Ni perceptions are often more representative of my own mental state than anything else, I can attest to this being a function of Ji. Depending on your approach here, it could either be feeling or thinking, but this would indicate strong introverted rational.


What did you believe they were before this realisation of your own mental state?




> This is probably just behavior normal to rational functions, but my guess is that this is your own Ji getting inside the other person's head.


Yeah. I do have to be careful here. It is always an assumption what is going on in another persons head :/




> Just because emotions trip up your judgment doesn't necessarily make you a feeler. That's just part of being human. My psyche is neutral towards thinking and feeling, and when I'm stressed, depending on the issue, I can get downright psychotic about my decisions. My Ni will try to help, but that really only makes things worse; it starts interpreting every little detail in a billion different ways until three hours have passed and I'm just in an awful mental state. It's really, really not good. Thankfully this is rare, but my point is that emotional stress doesn't mean feeling. It's how your deal with it that distinguishes between the two. In my case, I get out of it through my emotions, which indicates a more sophisticated feeling than thinking.


This actually sounds a lot like my INFJ friend when stressed haha. I can also draw parallels with my ENFP partner seeing all possible ways a mistake could have been avoided.

Drives me insane 
Its happened, no point thinking the worst until it does happen, do something about it and move on haha.




> This is all pretty characteristic of a dominant thinking function. I someone a lot like you in this respect, and I'm pretty sure they're either INTP or ENTJ. I personally think that the last letter of the MBTI code is evil; INTPs can exhibit as much 'J' tendency as ENTJs do, and what you're describing here is very J behavior. I would attribute that to a preferred rational function, and more specifically, thinking.


Poor J and P, not their fault they are misunderstood as evil 

Interesting. Do you prefer the labeling system of socionics?

That J/P dichotomy is a tricky one. Whilst an INTP has J like characteristics would they not outwardly appear as a P type?
I guess that's another question for another thread haha.

I don't think J=rational and P=irrational. It's supposed to line up with J=Je-Pi and P=Ji-Pe. Not sure with someone who stacks Ji-Pi or Je-Pe which appears to be a valid possibility. I'm not yet sure where I stand with this.




> And, since my thinking is often introverted, I very much relate to this overthinking of emotions. I would still say that this is preferred Ti.


Sigh, overthinking lol.




> It could be. I would say that flares in emotions are beyond the scope of MBTI/Jung; like I've said before, it's how you approach it that matters, not what is happening in of itself.
> 
> 
> Well, you definitely don't prefer Fe, but we already knew that. I suppose this leaves room for Fi, but it seems that an IxFP would still be a little more in tune with others' emotions. Of course, I am not an IxFP, so I can't really judge that.


I'm not sure on that either. I know an ENFP can be quite receptive of others (being extroverted), I have also seen others suggest IxFP can be 'selfish', that is better able to know and pursue their wants/needs/values and may miss working with others.

For me it isn't something I am consciously thinking about when in my prefered state. I have an assumption that since I am able to look after myself, others will do the same or alert me to any issue they have.

I will wait for someone to tell me they are hungry, rather than just given them food as its around lunch time for example.

I do know I tend to register others emotions by feeling them. I think more so when things become negative.



> And this sounds a lot like thinking and intuition. Focusing on the abstract could be both intuition and Ti, and not thinking about delivery is pretty T of you. Being aware of your emotional changes could be Fi, but I think that could just fit under introversion in general. That's part of what being inward focused means.


And that's one of the reasons why I consider myself introverted 




> Yeah, I don't think there's much to this in terms of type. Probably just means that you're not a one-sided person.
> 
> 
> Haha, yeah. It does sound like you're developing a feeling function. Based on this, I can see why people would type you as Fi, but then again that seems like a superficial reason for doing so. More to the point, it seems like an Fi-dom would have been uncomfortable about that, even in high school. I'd say this more characteristic of anything but dominant feeling. It took me a little bit to be uncomfortable around human suffering like you said, and feeling's my aux.


Well it's annoying. Paradoxically it is easier to help someone when you don't care as much :/




> Sounds like your life is going through some changes.


Well the only big change that seems to match up is my relationship...but that's a whole other can of worms..




> No shortage of intuition here.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. I don't think anyone really wants to make emotional decisions, but would I be correct in saying you're distrustful of emotions in general?


Not emotions in and of themselves. Emotions are another way my mind/bodies communicates. They are like an alarm system alerting me to something that isn't right. Really observing myself, I can not make a decision, such as what I want to eat for breakfast, without them haha.

Its the initial reaction to emotions I have I don't trust. Since when is it a good idea to yell at someone because I feel angry? I may really really want to in that moment. That's why I want the space to evaluate why the emotion then how best to deal with it.





> Maybe, and I can see where they're coming from, but I'm hardly convinced. At the very least, I'm sure you're a dominant introverted rational, but I think that a dominant feeler would be, well, more feeling, than you've presented yourself here. Like I said in the beginning, there's nothing feeling about the process of evaluating your emotions like you do. It's very impersonal, focused on definitions and precise measurements instead of subjective valuation or a more personal approach. I wouldn't keep beating Ti horse unless I saw it elsewhere, but you seem to have this very precise, Ti character to your personality, and I think that's fairly evident through your desire to actually find a type that fits you (IxFPs are rarely this intense about typing themselves; it's one of the things that drove me away from INFP in the first place) and your approach to the question. You're not just settling for what feels right or what other people are saying--you want to be convinced, and you want to know that your type fits you, which is very, very Ti.


I have to laugh at the last part, its so true haha.




> Well, you know yourself better than I do. Don't let me put words in your mouth (or keyboard...?).


I'm just open to perspectives. Its why I can't often hold a firm opinion. Just looking at the same issue in a different way changes everything.




> This would also indicate a proficiency at decision-making that I profoundly lack. My irrational (in both senses) mind always thinks there is a difference.


Always a difference?
Well unless exactly the same this is true  For me when neither differences is better nor worst I am stuck and so let others decide. There are many times where I am not fussed either way haha




> I'm not sure why pain has to hurt and itches make you want to scratch. It is a very strange phenomenon, and I can't really think of any evolutionary advantage to it. Maybe there were no humans who had genes that prevented them from being hurt/feeling itches? I don't know.


Well the purpose of pain is to immobilise. This is so the victim(?) does not move the affected area to cause more damage and ensues the victim rests the area so the body can use more energy for healing rather than moving around.
I think the intensity of the pain is to alert the individual of the amount of trauma caused, and a deterrent to causing such injury.

I presume the purpose of an itch is to brush away any bug/plant/object off the skin to prevent more irritation.

Not a perfect system (itchy bug bites, pain still present when person is restrained, etc).

There are people who do not feel pain. Problem is they lack the ability to know they are injured (even severely injured) and lack the ability to recognise the importance to not injure oneself. Could easily cause irreversible damage (or death) unintentionally. Well at least it wouldn't hurt.



> Anyway, this does strike me as lower sensation, not totally repressed but not preferred either. I noticed a long time ago that I always hate having to keep track of my sensations; I prefer to be comfortable and then not think about it ever again. You seems have a similar mindset about it.


Yeah.
Exercise is the biggest one for that. Its uncomfortable, requires energy, and I have to do it on a regular basis. Its like I am doomed to have to do these unenjoyable things for my entire life. I guess I better just accept it.




> This sounds fairly Si, actually. Compare this to my Se; I value my things (the ones I care about, anyway), and I hate lending them out for fear that someone will not take as much care of them as I do or because I'll miss having it around. My own physical form, while I cannot loan it out, is rather out of my mind most days.


I don't enjoy loaning things out. Growing up with a sister who liked my stuff perhaps I got used to it. If my stuff wasn't respected, consequence is I don't loan my stuff.
The thought I may miss it has never crossed my mind 

If anything the thought I wont miss it has haha. Or I'll be annoyed because I need the object and don't have it (such as a laptop)




> Yeah. I would. Dust and whatnot.


But you never get to enjoy the new feel of it 
The new phone with the shiny screen and smooth surface, or the crystal glasses you can make music with haha.
Rather it's covered up or camping in a cupboard.




> If that was as easy as you make it sound, that would also probably make you seem more Si than Se. I'm rather opposed to the physical world just as a rule, but I also like having nice things, so...


I do like having nice things. Its more a personal philosophy I have developed.

Looking at the world I see a lot of people working hard and throwing hours of their life away. To justify this they buy lots of stuff (big house, big TV, car, etc) which requires upkeep, which in turn requires more work.

I don't want to work so hard in a job I hate. To make this work I have had to look at my needs, what I require to live. Whilst I like nice things I am willing to sacrifice objects that are useless that take up space or cost more than they are worth.

In turn I spend money on things that will be useful, are high quality (don't break easy) and fulfill a need/purpose. Or instead invest in shared moments or beneficial events.

I'm not sure if its an easy choice, more a goal. It helps knowing when I want a nice object, reminding myself once I walk away I will have forgot I ever wanted the object anyway haha.

I believe this is a step in the direction of a happier life.



> As a fellow member @OtterSocks once said, there is a certain undeniable truth to the Grant stack, but it takes some weird logical jumps to actually end up with the conclusion Grant did. This it he reason both he and I think that the Ax-B-C-Dy function model is the best; it allows room for the truth of the Grant stack while still being consistent with Jung's understanding of the function stack, however inconsistent that was.


I do see how that stack would work. I think the key is seeing the functions not as single entities (Ti, Fe, Ne, etc) rather as a dynamic process with two major factors, the functions and the attitude. That stack allows for such movement.




> Frankly the fact that you don't really relate to Fe much makes me think that it is indeed your inferior. In theory, you shouldn't relate to the way Fe-doms work because you yourself are not one. You don't, however, seem to have much of a struggle understanding how they work or what goes on in their heads. Questioning social norms is also fairly Ti; it seems to me that unless Fi was augmenting an intuition of some sort, it wouldn't question them so much as it just wouldn't care about social norms. The very fact that you are questioning why the norms we have are in place indicates that there is an underlying assumption that there should be social norms and structure, which is very Fe of you.


That does make sense. Polar opposites shouldn't have anything in common.

Hmm, thinking back, growing up I just didn't pay attention to social norms. Couldn't to this day say which people belonged to which social group at high school haha. Wasn't interested, didn't care for it, and was happy in my bubble.

Hmm I wouldn't say there is an underlying assumption there should be social structure, more I am currently aware they do exists and exist due to us being social creatures. I'm more interested in how it works than whether or not I care about it. I will point out the absurdity of some of it haha.

I will however choose my own path. Its my choice not something socially expected.







> It does make sense. This is why I think you're an INxP of some kind. Ni is rather involuntary, so the fact that it isn't for you makes me think dominant rational. Being an INxP puts your intuition in the middle, so it wouldn't have a preferred attitude (if we're going by the model I proposed earlier), which means it would exhibit tendencies of both. I'm fairly certain you prefer intuition over sensation fairly strongly, so having a pretty solid intuition in an introverted conscious would definitely give it some more introverted tendencies, hence your possibilities of perspective.


Makes sense.




> I really don't trust the Myers-Briggs instruments. I've already said that I think the last letter is evil and should probably die, but as for the other dichotomies, they just don't do a good job of actually representing what Jung was talking about. Moreover, while I agree that framing all of this in terms of dichotomies was the right call, I think that if you study Jung, he was essentially posing different dichotomies, he just took it another layer deeper; if you're an introvert who prefers intuition, then you're an introverted intuitive. Overall though, contemporary MBTI is just too simplified to be of any real worth, to me at least.
> 
> It is possible that you show no preference. Jung said that he figured most people didn't have a type (although he was talking about introversion and extraversion there, so who knows if he thought people could be neutral with the functions). I don't think you're neutral, though. Like I've said, I'm fairly certain you're a dominant rational with intuition. I'm still not sold on you being Fi, I'll have to go back an read why people have said another time. But at this point, I'm still fairly convinced you're an INTP: Ti-N-(S-Fe). Your intuition and sensation do seem to have introverted leanings, so it's likely that you've differentiated them a good bit.


I can link you to questionnaires I have filled out.

I will look into INTP further. See if I fit well with it. I do think I'm closer to something and being able to see the connection between my mental process and function has helped. Thankyou for that 




> As am I. I enjoy these conversations.


So am I


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Hmm yeah, more what "it is" rather than what "it's worth".


Yeah. I forget where or what exactly Jung wrote, but said something along these lines: "sensation tells you that there is an object, intuition tells you what it might be (intuition's the one I'm fuzzy on), thinking tells you what it is, and feeling tells you if it is pleasing."



Ksara said:


> I have to laugh, you summed it up nicely.


Ni synthesis. What can I say? 



Ksara said:


> I find it interesting this would be a good example of Ti.
> 
> When I read about Ti I get the impression its about following it's own subjective logic, kind of like thinking about thinking to ensure logical consistency with its process. There are also the description of Ti breaking an idea/concept /process apart to better understand the pieces, in turn reassembling it.
> 
> ...


On your last question, yes that is how I would understand it. I think one problem with defining the functions as processes is that such an approach really misses a lot of the 'personality' aspects of this system. While Ti definitely uses its own subject logic, as a thinking function it is still efficient, so it might use established standards where it needs to if it would preserve logical consistency like you said, but that isn't so much definitive of Ti as the general attitude that an introverted thinker adopts in their higher thinking. Jung wrote that "a precise and persistent intellect" is one of the defining traits of an Ti-dom, which you certainly seem to have. I don't think that the best way to type yourself is to look at specific examples and judge your type based on those, but rather the whole of your perspective on thinking, the general attitude through which you think (hence why typology is so Ni). That can't so much be defined, but characterized.



Ksara said:


> What did you believe they were before this realisation of your own mental state?


I did that thing where I was just fascinated by the images themselves and didn't really think about connecting them to myself. This is part of the reason why I'm a really emotionally unaware person. My mind usually lets me know what I'm feeling, but I don't actually realize that until either I connect the image to myself or talk to someone (usually my mother) about it (my feeling is very often extraverted).



Ksara said:


> Yeah. I do have to be careful here. It is always an assumption what is going on in another persons head :/


Yeah. I still hold that reading minds would be the best/most useful superpower next to flight or telekinesis. (What I would give for telekinesis...)



Ksara said:


> This actually sounds a lot like my INFJ friend when stressed haha. I can also draw parallels with my ENFP partner seeing all possible ways a mistake could have been avoided.


I'm still not convinced that Ni-dominance =/= mild neurosis. I think that we might be the definition of high-functioning neurotics. But yes, that dominant intuition with feeling combo tends to make us nuts when we've made a terrible mistake or something along those lines.



Ksara said:


> Drives me insane
> Its happened, no point thinking the worst until it does happen, do something about it and move on haha.


I wish that my brain was half as rational as yours. Often times, it's just involuntary. 



Ksara said:


> Poor J and P, not their fault they are misunderstood as evil
> 
> Interesting. Do you prefer the labeling system of socionics?


To an extent. I'm hesitant to say yes because I think they overemphasize the functions, and then with that I think they divide the functions in unnecessary ways. The one that comes to mind is Fe being emotions and Fi being relations. I get what they're trying to get at, but the distinction feels arbitrary; I don't see how one can subtract emotions of relationships. As far just their lettering system, I like it, but it's also confusing because I just haven't been around their system enough to be well acquainted with it, and I'm not terribly thrilled that they use the letter I twice (such as IEI). I do think the logic/ethics distinction was effective, but only really for people who are new to typology (these terms are a little more neutral than feeling and thinking). Beyond that, I just find Socionics to be to complicated and mathematical to actually mean anything. I enjoy it as an exercise in thought, but once they added in the Reinin dichotomies, the relationships theory, and all the other stuff that makes Socionics what it is, they kind of lost me. For similar reasons why I think the J/P distinction was a mistake, which I will explain more below.

Sorry, that just turned into my qualms with Socionics as a whole. Whoops.



Ksara said:


> That J/P dichotomy is a tricky one. Whilst an INTP has J like characteristics would they not outwardly appear as a P type?
> I guess that's another question for another thread haha.


Haha, I suppose. Although I would argue that it's really a person's dominant function that should be definitive, and for that reason I don't think that the J/P letter should tell you how you use your functions.



Ksara said:


> I don't think J=rational and P=irrational. It's supposed to line up with J=Je-Pi and P=Ji-Pe. Not sure with someone who stacks Ji-Pi or Je-Pe which appears to be a valid possibility. I'm not yet sure where I stand with this.


This is part of my core problem with J/P. They don't mean rational/irrational, even though they are mean to (loosely) line up to those. Part of the issue is that IxxJs are Pi-Je according to MBTI, which doesn't necessarily imply 'judging' behavior (same with IxxPs). IxxJs are some of the most P people on the planet (especially IxFJs), and IxxPs are some of the most judging people (especially IxTPs). In the end, whether or not your exhibit J or P tendencies has no bearing on your thinking, which is what typology is all about. This is why I say that they shouldn't be used to indicate your functions, if used at all. I see this dichotomy as extraneous to some extent, separate from the functions and a totally different category of human behavior, kind of like the E/I distinction. The reason we use E/I, though, is that it's important to understand where a person's focus is, but J/P doesn't even have an impact on how we think, just how organized a person is (at least, that's how modern MBTI seems to think. At worst they basically say J = self-disciplined and P = not self-disciplined. Seriously, compare INFJ and INFP descriptions from places like 16personalities.com The only difference is that INFJs get things done and INFPs don't). Maybe J/P has some intrinsic value in of itself, but I seriously don't think that it can mean anything with respect to how we use our functions or which functions we prefer.

If we were to change the system of lettering, I'd say that we should use the Socionics system, but with N still representing intuition, and T and F as opposed to L and E. I'd also say that the attitude should come first, not last. So INFJ = INF, INFP = IFN, ESTJ = ETS, etc.



Ksara said:


> Sigh, overthinking lol.


It's a party.



Ksara said:


> I'm not sure on that either. I know an ENFP can be quite receptive of others (being extroverted), I have also seen others suggest IxFP can be 'selfish', that is better able to know and pursue their wants/needs/values and may miss working with others.
> 
> For me it isn't something I am consciously thinking about when in my prefered state. I have an assumption that since I am able to look after myself, others will do the same or alert me to any issue they have.
> 
> ...


This is still sounding a lot like lower Fe to me.



Ksara said:


> And that's one of the reasons why I consider myself introverted


Yeah, that makes sense. You kind of exude introversion.



Ksara said:


> Well it's annoying. Paradoxically it is easier to help someone when you don't care as much :/


Yeah. Strangers are an odd construct, at least with respect to how people act around them.



Ksara said:


> Well the only big change that seems to match up is my relationship...but that's a whole other can of worms..


I know the feeling. It is relationships that most often induce my aforementioned neurosis of decision-making.



Ksara said:


> Not emotions in and of themselves. Emotions are another way my mind/bodies communicates. They are like an alarm system alerting me to something that isn't right. Really observing myself, I can not make a decision, such as what I want to eat for breakfast, without them haha.
> 
> Its the initial reaction to emotions I have I don't trust. Since when is it a good idea to yell at someone because I feel angry? I may really really want to in that moment. That's why I want the space to evaluate why the emotion then how best to deal with it.


I'd be interesting in studying how feelers react to their moment-to-moment impulses. I'm starting to wonder if such behavior really has nothing to do with type. Maybe thinkers have an easier time ignoring them? I don't know, but all of this sounds like how humans grow up.



Ksara said:


> I have to laugh at the last part, its so true haha.


I'm telling you, INTP is the way to go. They have Ph.Ds. And no one will expect you to shower anymore! (No offense to INTPs.) 



Ksara said:


> I'm just open to perspectives. Its why I can't often hold a firm opinion. Just looking at the same issue in a different way changes everything.


And there's the Ni we we're all seeing.



Ksara said:


> Always a difference?


Unfortunately.



Ksara said:


> Well unless exactly the same this is true  For me when neither differences is better nor worst I am stuck and so let others decide. There are many times where I am not fussed either way haha


Yeah, even if they were ultimately the same thing, I would consider them different, based solely on the mindset with which I made a decision. That's usually what trips me up in decision-making; not the decision itself, but why I'm making the decision. Once I believe I have good reasons, _then_ I can make the decision, but that is a whole other can of worms, and half the time I end up reevaluating my reasons because of something that came up in the process of decision-making.



Ksara said:


> Well the purpose of pain is to immobilise. This is so the victim(?) does not move the affected area to cause more damage and ensues the victim rests the area so the body can use more energy for healing rather than moving around.
> I think the intensity of the pain is to alert the individual of the amount of trauma caused, and a deterrent to causing such injury.
> 
> I presume the purpose of an itch is to brush away any bug/plant/object off the skin to prevent more irritation.
> ...


That makes sense. I would assume that, at least in some ways (if you'll pardon the metaphor) that this is similar to the "why do men have nipples?" question. Doesn't really have an answer that makes sense these days, but it is what it is regardless.



Ksara said:


> Yeah.
> Exercise is the biggest one for that. Its uncomfortable, requires energy, and I have to do it on a regular basis. Its like I am doomed to have to do these unenjoyable things for my entire life. I guess I better just accept it.


Call me cynical, but I think that doing displeasing things is part of life. But I think the beauty there is that those displeasing things force us to grow, refine us into silver, if you will. I don't think that the lack of pleasure in life is necessarily a bad thing; if one manages to nurture their inner child throughout their life and maintain their sense of idealism, then the moments when life is pleasurable are all the more special. Part of the problem with living in a modern society is that we become numb to the simple joy of living; we take pleasure itself for granted because it is so common all around us. Nothing threatens our lives, and so we file into these gray ruts and plod through our days, and the longer we do so the more our joie de vivre seems to wane. It's like how after the twelfth Netflix binge this month, anything you watch just seems to stop being interesting and lose its meaning. Humans aren't meant to live uniform lives, and for the life of me I can't figure out how doing anything other than that is possible in modern society.

*cough* /philosopher



Ksara said:


> I don't enjoy loaning things out. Growing up with a sister who liked my stuff perhaps I got used to it. If my stuff wasn't respected, consequence is I don't loan my stuff.
> The thought I may miss it has never crossed my mind


Can't say I relate here. I'm just overprotective of my things.



Ksara said:


> If anything the thought I wont miss it has haha. Or I'll be annoyed because I need the object and don't have it (such as a laptop)


Good heavens, I'd never loan out my laptop.



Ksara said:


> But you never get to enjoy the new feel of it


True, but I hear plastics are the way to go these days. There's real future in plastics.



Ksara said:


> The new phone with the shiny screen and smooth surface, or the crystal glasses you can make music with haha.
> Rather it's covered up or camping in a cupboard.


That's true. Although personally I enjoy new-book smell/feel more than anything else. Ever since I learned that smartphones are essentially slow microwave emitters I've been cautious about how I use it. By the way, fun fact: smartphones are essentially slow microwave emitters and could potentially cause problems later in life if you overexpose yourself to their screens now.



Ksara said:


> I do like having nice things. Its more a personal philosophy I have developed.
> 
> Looking at the world I see a lot of people working hard and throwing hours of their life away. To justify this they buy lots of stuff (big house, big TV, car, etc) which requires upkeep, which in turn requires more work.
> 
> ...


I wish people were half as thoughtful about their lives as you. I swear, not to sound like everyone's grandfather, but I don't know what they teach kids in schools these days, because it certainly isn't thinking. Either that or everyone was absent the day that independent thought class was given. A lot of the world's problems could be solved if people just thought about how they lived their lives.



Ksara said:


> I do see how that stack would work. I think the key is seeing the functions not as single entities (Ti, Fe, Ne, etc) rather as a dynamic process with two major factors, the functions and the attitude. That stack allows for such movement.











But seriously though, that's one of my biggest problems with contemporary typology. Somehow they've decided Fi is entirely different from Fe, which...just...no.



Ksara said:


> That does make sense. Polar opposites shouldn't have anything in common.
> 
> Hmm, thinking back, growing up I just didn't pay attention to social norms. Couldn't to this day say which people belonged to which social group at high school haha. Wasn't interested, didn't care for it, and was happy in my bubble.
> 
> ...


This still sounds very Ti to me. Awareness of social structure (Fe), but only being interested in it as a system and not really caring about how it affects you, or even seeing yourself as outside of it (Ti).



Ksara said:


> I can link you to questionnaires I have filled out.


If you want, I'd be happy to look at them. I don't really put much stock in any sort of questionnaire, but they can be helpful, if nothing else.

Now, as I contradict what I just said, here's a little test that can be sort of helpful: https://sites.google.com/site/jungpsychologicaltypes/take-quiz

It's a short little quiz based on Jung's original work. If nothing else, take it for the novelty, but it does help you think about your own cognition.



Ksara said:


> I will look into INTP further. See if I fit well with it. I do think I'm closer to something and being able to see the connection between my mental process and function has helped. Thankyou for that


No problem, I enjoy helping. Here's Jung's Ti description:


* *






> The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas. These however, have their origin not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel.
> 
> Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type namely, the intensive relatedness to the external world. In the case of the human external world, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the external world is indifferent, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert. It also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Yeah. I forget where or what exactly Jung wrote, but said something along these lines: "sensation tells you that there is an object, intuition tells you what it might be (intuition's the one I'm fuzzy on), thinking tells you what it is, and feeling tells you if it is pleasing."


Yes, I know the one.
Where sensing tells you something exists, intuition tells you whence it came and where's it going (possibility).

Itbwas actually Jung's definition of apperception of the rational functions that lead to me questioning my mental state. At times it seems like intuition, some have said Ni, sometimes I thought Si (comparing past to present), but apperception of thinking fit much closer.




> Ni synthesis. What can I say?
> 
> 
> 
> On your last question, yes that is how I would understand it. I think one problem with defining the functions as processes is that such an approach really misses a lot of the 'personality' aspects of this system. While Ti definitely uses its own subject logic, as a thinking function it is still efficient, so it might use established standards where it needs to if it would preserve logical consistency like you said, but that isn't so much definitive of Ti as the general attitude that an introverted thinker adopts in their higher thinking. Jung wrote that "a precise and persistent intellect" is one of the defining traits of an Ti-dom, which you certainly seem to have. I don't think that the best way to type yourself is to look at specific examples and judge your type based on those, but rather the whole of your perspective on thinking, the general attitude through which you think (hence why typology is so Ni). That can't so much be defined, but characterized.


I do see where you are coming from here. At any point anyone could use any function. Taking specific instances may be random happenings rather than a prefered perspective. Incorrect to then types oneself on those occurrences. Another reason why specific examples of function use a great for understanding, but not great for typing haha.
The personality aspect I think helps to paint an overall picture, but to an extreme this can lead to unrelatable stereotypes.

The difficulty for me is I don't have a strong memory of my inner or outer experience to identify an overall perspective/character. I can remember interesting facts and concepts quite well, but not a conversation I had 5-10 minutes ago. I also don't make it a habit to go over my personal history. I prefer to look forwards to what's to come. I have a general idea, but too vague to say my character is like X.



> I did that thing where I was just fascinated by the images themselves and didn't really think about connecting them to myself. This is part of the reason why I'm a really emotionally unaware person. My mind usually lets me know what I'm feeling, but I don't actually realize that until either I connect the image to myself or talk to someone (usually my mother) about it (my feeling is very often extraverted).


This is interesting. For me I have had images come into my mind, but I am aware they are representative of my inner state.
Do you know where daydreaming fits with this? Its similar to images coming into the mind haha.




> Yeah. I still hold that reading minds would be the best/most useful superpower next to flight or telekinesis. (What I would give for telekinesis...)


I take it a step further. If only allowed one super power, it would be mind control, specifically control of perception. I could make anyone believe anything as I'm changing there concept of reality. I could have them hallucinate that I could fly, or move objects with my mind...so effectively I'd have all superpowers Muwahahahaa...

I swear I'd use it for good..



> I'm still not convinced that Ni-dominance =/= mild neurosis. I think that we might be the definition of high-functioning neurotics. But yes, that dominant intuition with feeling combo tends to make us nuts when we've made a terrible mistake or something along those lines.


I just get stuck feeling bad :/




> I wish that my brain was half as rational as yours. Often times, it's just involuntary.


I wonder if this is what my INFJ friend means when she says I'm head seem more together.
I wouldn't say its all good. Pointing out contradictions doesn't help conflict :/



> To an extent. I'm hesitant to say yes because I think they overemphasize the functions, and then with that I think they divide the functions in unnecessary ways. The one that comes to mind is Fe being emotions and Fi being relations. I get what they're trying to get at, but the distinction feels arbitrary; I don't see how one can subtract emotions of relationships. As far just their lettering system, I like it, but it's also confusing because I just haven't been around their system enough to be well acquainted with it, and I'm not terribly thrilled that they use the letter I twice (such as IEI). I do think the logic/ethics distinction was effective, but only really for people who are new to typology (these terms are a little more neutral than feeling and thinking). Beyond that, I just find Socionics to be to complicated and mathematical to actually mean anything. I enjoy it as an exercise in thought, but once they added in the Reinin dichotomies, the relationships theory, and all the other stuff that makes Socionics what it is, they kind of lost me. For similar reasons why I think the J/P distinction was a mistake, which I will explain more below.
> 
> Sorry, that just turned into my qualms with Socionics as a whole. Whoops.


No worries haha
I'm not sure about socioncs, I haven't looked into it as much. I do find that it seems closer to Jung in the sense the strongest functions of INFp (for example) is Ni and Fi, just they prefer Ni and Fe.
The Reinin dichotomies are fun, but their validity are questionable.



> Haha, I suppose. Although I would argue that it's really a person's dominant function that should be definitive, and for that reason I don't think that the J/P letter should tell you how you use your functions.
> 
> 
> 
> This is part of my core problem with J/P. They don't mean rational/irrational, even though they are mean to (loosely) line up to those. Part of the issue is that IxxJs are Pi-Je according to MBTI, which doesn't necessarily imply 'judging' behavior (same with IxxPs). IxxJs are some of the most P people on the planet (especially IxFJs), and IxxPs are some of the most judging people (especially IxTPs). In the end, whether or not your exhibit J or P tendencies has no bearing on your thinking, which is what typology is all about. This is why I say that they shouldn't be used to indicate your functions, if used at all. I see this dichotomy as extraneous to some extent, separate from the functions and a totally different category of human behavior, kind of like the E/I distinction. The reason we use E/I, though, is that it's important to understand where a person's focus is, but J/P doesn't even have an impact on how we think, just how organized a person is (at least, that's how modern MBTI seems to think. At worst they basically say J = self-disciplined and P = not self-disciplined. Seriously, compare INFJ and INFP descriptions from places like 16personalities.com The only difference is that INFJs get things done and INFPs don't). Maybe J/P has some intrinsic value in of itself, but I seriously don't think that it can mean anything with respect to how we use our functions or which functions we prefer.


Well practically speaking, in the work force it is useful to know how a person works, scheduled and organised or go with the flow last minute rush (or inspiration). It isn't as useful to know how someone internally works.
Some jobs need organised people, others benefit from a laid back style. I think the MBTI is perhaps catering to this rather than about true type.



> If we were to change the system of lettering, I'd say that we should use the Socionics system, but with N still representing intuition, and T and F as opposed to L and E. I'd also say that the attitude should come first, not last. So INFJ = INF, INFP = IFN, ESTJ = ETS, etc.


That would make it easier to understand function order.



> It's a party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well emotions come from a much older part of the brain. Its instinctive on many levels and is a part of the human condition. They are vital in making decisions. No one can make a decision without feeling some sort of emotion.
Coincidentally when the brain develops from child to adult, the develops from back to front. Essentially the emotions part develops way before the rational part (frontal lobes), so yes I would agree its a part of growing up 

I don't think moment to moment impulses is type related, perhaps more how people then come to a decision after that emotional impuls is type related. 




> I'm telling you, INTP is the way to go. They have Ph.Ds. And no one will expect you to shower anymore! (No offense to INTPs.)


But I don't shower already 
Jokes lol



> And there's the Ni we we're all seeing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting. Perhaps this is the F coming through needing there to be some level of worth for the decision to be made?




> That makes sense. I would assume that, at least in some ways (if you'll pardon the metaphor) that this is similar to the "why do men have nipples?" question. Doesn't really have an answer that makes sense these days, but it is what it is regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I do know where you are coming from here. People living in third world countries rarely suffer from depression. They are too busy surviving than have time to be bored.

I think to avoid this slump in life is to manufacture oneself a purpose that involves a passion. That is a reason to live. Only something I am coming to terms with now, having a passion. Was more focused on positioning myself in a good position in life, and now in a double degree I hate :/




> Can't say I relate here. I'm just overprotective of my things.
> 
> 
> 
> Good heavens, I'd never loan out my laptop.


Was just an example of a useful it's that would annoy me if I couldn't get my hands on it if I need it.
Only loan it out if I was in the same room with the person haha



> True, but I hear plastics are the way to go these days. There's real future in plastics.


They have blow up couches now that fold up into blow up beds.




> That's true. Although personally I enjoy new-book smell/feel more than anything else. Ever since I learned that smartphones are essentially slow microwave emitters I've been cautious about how I use it. By the way, fun fact: smartphones are essentially slow microwave emitters and could potentially cause problems later in life if you overexpose yourself to their screens now.


Hmm, something to look into. Been responding too you on my phone :/
(that smile is for my phone not you )




> I wish people were half as thoughtful about their lives as you. I swear, not to sound like everyone's grandfather, but I don't know what they teach kids in schools these days, because it certainly isn't thinking. Either that or everyone was absent the day that independent thought class was given. A lot of the world's problems could be solved if people just thought about how they lived their lives.


Maybe just current culture?
The society I find myself in is promoting instant gratification as it makes money. This would influence peoples world view of normal. And it's one way to hold power and control over large groups of people.
Conspiracy?? 



> View attachment 470194
> 
> 
> But seriously though, that's one of my biggest problems with contemporary typology. Somehow they've decided Fi is entirely different from Fe, which...just...no.


Agreeded. Both Fi and Fe deal with FEELING. Oh so different (sarcasm)



> This still sounds very Ti to me. Awareness of social structure (Fe), but only being interested in it as a system and not really caring about how it affects you, or even seeing yourself as outside of it (Ti).
> 
> 
> 
> If you want, I'd be happy to look at them. I don't really put much stock in any sort of questionnaire, but they can be helpful, if nothing else.


I will post a few links then.



> Now, as I contradict what I just said, here's a little test that can be sort of helpful: https://sites.google.com/site/jungpsychologicaltypes/take-quiz
> 
> It's a short little quiz based on Jung's original work. If nothing else, take it for the novelty, but it does help you think about your own cognition.


I'll have a look 



> No problem, I enjoy helping. Here's Jung's Ti description:


Well thanks again, I do appreciate it!


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Yes, I know the one.
> Where sensing tells you something exists, intuition tells you whence it came and where's it going (possibility).
> 
> Itbwas actually Jung's definition of apperception of the rational functions that lead to me questioning my mental state. At times it seems like intuition, some have said Ni, sometimes I thought Si (comparing past to present), but apperception of thinking fit much closer.


I'd say you have your answer there. If apperception of thinking fits in general, you're probably a thinker.




Ksara said:


> I do see where you are coming from here. At any point anyone could use any function. Taking specific instances may be random happenings rather than a prefered perspective. Incorrect to then types oneself on those occurrences. Another reason why specific examples of function use a great for understanding, but not great for typing haha.
> The personality aspect I think helps to paint an overall picture, but to an extreme this can lead to unrelatable stereotypes.


That is the rub, isn't it? Jung said that portraits can only grasp so much of what a type really is. There needs to be a balance between "Okay, I do x, y, and z fairly often, and I fit the general description of type w" and so on. Like you said, though, most online places just don't give you descriptions worth reading, and half of them don't even include the functions.



Ksara said:


> The difficulty for me is I don't have a strong memory of my inner or outer experience to identify an overall perspective/character. I can remember interesting facts and concepts quite well, but not a conversation I had 5-10 minutes ago. I also don't make it a habit to go over my personal history. I prefer to look forwards to what's to come. I have a general idea, but too vague to say my character is like X.


That sounds like an intuition preference. We don't remember details too well, just the general ideas that were presented. Maybe you should keep a dream journal or something like that, use the Beebe method and keep track of what symbols are being playing out in them. Or just a thought journal, write down little notes about what you've thought or seen in your mind.



Ksara said:


> This is interesting. For me I have had images come into my mind, but I am aware they are representative of my inner state.


Indicative of strong rational side.



Ksara said:


> Do you know where daydreaming fits with this? Its similar to images coming into the mind haha.


I imagine Jung would have said that daydreaming is a mix of all the functions, as he did with active imagination. Maybe intuitives are more prone to daydreaming, but either way it probably involves a lot of things. For instance, we rarely daydream about things that aren't important to us, so there is some undirected feeling.



Ksara said:


> I take it a step further. If only allowed one super power, it would be mind control, specifically control of perception. I could make anyone believe anything as I'm changing there concept of reality. I could have them hallucinate that I could fly, or move objects with my mind...so effectively I'd have all superpowers Muwahahahaa...
> 
> I swear I'd use it for good..


Hahahahahahahahaha...that was a good paragraph. I have a friend who is convinced time control is the best superpower. This should convince him otherwise. And yes, my friends and I have arguments about this.



Ksara said:


> I just get stuck feeling bad :/


Oh, to just feel bad. That would be wonderful.



Ksara said:


> I wonder if this is what my INFJ friend means when she says I'm head seem more together.
> I wouldn't say its all good. Pointing out contradictions doesn't help conflict :/


Probably what she means. Everything has its positives and negatives. I would know, I've probably considered them at some point because of the aforementioned crazy.



Ksara said:


> No worries haha
> I'm not sure about socioncs, I haven't looked into it as much. I do find that it seems closer to Jung in the sense the strongest functions of INFp (for example) is Ni and Fi, just they prefer Ni and Fe.
> The Reinin dichotomies are fun, but their validity are questionable.


Yeah. Usually what drives me away is the eight-function model, going back to what we said about the functions not being independent of one another.

Very, very questionable.



Ksara said:


> Well practically speaking, in the work force it is useful to know how a person works, scheduled and organised or go with the flow last minute rush (or inspiration). It isn't as useful to know how someone internally works.
> Some jobs need organised people, others benefit from a laid back style. I think the MBTI is perhaps catering to this rather than about true type.


That's actually a very good point. Myers did create the test to help women find jobs after WWII, so I guess for her purposes it was useful. Maybe Jungians should just separate themselves from MBTI, then?



Ksara said:


> That would make it easier to understand function order.


That was the idea. It's also just simpler than what we currently have. Although, apparently in Europe the JTI (Jung Type Indicator) is all the rage, and I don't know if that just identifies a person my dominant function or something else, but I'd be worried about overlapping with that.



Ksara said:


> Well emotions come from a much older part of the brain. Its instinctive on many levels and is a part of the human condition. They are vital in making decisions. No one can make a decision without feeling some sort of emotion.
> Coincidentally when the brain develops from child to adult, the develops from back to front. Essentially the emotions part develops way before the rational part (frontal lobes), so yes I would agree its a part of growing up


I hadn't really thought about parts of the brain being older than others. That's interesting. Anyway, yeah. That would explain why teenagers and young adults have such trouble making decisions about things like, say, time management, because the rational parts of the brain haven't had the chance to develop fully and be able to handle the emotions properly.



Ksara said:


> I don't think moment to moment impulses is type related, perhaps more how people then come to a decision after that emotional impuls is type related.


Most likely.



Ksara said:


> But I don't shower already
> Jokes lol


Well, you are on a road trip. 



Ksara said:


> Interesting. Perhaps this is the F coming through needing there to be some level of worth for the decision to be made?


I hadn't considered it that way, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Even just the different valuation of my mental states is pretty F of me. Hm. I guess I'm a feeler after all. I'd always thought that since feelings upset my judgments most often, that was more indicative of a thinking preference, but maybe not.



Ksara said:


> Yeah I do know where you are coming from here. People living in third world countries rarely suffer from depression. They are too busy surviving than have time to be bored.
> 
> I think to avoid this slump in life is to manufacture oneself a purpose that involves a passion. That is a reason to live. Only something I am coming to terms with now, having a passion. Was more focused on positioning myself in a good position in life, and now in a double degree I hate :/


I think that is one of the biggest problems with preferring thinking--you end up repressing your own value judgments until it's too late. I had a similar issue as you in college; gen eds are the worst. I can't do something without feeling like there's meaning behind it, and having to slog through hours of homework that professors actually wanted to care about and actually _think_ about. Maybe that's just the Ti showing, but I really hate it when people tell me how to think. And the worst part was that there was so much to do it dominated everything else I wanted to do in my life--compose music, write novels--things I actually care about.

I spent a good bit of time talking about this with various mentors, and one of the wisest things I heard was that you can't view the time you're spending as time lost. You ultimately have a choice to get something out of it or not, so you should do you best to find some way to incorporate it with what you actually want to do or to find some value in what you're learning.



Ksara said:


> They have blow up couches now that fold up into blow up beds.


Oh my word, you're serious. I was just referencing _The Graduate_. I'm not sure what to make of this.



Ksara said:


> Hmm, something to look into. Been responding too you on my phone :/
> (that smile is for my phone not you )


I'm sure you're phone appreciates it.



Ksara said:


> Maybe just current culture?
> The society I find myself in is promoting instant gratification as it makes money. This would influence peoples world view of normal. And it's one way to hold power and control over large groups of people.
> Conspiracy??


I know that we Ni-doms are often stereotyped as conspiracy theorists (Fox Mulder), but when you think about it, there is some kind of devious order to our current culture. I don't know. I don't want to cry aliens or anything like that, but the structure of society just seems, well, too _perfect_ for keeping people in line. Especially with respect to banking and all of that. Like I said, I could just be making things up in my head, and I'm having trouble remembering the specific thought that I had, but yeah. It all just seems somehow too convenient. Or maybe I'm just sounding like a lunatic.



Ksara said:


> Agreeded. Both Fi and Fe deal with FEELING. Oh so different (sarcasm)


Heh. How radical.



Ksara said:


> I will post a few links then.


Sweet.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'd say you have your answer there. If apperception of thinking fits in general, you're probably a thinker.


But then there's apperception of feeling...
Yeah, there's the over thinking complicating matters haha.



> That is the rub, isn't it? Jung said that portraits can only grasp so much of what a type really is. There needs to be a balance between "Okay, I do x, y, and z fairly often, and I fit the general description of type w" and so on. Like you said, though, most online places just don't give you descriptions worth reading, and half of them don't even include the functions.


Yeah, that balance is what I have been aiming for. Its really only now I seemed to have identified a common mental practice with a function description, so I have x down...only y, z, and description w to go 
Stereotypes in and of themselves aren't bad. They help to paint an impression of how each type likely presents themselves. That does bring about another problem, this is if you are outside looking in you could identify types with these stereotypes semi accurate, however for the individual typing themselves they 'sees' themselves on the inside. 



> That sounds like an intuition preference. We don't remember details too well, just the general ideas that were presented. Maybe you should keep a dream journal or something like that, use the Beebe method and keep track of what symbols are being playing out in them. Or just a thought journal, write down little notes about what you've thought or seen in your mind.


Yup, details..what details 
If someone asks me to pass on a message I will always get them to write it down because I won't remember exactly what they said.
I will say, this lack of memory in regard to such events is good for the soul. I don't tend to dwell on the negative moments in life.

They are good ideas. I have considered a dream journal as I tend to forget what I have dreamt. Hey, have you ever had a dream, where in the dream you remember another dream you had as if its the apart of same dream being continued? You wake up feeling sure you had dreamt the memory dream even though when awake you don't remember it?

I do have a thought journal of sorts. More about what's frustrating me so much about my relationship than any thought.



> Indicative of strong rational side.
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine Jung would have said that daydreaming is a mix of all the functions, as he did with active imagination. Maybe intuitives are more prone to daydreaming, but either way it probably involves a lot of things. For instance, we rarely daydream about things that aren't important to us, so there is some undirected feeling.


Interesting.



> Hahahahahahahahaha...that was a good paragraph. I have a friend who is convinced time control is the best superpower. This should convince him otherwise. And yes, my friends and I have arguments about this.


Well the aim was how could I have all superpowers if I could only have one. If he doesn't agree the trump card is my superpower could easily mess with a persons sense of time (as it's a part of ones perception). And what is reality anyway? If something not real is perceived by everyone to be real then it will be believed as real which makes it real to everyone.



> Oh, to just feel bad. That would be wonderful.


Yeah...wonderful is not the word I'd use when sucked into a deep dark black hole where you are far to heavy to move, and for some reason someone thought it was a good idea to drop daggers into the hole with you. You feel stuck, immobilised, like a pin cushion and can not see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Not my idea of a fun time :/



> Probably what she means. Everything has its positives and negatives. I would know, I've probably considered them at some point because of the aforementioned crazy.






> Yeah. Usually what drives me away is the eight-function model, going back to what we said about the functions not being independent of one another.
> 
> Very, very questionable.


Yeah, not the best but at least it doesn't claim Fe dom doesn't have Fi or Fi is below it's top four functions.




> That's actually a very good point. Myers did create the test to help women find jobs after WWII, so I guess for her purposes it was useful. Maybe Jungians should just separate themselves from MBTI, then?


I would say yes to this. Reading some recycled reckful, Myres came up with her own system, then saw Jung's work which she used. She did make her own adjustments and function definitions were changed in attempt to capture more people by her system. Its not a bad thing, it is however a different system that has been influence by Jung's work.

Both add something meaningful about a persons character.


As for the practicality of her instrument. Makes no difference if someone is truly rational/irrational inside, your boss wants to know how you work and how your external character fits with other external characters.



> That was the idea. It's also just simpler than what we currently have. Although, apparently in Europe the JTI (Jung Type Indicator) is all the rage, and I don't know if that just identifies a person my dominant function or something else, but I'd be worried about overlapping with that.


Interesting. Probably something I'll look into




> I hadn't really thought about parts of the brain being older than others. That's interesting. Anyway, yeah. That would explain why teenagers and young adults have such trouble making decisions about things like, say, time management, because the rational parts of the brain haven't had the chance to develop fully and be able to handle the emotions properly.


Its essentially what's evolved first. New systems evolving later will do so in the context of earlier systems. When these two systems aren't working properly the psychopath is created, that is their limbic region (the emotional part of the brain) is quite inactive. They don't feel much emotion. Being numb to emotion means they are unable to empathise with others. They also lack the feeling fear. That is they will make reckless decisions because there is no sense of self preservation. The intelligent ones are able to assimilate into society, their rational brain perhaps able to see consequences and make better decisions (such as not kill people and go to jail).

And yes, exactly why teenagers and young adults make reckless decisions based on momentary impulses. Even I have noticed, 18 to 23 my awareness has increased a great amount.



> Most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are on a road trip.


Yes that was grubby camping. But was the least of my concerns... Rain and camping in a puddle, green ants with a sting that lasts for hours, funnel web spiders that can envenom humans in 20mins :/
Back home now 




> I hadn't considered it that way, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Even just the different valuation of my mental states is pretty F of me. Hm. I guess I'm a feeler after all. I'd always thought that since feelings upset my judgments most often, that was more indicative of a thinking preference, but maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See for me I don't have a problem doing something without meaning. This is something I have noticed both my INFJ friend and ENFP partner seem to care about. It sounds like something found under the NF temperament to have meaning in their work. Maybe you do prefer feeling 

I seem to plod along, then one day have no motivation or momentum to continue, then realise I hate what I'm doing and requires a huge amount of effort to continue.
That is wise advice of your mentor. All of it is life experience after all. I am lucky as my chosen degrees do open a lot of doors and allows further study in an area of interest.

What is gen eds?





> Oh my word, you're serious. I was just referencing _The Graduate_. I'm not sure what to make of this.


I don't think I've seen the graduate (I presume its a movie?)
I though it was a joke too when I first saw the couch lol



> I'm sure you're phone appreciates it.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that we Ni-doms are often stereotyped as conspiracy theorists (Fox Mulder), but when you think about it, there is some kind of devious order to our current culture. I don't know. I don't want to cry aliens or anything like that, but the structure of society just seems, well, too _perfect_ for keeping people in line. Especially with respect to banking and all of that. Like I said, I could just be making things up in my head, and I'm having trouble remembering the specific thought that I had, but yeah. It all just seems somehow too convenient. Or maybe I'm just sounding like a lunatic.


Nah, not a lunatic.

I do think there is a lot coming into play than just aliens 

Starters most people want a sense of security. We are social animals and as a result tend to build social structures (don't know group animals that don't). There are also aspects of our minds that respond to group psychology, and someone with enough understanding of this can control a large population (look up torches of freedom, a clever man behind it all). There is also the structure of perceived freedom so people are complacent and remain in order.

The scary thing I learnt, how the law is created where I live is by the prime minister, parliament or judges. I can only vote in members of parliament and the winning party chooses the prime minister. Since officials in position of power don't have to keep there promises they are free to do what ever they want. And judges, I have no choice there. Turns out that the common man has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in the laws they MUST FOLLOW. We are all pawns in a political agenda :/



> Heh. How radical.
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet.


Still getting to them. Its tricky sorting threads on my phone. Not easy swapping between tabs :/


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@KalimofDaybreak

Here are some links I think may be relevant:

Questionnaires:
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/548850-typing-help-appreciated-only-21-qs.html
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/524818-i-thought-would-fun-what-do-80-qs-mean.html
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/466698-what-do-you-think.html
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/293570-another-one-those-whats-my-type-p.html
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/587618-thinker-feeler.html


other interesting stuff:
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/350258-whats-my-type-look-cognitive-functions.html

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/650634-seeing-end-goal.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/545274-fe-fi.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/376050-fi-fe.html
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/540802-knowing-how.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/325386-organizational-task-te-ti.html

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/478298-auxiliary-pe-functions.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/440242-si-ni.html
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/396370-what-function.html


Yeah didn't realize i had so many questions asked lol.
You don't have to go through them all if your not up to it. I wouldn't expect that.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> But then there's apperception of feeling...
> Yeah, there's the over thinking complicating matters haha.


Yeah. Frankly, I think this is one of the most distinguishing feature between INFPs and INTPs: in theory, the difference should be simple, one totally prefers feeling and represses thinking, the other is the opposite. Yet I think that INTPs are more likely to over-think type as a result, because of that persistent intellect Jung described. If they think that they see themselves feeling, they're more likely to analyze that (probably a product of the Ti-Fe mindset), whereas INFPs would see themselves thinking and not analyze it too much (probably because of Fi sitting up there and being all inclusive and non-evaluatory ).



Ksara said:


> Yeah, that balance is what I have been aiming for. Its really only now I seemed to have identified a common mental practice with a function description, so I have x down...only y, z, and description w to go
> Stereotypes in and of themselves aren't bad. They help to paint an impression of how each type likely presents themselves. That does bring about another problem, this is if you are outside looking in you could identify types with these stereotypes semi accurate, however for the individual typing themselves they 'sees' themselves on the inside.


Yeah. I always find it a little annoying when people react to the term 'stereotype' as one might respond to a venomous snake or a politician. They are useful for understanding the general attitude of something, but the important thing to remember is that there are always exceptions.

The issue is that, from the inside, one can always see themselves as the exception because they know and remember all of the exceptions (and especially in the West, we're all like "no, you're a special snowflake"). I'd say that I'm a pretty prototypical Ni-dom if one was analyzing my behavior, but inside my own mind I can think of a million reasons why I might not be. Again, I think it's a balance of the outside/inside perspectives. Even though I might see myself resembling an introverted sensate from time to time, I have to remember that from the outside, I match none of the characteristics Jung assigned to sensates. There's a balance (again).



Ksara said:


> Yup, details..what details
> If someone asks me to pass on a message I will always get them to write it down because I won't remember exactly what they said.
> I will say, this lack of memory in regard to such events is good for the soul. I don't tend to dwell on the negative moments in life.


Yeah, that is one advantage. Although the worst ones have a way of branding themselves in the consciousness.



Ksara said:


> They are good ideas. I have considered a dream journal as I tend to forget what I have dreamt. Hey, have you ever had a dream, where in the dream you remember another dream you had as if its the apart of same dream being continued? You wake up feeling sure you had dreamt the memory dream even though when awake you don't remember it?


I have, but I don't remember. :\ I've had a lot of dreams that involve that crossing of a threshold of some kind, entering a video game, another world, some kind of pocket dimension, that sort of thing. I don't know if that would count. Of course, my dreams are usually a mish-mash of vignettes and rarely follow a coherent though process.

As an aside, I wonder if irrationals tend to have more erratic dreams and rationals more cogent. That would be an interesting study.



Ksara said:


> I do have a thought journal of sorts. More about what's frustrating me so much about my relationship than any thought.


I imagine that could be fairly enlightening. At the very least, you'd get a sense of the frame of mind from which you write, which is theoretically what you want to be getting at.

If you feel like I'm prying, tell me to shut up here, I realize that this is none of my business. But have you considered couple's counseling? We introverts can tend to let things build up in our minds and just spiral inwards without actually talking things out. I'm only bringing this up because this is the about the third time you've mentioned frustrations/problems with your partner, and I'd hate for things to build up there if it can be avoided. A past relationship of mine might have gone a lot better if we had found ways to express our frustrations.

Again, I'm not you, nor I know what you're going through, nor is this any of my business _at all_. I guess this is something of a soft spot for me still. But yeah, if I'm being too nosy, I'll stop.



Ksara said:


> Well the aim was how could I have all superpowers if I could only have one. If he doesn't agree the trump card is my superpower could easily mess with a persons sense of time (as it's a part of ones perception). And what is reality anyway? If something not real is perceived by everyone to be real then it will be believed as real which makes it real to everyone.


That's a good point. The problem is that this is my ESFP friend, so eventually we'll get to the point where he just starts saying that he's right and I'm wrong because he's done thinking about it. 



Ksara said:


> Yeah...wonderful is not the word I'd use when sucked into a deep dark black hole where you are far to heavy to move, and for some reason someone thought it was a good idea to drop daggers into the hole with you. You feel stuck, immobilised, like a pin cushion and can not see the light at the end of the tunnel.
> 
> Not my idea of a fun time :/


Am I allowed to revise my statement? Because if so, that sounds terrible. The worst thing in the world is to wake up an wonder why the heck you even bothered.



Ksara said:


> Yeah, not the best but at least it doesn't claim Fe dom doesn't have Fi or Fi is below it's top four functions.


Yeah.



Ksara said:


> I would say yes to this. Reading some recycled reckful, Myres came up with her own system, then saw Jung's work which she used. She did make her own adjustments and function definitions were changed in attempt to capture more people by her system. Its not a bad thing, it is however a different system that has been influence by Jung's work.
> 
> Both add something meaningful about a persons character.


That's probably the clincher here: both are insightful about how a person thinks, and they should be valued in different ways as a result.



Ksara said:


> As for the practicality of her instrument. Makes no difference if someone is truly rational/irrational inside, your boss wants to know how you work and how your external character fits with other external characters.


Yeah. It's more practical for a person to know that I sort as INFJ (though I do have some very P tendencies) than I am a dominant introverted irrational and spent most of my time watching my brain make all of these funny little images. That's a little more intimate than most people care about.



Ksara said:


> Interesting. Probably something I'll look into


Definitely. I had a hard time finding anything on the internet, but if you're across the pond then you might some better luck.



Ksara said:


> Its essentially what's evolved first. New systems evolving later will do so in the context of earlier systems. When these two systems aren't working properly the psychopath is created, that is their limbic region (the emotional part of the brain) is quite inactive. They don't feel much emotion. Being numb to emotion means they are unable to empathise with others. They also lack the feeling fear. That is they will make reckless decisions because there is no sense of self preservation. The intelligent ones are able to assimilate into society, their rational brain perhaps able to see consequences and make better decisions (such as not kill people and go to jail).
> 
> And yes, exactly why teenagers and young adults make reckless decisions based on momentary impulses. Even I have noticed, 18 to 23 my awareness has increased a great amount.


Same. Whenever I think about who I was as a teenager, I usually spend most of that time banging my head into a nearby wall. :/ We all have those moments that just make us cringe.



Ksara said:


> Yes that was grubby camping. But was the least of my concerns... Rain and camping in a puddle, green ants with a sting that lasts for hours, funnel web spiders that can envenom humans in 20mins :/
> Back home now


Sounds about like most of my summers. We have about every single dangerous *thing* living there. I was leaving our cabin one day, I saw a spider as large as a grown man's hand just chilling on the window. So I did the manly thing and screamed like a little girl and proceeded to throw my sandals at it for about five minutes before I realized that throwing them didn't really work.

Oh, and at the end of this summer a group of colleagues and I went camping at the beach. We camped on top of a bunch of sand jiggers. By the end of the weekend I actually had over 100 bug bites on my feet. That was not pleasant.



Ksara said:


> See for me I don't have a problem doing something without meaning. This is something I have noticed both my INFJ friend and ENFP partner seem to care about. It sounds like something found under the NF temperament to have meaning in their work. Maybe you do prefer feeling


I would guess so. If I feel like something is meaningless I just lose all motivation to do it. I guess I do prefer feeling.



Ksara said:


> I seem to plod along, then one day have no motivation or momentum to continue, then realise I hate what I'm doing and requires a huge amount of effort to continue.
> That is wise advice of your mentor. All of it is life experience after all. I am lucky as my chosen degrees do open a lot of doors and allows further study in an area of interest.


Yeah. It's hard to keep your eyes on the big picture when you're plodding through it all, though.

What are you studying? It sounds interesting.



Ksara said:


> What is gen eds?


General education. I don't know what it's like elsewhere in the world, but at American liberal arts colleges you have to earn a certain number of credits in various disciplines to prove that you have a 'well-rounded' education. The problem is that when I'm taking something like history (which, I'm not against history, it's just not where my areas of interest are), the professors often want you to actually put a lot of effort and thought into what you're doing, which is just really hard if you're only taking the class to fill a requirement. Honestly, I could have skipped the first two years of college and been perfectly happy. I would have gone to a more focused institution, but there aren't any philosophy technical schools. 



Ksara said:


> I don't think I've seen the graduate (I presume its a movie?)


A good one at that. It's on Netflix if you have a free evening. Dustyn Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, and Katherine Ross are the leads. There's some brief nudity, but I usually just fast-forward through those. It was released in 1967, if I remember correctly.



Ksara said:


> Nah, not a lunatic.


I appreciate the vote of confidence, but that's debatable.



Ksara said:


> I do think there is a lot coming into play than just aliens


The truth is out there.



Ksara said:


> Starters most people want a sense of security. We are social animals and as a result tend to build social structures (don't know group animals that don't). There are also aspects of our minds that respond to group psychology, and someone with enough understanding of this can control a large population (look up torches of freedom, a clever man behind it all). There is also the structure of perceived freedom so people are complacent and remain in order.
> 
> The scary thing I learnt, how the law is created where I live is by the prime minister, parliament or judges. I can only vote in members of parliament and the winning party chooses the prime minister. Since officials in position of power don't have to keep there promises they are free to do what ever they want. And judges, I have no choice there. Turns out that the common man has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in the laws they MUST FOLLOW. We are all pawns in a political agenda :/


That's terrifying. I will say, though, there is something nice about at least knowing you have no say. Over here we still try to create the illusion that the populous has a choice in governance. It sounds like your system is at least more honest.

I think the issue with representative democracy is that the masses simply have no idea what it's like to be in power. You hear aphorisms like "Oh, they can't please everyone" and other such things, but the issue is that more often than not, it doesn't matter what pleases everyone. There's an unimaginable amount of stress on any kind of leader, and they do thankless jobs. There are about a million different things that they would rather be doing than hearing citizens whine about taxes when, more often than not, the leader doesn't actually _want_ to raise taxes (assuming said leader is a reasonable human being and not, say, a totally crazy person), but they usually feel forced by their own ideologies or other responsibilities to behave in ways contrary to what they actually want to do. There's level of honesty to a government that says "Okay, we'll hear your concerns, but in the end we make the decisions and you can't do anything about it" that I wish Americans would have.

* * *​
After skimming over your questionnaires, what I found most interesting what your reaction to the blocks on the 80-question form. You found the sensation questions most interesting to answer, which I think is telling. It shows a fascination with sensory things, which is probably due to the fact that you prefer intuition but do not repress sensation entirely. You're separated for the sensory world, but not the point where it's totally invisible to you. Here's an example, for me, I'm usually only drawn into the sensory world through my intuition and feeling; maybe I see something that matches up with an internal image that I have deemed beautiful or something else like that. Either way, the sensory world is only beautiful to me based on internal reasons. In addition, I have some internal images of ideas (spring, autumn, the beach, etc.) that I have never experienced, but I find these more pleasing than actually experiencing these things on my own. I don't get the impression that you do this; you seem to value the sensory world on its own merit to a point, which seems to speak to a tertiary sensation: not totally divorced from the external reality, but also a stranger in that world. I also find it interesting that the Ti block was neutral to you. Maybe because you are in that perspective so often, the questions seem obvious or dumb?

I generally got an INFJ vibe from most of your answers, but I think that's more a result of being a university student (greater intuition) and female (cultured to be feeling). For the above reasons, I don't think you're Ni-dom, and in general, your issues with Fe still make me think that it's inferior, though you do seem to have a better relationship with it than most T-doms, again, probably because of your gender.

The one thing I keep coming back to is that you really to give off a Ti vibe. I hate to sound like I'm saying the same things over and over again, but more than anything I noticed that all of your questions and responses are centered around an invisible question you want answered. You're not just making type me threads to get it sorted and out of the way, you're asking very pointed questions to understand the specific mental events that triggered them. You have a very precise way about it, and you're looking at all of the different perspectives on an issue very carefully. I don't get the impression you're taking everyone's word as gospel, rather you're pulling what was said back into your own mind and evaluating it from there, which in turn breeds more questions, which then starts the process over again. I know I've said this a million times already, but seriously, that is so Ti it hurts. Someone with tertiary thinking like myself isn't nearly that intense about their thinking as this. Because my dominant perspective is intuitive, I'm okay with filling in the blanks in my own psyche because more often than not, I'm right and I don't need to spend hours sorting through every single detail to make sure it's in its place, which is exactly what you're doing. I think Ti is rather "sensing" in this regard, because introverted thinkers can be so precise and so meticulous about sorting everything out in their own heads that they almost seem like ISxJs, which would explain the fact that you sort as IxxJ, and why you give off some INFJ vibes (a lot of the INFJ stereotypes make them sound sensing). But even then, it's all pointing back to a powerful intellect that is bent on maintaining its logical integrity, even at the cost of some mental well-being and your own momentary pleasure because if you don't consider _everything_, then this entire inner search was meaningless. I do this a lot myself, as I have said before I often introvert my thinking, but this seems to be the dominant attitude your consciousness takes. Which, as I've said, is fairly typical Ti.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I'd like to throw out there, and I'm too lazy to quote it right now, the idea that the conscious function is an act of will, it is deliberate, while the unconscious function is something that just happens or is a condition.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Yeah. Frankly, I think this is one of the most distinguishing feature between INFPs and INTPs: in theory, the difference should be simple, one totally prefers feeling and represses thinking, the other is the opposite. Yet I think that INTPs are more likely to over-think type as a result, because of that persistent intellect Jung described. If they think that they see themselves feeling, they're more likely to analyze that (probably a product of the Ti-Fe mindset), whereas INFPs would see themselves thinking and not analyze it too much (probably because of Fi sitting up there and being all inclusive and non-evaluatory ).


It should be that simple. Either thinking is conscious and feeling 'just' happens uncontrollably or isn't noticed, or vice versa.




> Yeah. I always find it a little annoying when people react to the term 'stereotype' as one might respond to a venomous snake or a politician. They are useful for understanding the general attitude of something, but the important thing to remember is that there are always exceptions.
> 
> The issue is that, from the inside, one can always see themselves as the exception because they know and remember all of the exceptions (and especially in the West, we're all like "no, you're a special snowflake"). I'd say that I'm a pretty prototypical Ni-dom if one was analyzing my behavior, but inside my own mind I can think of a million reasons why I might not be. Again, I think it's a balance of the outside/inside perspectives. Even though I might see myself resembling an introverted sensate from time to time, I have to remember that from the outside, I match none of the characteristics Jung assigned to sensates. There's a balance (again).


Yes balance 
and then I question the outside perspective...my own biases, other people projecting, what can I take as true?
Maybe it doesn't really matter.. does anything actually exist 
haha, ok not that extreme 
Really seems a case of taking as much information as possible, placing it all under each type then the type with the most points wins lol.




> Yeah, that is one advantage. Although the worst ones have a way of branding themselves in the consciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hmm, well last night I had dream traversing open fields catching fat Kangaroos with fishing rods, which somehow turned into toilet paper...totally made sense before I woke up lol.
my dreams tend to be more adventurous in nature. I'm not always me either. sometimes me, sometimes a guy, have been an animal, sometimes just watching from above as if bodiless.
Don't know if any of it is cogent 



> I imagine that could be fairly enlightening. At the very least, you'd get a sense of the frame of mind from which you write, which is theoretically what you want to be getting at.
> 
> If you feel like I'm prying, tell me to shut up here, I realize that this is none of my business. But have you considered couple's counseling? We introverts can tend to let things build up in our minds and just spiral inwards without actually talking things out. I'm only bringing this up because this is the about the third time you've mentioned frustrations/problems with your partner, and I'd hate for things to build up there if it can be avoided. A past relationship of mine might have gone a lot better if we had found ways to express our frustrations.
> 
> Again, I'm not you, nor I know what you're going through, nor is this any of my business _at all_. I guess this is something of a soft spot for me still. But yeah, if I'm being too nosy, I'll stop.


Nah you're fine. More being a public forum I'm not to comfortable delving into the can of worms.
All I can say, relationships aren't easy.






> That's a good point. The problem is that this is my ESFP friend, so eventually we'll get to the point where he just starts saying that he's right and I'm wrong because he's done thinking about it.


Ah, but he forfeited...so by default you win 



> Am I allowed to revise my statement? Because if so, that sounds terrible. The worst thing in the world is to wake up an wonder why the heck you even bothered.


Yup.
worst when there is no motivation to change the 'what's the point?' perspective.




> Yeah.
> 
> 
> 
> That's probably the clincher here: both are insightful about how a person thinks, and they should be valued in different ways as a result.


I agree.



> Yeah. It's more practical for a person to know that I sort as INFJ (though I do have some very P tendencies) than I am a dominant introverted irrational and spent most of my time watching my brain make all of these funny little images. That's a little more intimate than most people care about.


haha yes 
If I were your boss, I'd just be interested in can you do the job and make me monies >
Ok not so extreme haha. 



> Definitely. I had a hard time finding anything on the internet, but if you're across the pond then you might some better luck.


Maybe



> Same. Whenever I think about who I was as a teenager, I usually spend most of that time banging my head into a nearby wall. :/ We all have those moments that just make us cringe.


I don't know how I managed it, but could not see the point in doing anything stupid when I was a teenager. I was more that "stand back and encouraged my friends on". The experience without the consequence 



> Sounds about like most of my summers. We have about every single dangerous *thing* living there. I was leaving our cabin one day, I saw a spider as large as a grown man's hand just chilling on the window. So I did the manly thing and screamed like a little girl and proceeded to throw my sandals at it for about five minutes before I realized that throwing them didn't really work.
> 
> Oh, and at the end of this summer a group of colleagues and I went camping at the beach. We camped on top of a bunch of sand jiggers. By the end of the weekend I actually had over 100 bug bites on my feet. That was not pleasant.


Nice, well at least you didn't end up as far away from it and getting someone else to do your dirty work.
Haven't seen a spider that big haha. Down in Aus it doesn't have to be big to kill you.

Oh no. How did you walk?




> I would guess so. If I feel like something is meaningless I just lose all motivation to do it. I guess I do prefer feeling.


From my perspective everything is meaningless. We want to have a sense of purpose as a survival mechanism. Life is hard, uncomfortable and at times painful. If we all gave up because it was meaningless there'd be no human race.
In the bigger scheme of things nothing cares about our existence, very few things would have the ability to care. We are just one of a bazzillion process that is happening (stars being formed, asteriods colliding, etc.). We are just a happening.




> Yeah. It's hard to keep your eyes on the big picture when you're plodding through it all, though.
> 
> What are you studying? It sounds interesting.


Yup.

I'm studying mechanical engineering and industrial design. This will be my sixth year. We so glad when it's over.



> General education. I don't know what it's like elsewhere in the world, but at American liberal arts colleges you have to earn a certain number of credits in various disciplines to prove that you have a 'well-rounded' education. The problem is that when I'm taking something like history (which, I'm not against history, it's just not where my areas of interest are), the professors often want you to actually put a lot of effort and thought into what you're doing, which is just really hard if you're only taking the class to fill a requirement. Honestly, I could have skipped the first two years of college and been perfectly happy. I would have gone to a more focused institution, but there aren't any philosophy technical schools.


My course no, but at other universities they do a similar thing. Easily adds an extra year onto a degree that can be pointless.
For me that was 'art theory'. Was very artsy and interesting, but seemed completely redundant next to industrial design. It's like making an inventor/cars enthusiast spend a semester studying paintings in an art gallery haha.

For me I stopped caring about having top marks. I'm happy with a pass so it wasn't too hard to do enough.




> A good one at that. It's on Netflix if you have a free evening. Dustyn Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, and Katherine Ross are the leads. There's some brief nudity, but I usually just fast-forward through those. It was released in 1967, if I remember correctly.


Don't have Netflix 
I'm sure I'll be able to find it.



> I appreciate the vote of confidence, but that's debatable.


eh, first define sanity and if it is something that does exist. If it does then there is something to aim for. If not, then it's all just an illusion.



> The truth is out there.


I know that one 



> That's terrifying. I will say, though, there is something nice about at least knowing you have no say. Over here we still try to create the illusion that the populous has a choice in governance. It sounds like your system is at least more honest.


I wouldn't say honest. We have that illusion too. Have only two major parties, the minor ones often pass their votes over to these parties. Can easily vote for the party you want and them passing that vote to the party you don't want.
Oh, and I don't think how the legal system works is common knowledge so people are probably ignorant.

Worst part...when I see a politician who says he won't endorse what the majority of the people want because it doesn't agree with what he values. Like come on, he is responsible for leading the country but only does what 'he wants' or by 'his religion'. 
To me leading a country is about what's best for the country, not about a personal desire.



> I think the issue with representative democracy is that the masses simply have no idea what it's like to be in power. You hear aphorisms like "Oh, they can't please everyone" and other such things, but the issue is that more often than not, it doesn't matter what pleases everyone. There's an unimaginable amount of stress on any kind of leader, and they do thankless jobs. There are about a million different things that they would rather be doing than hearing citizens whine about taxes when, more often than not, the leader doesn't actually _want_ to raise taxes (assuming said leader is a reasonable human being and not, say, a totally crazy person), but they usually feel forced by their own ideologies or other responsibilities to behave in ways contrary to what they actually want to do. There's level of honesty to a government that says "Okay, we'll hear your concerns, but in the end we make the decisions and you can't do anything about it" that I wish Americans would have.


See the problem I see (perhaps more my opinion) is that taxes being raised are fine...until that money goes into something useless, not what people wanted in the first place and hasn't improved anything. A lot of money is spent on quick solutions to delay a problem, or feasibility studies that say the government can do something (oh but a year later it is out dated and need to do another feasibility study).
I don't have much faith in the leaders currently. I guess I miss that there is a chance they want to do the best they can, but stress, pressure and other things get in they way of them making a change. It is frustrating however when I am not seeing much investment towards the future.




> * * *​
> After skimming over your questionnaires, what I found most interesting what your reaction to the blocks on the 80-question form. You found the sensation questions most interesting to answer, which I think is telling. It shows a fascination with sensory things, which is probably due to the fact that you prefer intuition but do not repress sensation entirely. You're separated for the sensory world, but not the point where it's totally invisible to you. Here's an example, for me, I'm usually only drawn into the sensory world through my intuition and feeling; maybe I see something that matches up with an internal image that I have deemed beautiful or something else like that. Either way, the sensory world is only beautiful to me based on internal reasons. In addition, I have some internal images of ideas (spring, autumn, the beach, etc.) that I have never experienced, but I find these more pleasing than actually experiencing these things on my own. I don't get the impression that you do this; you seem to value the sensory world on its own merit to a point, which seems to speak to a tertiary sensation: not totally divorced from the external reality, but also a stranger in that world. I also find it interesting that the Ti block was neutral to you. Maybe because you are in that perspective so often, the questions seem obvious or dumb?


Interesting about the sensation.
I'm not sure about the last question. I will have to read over the questions again to understand why I felt it neutral. I forget what they were lol.



> I generally got an INFJ vibe from most of your answers, but I think that's more a result of being a university student (greater intuition) and female (cultured to be feeling). For the above reasons, I don't think you're Ni-dom, and in general, your issues with Fe still make me think that it's inferior, though you do seem to have a better relationship with it than most T-doms, again, probably because of your gender.


That's what a lot of the responses seemed to side with, INFJ. They weren't sure about Se and where it sat in the context of Socionincs.




> The one thing I keep coming back to is that you really to give off a Ti vibe. I hate to sound like I'm saying the same things over and over again, but more than anything I noticed that all of your questions and responses are centered around an invisible question you want answered. You're not just making type me threads to get it sorted and out of the way, you're asking very pointed questions to understand the specific mental events that triggered them. You have a very precise way about it, and you're looking at all of the different perspectives on an issue very carefully. I don't get the impression you're taking everyone's word as gospel, rather you're pulling what was said back into your own mind and evaluating it from there, which in turn breeds more questions, which then starts the process over again. I know I've said this a million times already, but seriously, that is so Ti it hurts. Someone with tertiary thinking like myself isn't nearly that intense about their thinking as this. Because my dominant perspective is intuitive, I'm okay with filling in the blanks in my own psyche because more often than not, I'm right and I don't need to spend hours sorting through every single detail to make sure it's in its place, which is exactly what you're doing. I think Ti is rather "sensing" in this regard, because introverted thinkers can be so precise and so meticulous about sorting everything out in their own heads that they almost seem like ISxJs, which would explain the fact that you sort as IxxJ, and why you give off some INFJ vibes (a lot of the INFJ stereotypes make them sound sensing). But even then, it's all pointing back to a powerful intellect that is bent on maintaining its logical integrity, even at the cost of some mental well-being and your own momentary pleasure because if you don't consider _everything_, then this entire inner search was meaningless. I do this a lot myself, as I have said before I often introvert my thinking, but this seems to be the dominant attitude your consciousness takes. Which, as I've said, is fairly typical Ti.


Its interesting because I don't feel like I'm sorting every little detail. It's perhaps more automatic. I can see I'm not taking data at face value rather drawing connections between the data or categorising based on my definition.

No i'm not taking everyone's words as gospel (even yours  please don't take any offence, your input has been valuable).
I thinks it's even wise to ask INTPs (the takes one to know one idea haha).


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> I'd like to throw out there, and I'm too lazy to quote it right now, the idea that the conscious function is an act of will, it is deliberate, while the unconscious function is something that just happens or is a condition.


I have a few questions 

The way Jung differentiates the rational from the irrational functions is for the rational there is an element of deduction, where as the irrational are more given. How is an irrational function consciously willed in that context?

Also what about something that is consciously willed, but takes so much effort to maintain a conscious hold over it?


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Do you know how the body perceives information? (Honest question.)


Read up on it in a biology textbook or in educational nonfiction.

But it's not really to be called "perception". It's just direct physiological sensation. Perception is what your brain does to the incoming sensory neural signals by processing and interpreting them.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

myst91 said:


> Read up on it in a biology textbook or in educational nonfiction.
> 
> But it's not really to be called "perception". It's just direct physiological sensation. Perception is what your brain does to the incoming sensory neural signals by processing and interpreting them.


Whoops. That's my bad. That's the process I was getting at, though, that the functions are ultimately mental and there is a difference between that an the direct physiological sensation.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Whoops. That's my bad. That's the process I was getting at, though, that the functions are ultimately mental and there is a difference between that an the direct physiological sensation.


Yes, I see what you wanted to say, though your phrasing about the Se type partially being in their head ("So someone with an Se perspective is still in their head to an extent") still doesn't really make sense if I consider the usual meaning of that expression.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Just as a foreword, sorry is this seems like I'm just bombarding you with questions. I mean, I am, but also respect your opinion and I want to refine my understanding of these concepts.


No worries! Bombard away!



> With sensation, it's about the mental perception of information gained through the actual process of perception? So Se types, for instance, are not necessarily focused on the information that their bodies receive from environmental energy, but rather perceive that through the filter of the mind? So someone with an Se perspective is still in their head to an extent, but focused on the sensations created by the brain as triggered by the neuron impulses from the collection and processing of energy in the environment? It isn't so much concrete reality itself, but how their minds perceive concrete reality? Si, then, would be focused on the same mental events, but with respect to the inner experience, as well the mental aspect of this process in general--what the mind does to put this information together and how it does that?


I'll be honest, I'm not entirely certain. One thing that I'd like to point out though is to make sure that we are talking about conscious awareness. There is an awareness of most of the pieces of the puzzle, unlike Intuition that "completes" a picture based on few pieces.

I once entertained the idea of objective vs subjective experience here. I am otherwise at a complete loss at interpreting Jung's idea of Si.



> This definition of intuition is tricky for me. It perceives the unconscious images triggered by external stimuli, so instead of focusing on the mind's interpretation of sensory stimuli, it focuses on what that stimuli rouses from the unconscious? And with that, it is focused on the past and future of that object, the images that rise forth concerning the nature of that object? So with Ne, the focus would constantly refer back to the external world, concerned with what is objectively expressed or measurable, and Ni moves deeper into its own psyche or the minds of others, concerning itself with the subjective experience that caused the external impetus for the unconscious images to arise in one's own mind?


I think these might be good examples of perceiving by unconscious means.

Here is my take on Ne. I agree with your take on Ni, but I take exception with "the minds of others." What do you mean by this? To me it sounds like an extraverting process like what Jung describes here:



> In a sense, therefore, extraversion is an outgoing transference of interest from the subject to the object. *If it is an intellectual extraversion, the subject thinks himself into the object; if a feeling extraversion, then the subject feels himself into the object.*


There also seems to be a highly symbolic element to Ni like this.



> On the apperception point: the rational functions have this perspective through the assimilation of ideas to their rational criteria--they sort of build their own worldviews based on thinking or feeling reasons? And they would do so consciously, willing certain information to be more relevant than others as they piece it all together?


In general, yes. What I am getting at is that there are irrational forms of thinking and feeling. 



> So a better word would just be to say that feeling is a value judgment and thinking is a definition/use judgment?


Essentially, yes. Although "value judgment" is dangerous if confused with how it is often used as a slight on one's character.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

myst91 said:


> I don't see how that makes it objective and impersonal.


Why or why not?

It reminds me of this post.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

PaladinX said:


> I'll be honest, I'm not entirely certain. One thing that I'd like to point out though is to make sure that we are talking about conscious awareness. There is an awareness of most of the pieces of the puzzle, unlike Intuition that "completes" a picture based on few pieces.


That's what I was getting at--focus on the puzzle pieces as opposed to connecting them like intuition.



PaladinX said:


> I once entertained the idea of objective vs subjective experience here. I am otherwise at a complete loss at interpreting Jung's idea of Si.


I think what you said here is accurate, although I'm a little hazy on the archetypes aspect with respect to Si. What you've described makes sense, but I don't necessarily think that Si is limited solely to sensory archetypes. I've always understood it more along the lines of being more viscerally aware of the archetypes, or when an archetype impresses upon the conscious that they are incredibly aware of it in some direct way. I don't really know either, myself. I think that Si is a lot more mysterious than even Ni is. I also think that Jung, not being an introverted sensor, probably had some difficulty articulating this function.



PaladinX said:


> I think these might be good examples of perceiving by unconscious means.


Yeah. I've read this before, and this is essentially what is informing my understanding of unconscious--just in some way beyond conscious awareness, which, as I am writing this, make sense given what we've just said about sensation. I guess that Ni might be more specifically concerned with the Unconscious, Ne just the beyond-conscious?



PaladinX said:


> Here is my take on Ne. I agree with your take on Ni, but I take exception with "the minds of others." What do you mean by this? To me it sounds like an extraverting process like what Jung describes here:


I'm pulling that mostly from experience of my own. As an example: I'll be driving along and see a patch of land. I'll see a farmhouse and imagine how the farmer might see the land from his perspective, what an oddity like a patch of bald earth would mean to him, what experience of his surrounds that, etc. etc. Obviously no such farmer exists; he is entirely a product of my mind. Another example: I'll be walking around an old part of town and imagine how a person living there, when that wasn't just the 'old' part but actually _the_ town, might see it. Same thing, what different buildings mean to him and so on.

On the more literal side of 'the minds of others', I'm thinking of that moving inward piece--emphasizing the importance of someone's own mental processes leading up to what they did as opposed to the event itself. As I'm writing this, though, that doesn't seem like it correlates to anything in particular. I'm also quite tired at the moment, so I might just drawing a huge blank because of that.



PaladinX said:


> There also seems to be a highly symbolic element to Ni like this.


I actually have a very similar experience to this. I was talking to a friend, and one of the first things I said was that there was a large ball of yarn in my head that I needed to untangle. So yes, I definitely think there is, although I think it gets overstated (either that or I still lack much judgment on the funny little images I see in my head). CelebrityTypes mentions that Baruch Spinoza has a very aphoristic writing style, and I suspect that the use of aphorism may be a quality of Ni--aphorism are sort of like external archetypes, and I've noticed myself that I rather enjoy using phrases like that and then spinning them different ways in my own speech, and I'm rather aphoristic in general.



PaladinX said:


> In general, yes. What I am getting at is that there are irrational forms of thinking and feeling.


Would there be rational forms of intuition and sensation, then?



PaladinX said:


> Essentially, yes. Although "value judgment" is dangerous if confused with how it is often used as a slight on one's character.


Yeah. It's a shame that words can't be used because of those sorts of connotations. I'll try and work out a different way of putting it.



myst91 said:


> Yes, I see what you wanted to say, though your phrasing about the Se type partially being in their head ("So someone with an Se perspective is still in their head to an extent") still doesn't really make sense if I consider the usual meaning of that expression.


Yeah. I can be rather awful at articulating my thoughts at times, especially when I'm on the receiving end of an answer--I tend to let my thoughts just pour out.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I think what you said here is accurate, although I'm a little hazy on the archetypes aspect with respect to Si. What you've described makes sense, but I don't necessarily think that Si is limited solely to sensory archetypes. I've always understood it more along the lines of being more viscerally aware of the archetypes, or when an archetype impresses upon the conscious that they are incredibly aware of it in some direct way. I don't really know either, myself. I think that Si is a lot more mysterious than even Ni is. *I also think that Jung, not being an introverted sensor, probably had some difficulty articulating this function.*


No, but his wife apparently was. http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/431306-si-recalling-comparing-past.html





> Would there be rational forms of intuition and sensation, then?


No.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Why or why not?
> 
> It reminds me of this post.


Because it's still about human values.




KalimofDaybreak said:


> That's what I was getting at--focus on the puzzle pieces as opposed to connecting them like intuition.


I can confirm that as a S type.




> I think what you said here is accurate, although I'm a little hazy on the archetypes aspect with respect to Si. What you've described makes sense, but I don't necessarily think that Si is limited solely to sensory archetypes. I've always understood it more along the lines of being more viscerally aware of the archetypes, or when an archetype impresses upon the conscious that they are incredibly aware of it in some direct way. I don't really know either, myself. I think that Si is a lot more mysterious than even Ni is. I also think that Jung, not being an introverted sensor, probably had some difficulty articulating this function.


Lol to me Ne is what's mysterious and hard to understand. Si is easier to me, simply sensation's subjective side. That is, when you immerse in a sensation selected by subjective means, what fits you, instead of looking at the objectively most impressive sensory stimulus.

Forget complicating it with this idea of archetypes.




> Yeah. I can be rather awful at articulating my thoughts at times, especially when I'm on the receiving end of an answer--I tend to let my thoughts just pour out.


No worries


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Because it's still about human values.


I think there is a disconnect somewhere.

I think that you are using a different criteria for "personal" and "objective" than what was intended.

It sounds like you are implying that because there is no universal value, as in a value that everyone believes in, then values are subjective and therefore not objective. Is that correct?

If so, and I'm not sure if you read the post provided in the link, but it is possible to have a personal preference for something and a higher moral value that you adhere to that may contradict your personal preference. The point is that while the value is subjective because it is based on the feelings of a specific person or group of persons, it is objective in that it is applied more universally despite differences in preference given a specific situation (and not objective as in "object-oriented.")


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> I think there is a disconnect somewhere.
> 
> I think that you are using a different criteria for "personal" and "objective" than what was intended.


That's possible.




> It sounds like you are implying that because there is no universal value, as in a value that everyone believes in, then values are subjective and therefore not objective. Is that correct?
> 
> If so, and I'm not sure if you read the post provided in the link, but it is possible to have a personal preference for something and a higher moral value that you adhere to that may contradict your personal preference. The point is that while the value is subjective because it is based on the feelings of a specific person or group of persons, it is objective in that it is applied more universally despite differences in preference given a specific situation (and not objective as in "object-oriented.")


No, actually what I was thinking of is that the value can be universal yet still subjective as it's human values. It's personal in that sense. You can't really end up at any of it by impersonal reasoning, though impersonal reasoning can mimic some results of the feelings based processing, of course (but not all of them, far from it).

Of course it can be objective in the sense that it does not relate to just one person, no disagreement there. But my original point was about personal vs impersonal in the sense I explain above.


----------

