# Ni eyes, what does it feels like for an observer?



## Captain Mclain

I was going to post in infj forum, but they can't see themselves so.
When a infj or intj loses touch with their sensing function and are full on Ni, what does that look like? In some way I have associated Se and Ne function as warm, they are creating and always see possibilities. When someone does the Ni gaze, is it the opposite? Kinda harsh look in the eyes?


----------



## The_Wanderer

Photos.


----------



## Captain Mclain

The_Wanderer said:


> Photos.


Its more of an momentary thing. I was hoping someone knew a infj or intj and can speak from experience. How about this one?


----------



## The_Wanderer

Sadly my comment isn't going to result in much, but I'll stick to the orders laid out in your signature :wink:. I've seen similar somewhat detached-zoned-out-nothing-stares from many different people, usually as a stress thing, I do it under severe boredom. Cate Blanchett... eh, I've seen quite a bit of her, don't think I'd call her INFJ.


----------



## Captain Mclain

The_Wanderer said:


> Sadly my comment isn't going to result in much, but I'll stick to the orders laid out in your signature :wink:. I've seen similar somewhat detached-zoned-out-nothing-stares from many different people, usually as a stress thing, I do it under severe boredom. Cate Blanchett... eh, I've seen quite a bit of her, don't think I'd call her INFJ.


I did edit her out from my comment. But ye, I think everyone does it. But people are talking about "Ni stare" and stuffs like that, like its a specific feeling when a Ni does it. I think its a empty feeling one get when seeing it.


----------



## Draki

I know the Ni gaze, I've seen it in in videos and I have a teacher who sometimes look at me with an Ni gaze (also I actually typed him as Ne but I'm not sure, he definitely has this Ni gaze). 

But I don't find it harsh quite the contrary (at least in INFJs, INTJs are more uncomfortable that's true). They stare into nothing and the eyes don't move. It was described as "looking through objects", for me it looks like they are far away with their thoughts, and don't see the physical world anymore, so they don't really see you. 
But that's because I have it in this way. But in me it is more the Si scrowl, I could never speak and think while not moving the eyes. However when I don't talk to somebody and just think or try to imagine a picture, my eyes go a little down and to the left side, I then don't see my surroundings anymore if I don't concentrate on that. So I zone out. I guess Ni does the same.

Ni gaze usually zones out like this while speaking. They can even look you in the eyes while speaking for a long time. You get the feeling they are looking into your soul as if they would see something. 
Ne eyes are always toggling around. They often interupt eye contact when they need to think. And Si is a little bt like Ni but they don't look at the other person but to the side. 

Se is the most uncomfortable gaze for me. They have piercing eyes and also stare at you like Ni, but really in a threatening way (for me at least, might be due to Se is my vulnerable spot as a LII).


----------



## ScarlettHayden

Ni gaze can look harsh.. they don't call it the death stare for nothing.



Captain Mclain said:


> Its more of an momentary thing. I was hoping someone knew a infj or intj and can speak from experience. How about this one?


It's a bit softer than this though. More like these:


























It's a very intense focused look... the eyes usually droop a bit in Ni doms, which gives it a darker depressive flavour.


----------



## Zamyatin

A bit like they're looking through you, distant even when paying attention. It's the result of the difficulty of using Se -- it's draining to use Se, so it's easy for an Ni dominant to zone out of his/her senses to save energy, and if they're tired it can be hard to re-focus, even if they're in conversation. The feeling of using Se for an Ni dom is a tad like when someone who needs glasses takes them off and tries to focus his or her vision, which gets tiresome quickly, so when you see that "Ni gaze", they're quite literally relaxing their vision and taking things in a more passive way.

In socionics they talk a lot about the unique gazes of ILI/IEIs, it's a big part of their visual typing.


----------



## Wartime Consigliere




----------



## PaladinX

Not sure about Ni eyes, but here's something that Jung talked about with S vs N eyes:



> _
> When you observe a man who is working by his sense function you will see, if you look at him attentively, that the axes of his eyes have a tendency to converge and to come together at one point. When you study the expression or the eyes of intuitive people, you will see that they only glance at things -- they do not look, they radiate at things because they take in their fullness, and among the many things they perceive they get one point on the periphery of their field of vision and that is the hunch. Often you can tell from the eyes whether people are intuitive or not. When you have an intuitive attitude you usually do not observe the details. You try always to take in the whole of a situation, and then suddenly something crops up out of this wholeness. When you are a sensation type you will observe facts as they are, but then you have no intuition, simply because the two things cannot be done at the same time. It is too difficult, because the principle of the one function excludes the principle of the other function.
> _


- The Tavistock Lectures


----------



## O_o

I'd be careful with this assumption. 
This could be due to other factors. Such as the actual construction of the face. 

A high school I would get told countless times that due to my "glare"/space out that I came off tired and very unapproachable/intimidating/etc, until I opened my mouth. As far as I know I'm not Ni. 

My friend's sister is apparently and ENTP (I argue ESTP, but whatever). She has a similar but lazy looking "meh/bitch" eye.

Anyway: what might this "apparently Ni" eye thing feel like? Probably not inviting if it is as you describe. I mean... what else can it feel like?


----------



## Golden Rose

O_o said:


> She has a similar but lazy looking "meh/bitch" eye.


While I hate assumptions, myself, it's less of a "meh/bitch" eye (though that's a factor) and more about intensity and penetrating gazes, a Ni user (especially a Ni-dom) often appears to look right through you rather than Ne users' wandering eyes.


----------



## O_o

Karma said:


> While I hate assumptions, myself, it's less of a "meh/bitch" eye (though that's a factor) and more about intensity and penetrating gazes, a Ni user (especially a Ni-dom) often appears to look right through you rather than Ne users' wandering eyes.


Generally if the key term here. 
I never look anyone in the eyes (space out at space) but when I do it's dead set "oh like about to shoot birds" -NF buddy. But it's for a purpose. If I'm looking at you, I want you to know there is a reason. 
I don't think Ne would necessarily always have wandering eyes. 
But maybe I'm wrong!

I still think it might... have to do with purpose.


----------



## Golden Rose

O_o said:


> Generally if the key term here.
> I never look anyone in the eyes (space out at space) but when I do it's dead set "oh like about to shoot birds" -NF buddy. But it's for a purpose. If I'm looking at you, I want you to know there is a reason.
> I don't think Ne would necessarily always have wandering eyes.
> But maybe I'm wrong!
> 
> I still think it might... have to do with purpose.


I think it's more of a person's natural focus. I've observed it in an INTP I used to be close to, he had those curious focused gazes but only when he had good reason to, much like you said, otherwise it was just furtive glances all over the place. I've been told I often appear to be looking into the void, as if I was focusing on something that doesn't exist (while internally processing data and forming 'vision-like' strings of thoughts)


----------



## Bugs

I've been told Ne eyes are playful and mischievous (accompanied by a smirk). Ni eyes in contrast are deep and penetrating. 

Ne:










Ni:


----------



## O_o

Karma said:


> I think it's more of a person's natural focus. I've observed it in an INTP I used to be close to, he had those curious focused gazes but only when he had good reason to, much like you said, otherwise it was just furtive glances all over the place. I've been told I often appear to be looking into the void, as if I was focusing on something that doesn't exist (while internally processing data and forming 'vision-like' strings of thoughts)


Maybe I'm mistyped. I don't do as your friend does. No such furtive glances. I'll ask someone next time.

< Anyways. Opting out due to lack of anything helpful to contribute. TeeHee>

Thing still seems fishy


----------



## Golden Rose

O_o said:


> Maybe I'm mistyped. I don't do as your friend does. No such furtive glances.
> 
> < Anyways. Opting out due to lack of anything helpful to contribute. TeeHee>
> 
> Thing still seems fishy


Keep in mind that my visual memory is non-existent and it's been years and I'm not a typology expert by any means, not when it comes to visual typing. But it makes sense that a Ne-type is more inclined to scrutinize their surrounding and focus on the object that captures their attention (as a mean to generate possibilities) rather than abandoning their gaze onto something undetectable as we retreat inside our minds (Ni-types)


----------



## Bugs

Karma said:


> Keep in mind that my visual memory is non-existent and it's been years and I'm not a typology expert by any means, not when it comes to visual typing. But it makes sense that a Ne-type is more inclined to scrutinize their surrounding and focus on the object that captures their attention (as a mean to generate possibilities) rather than abandoning their gaze onto something undetectable as we retreat inside our minds (Ni-types)


Our expressions ( Ne) seem to mirror our surroundings. In our minds we are engaging with our environment variety of ways. The expression often resembles a kid walking into a Toys R Us and lighting up at all the fun stuff they can look at. There is no retreat into the mind unless we are bored. If we're bored then we look bored and spacey. Ni looks more deliberate , introspective , and intense.


----------



## O_o

Karma said:


> Keep in mind that my visual memory is non-existent and it's been years and I'm not a typology expert by any means, not when it comes to visual typing. But it makes sense that a Ne-type is more inclined to scrutinize their surrounding and focus on the object that captures their attention (as a mean to generate possibilities) rather than abandoning their gaze onto something undetectable as we retreat inside our minds (Ni-types)


No, sure, it makes sense. How much real world data shows that is unknown to me, personally. But I can look it up. 
Then there's the matter of how subjective it is. Would it run on a sort of spectrum? Rarely will people either point blank for good and rarely will they > < ^ v eyes all the time. And with this in mind, would the order impact, say, whether the Ni is dominant, auxiliary? If an individual is say an ENTJ, where the Ni and Se are borderlined, same deal and to the same extend?
Anyways, I'm asking stupid questions. 
I don't have enough information on this (due to not looking) to trust it yet. Who knows.


----------



## Vincent Trujillo

The_Wanderer said:


> Sadly my comment isn't going to result in much, but I'll stick to the orders laid out in your signature :wink:. I've seen similar somewhat detached-zoned-out-nothing-stares from many different people, usually as a stress thing, I do it under severe boredom. Cate Blanchett... eh, I've seen quite a bit of her, don't think I'd call her INFJ.


Kate Blanchett is most definitely an INFJ.


----------



## Golden Rose

Bugs said:


> Our expressions ( Ne) seem to mirror our surroundings. In our minds we are engaging with our environment variety of ways. The expression often resembles a kid walking into a Toys R Us and lighting up at all the fun stuff they can look at. There is no retreat into the mind unless we are bored. If we're bored then we look bored and spacey. Ni looks more deliberate , introspective , and intense.


Definitely close to what I was thinking of.



O_o said:


> If an individual is say an ENTJ, where the Ni and Se are borderlined, same deal and to the same extend?
> Anyways, I'm asking stupid questions.
> I don't have enough information on this (due to not looking) to trust it yet. Who knows.


The least developed Se is, the more intense and focused an individual is with less awareness of physical surroundings (to the point I might get startled when something or someone breaks me out of my introspecting spell). ENxJs have more of a physical presence than their introverted counterparts, despite still preferring a Ni-based observational style.


----------



## O_o

Karma said:


> The least developed Se is, the more intense and focused an individual is with less awareness of physical surroundings (to the point I might get startled when something or someone breaks me out of my introspecting spell). ENxJs have more of a physical presence than their introverted counterparts, despite still preferring a Ni-based observational style.


So say someone doesn't fit this
then what, it automatically wouldn't make them their apparent type anymore?
(not necessarily applying for myself because I'm not certain about wtf my eyes even do because I don't focus on what they're doing or anything unless I have a reason to. But say generally speaking. Because there must be people who don't fit)

What exactly do Si eyes do? Same as Ni?


----------



## Vincent Trujillo

PaladinX said:


> Not sure about Ni eyes, but here's something that Jung talked about with S vs N eyes:
> 
> 
> - The Tavistock Lectures


I take back my statement, I realize now that the quote said "at the same time", I missed a detail. =p


----------



## PaladinX

Vincent Trujillo said:


> Actually they work together in total inclusion, they do not exclude each other. Intuition is absolutely linked to Sensing, for these are both perceiving functions. They exist in balance, opposites function this way. It is just a very natural fact that others display a dominance in either one or the other, however both are integral to the 'whole' of a person. Their entire functional stack.


Umm ok...? You can take it up with Jung. 

They can exist at the same time in any IxxP and ExxJ type according to this:



> You cannot get directly to the inferior function from the superior, it must always be via the auxiliary function. It is as though the unconscious were in such antagonism to the superior function that it allowed no direct attack. The process of working through the auxiliary functions goes on somewhat as follows: *Suppose you have sensation strongly developed but are not fanatical about it. Then you can admit about every situation a certain aura of possibilities; that is to say, you permit an intuitive element to come in. Sensation as an auxiliary function would allow intuition to exist. *But inasmuch as sensation (in the example) is a partisan of the intellect, intuition sides with the feeling, here the inferior function. Therefore the intellect will not agree with intuition, in this case, and will vote for its exclusion. Intellect will not hold together sensation and intuition, rather it will separate them. Such a destructive attempt will be checked by feeling, which backs up intuition.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

They always think they can catch my eyes. It is funny. Because everybody's dart around a little. Mine never do. It is almost like they are trying to move them. But I don't budge. It is great for avoiding conversation. It can be an impediment to it too. You are in the zone, but then you explode into action abruptly. Then calm down again. It surprises people. Most people build into conversations or interactions. I will ignore you forever, and then boom, I hit you hard out of the blue with rapid fire conversation.


----------



## Golden Rose

O_o said:


> So say someone doesn't fit this
> then what, it automatically wouldn't make them their apparent type anymore?
> (not necessarily applying for myself because I'm not certain about wtf my eyes even do because I don't focus on what they're doing or anything unless I have a reason to. But say generally speaking. Because there must be people who don't fit)


Degrees of manifestation may vary on the person and the level of development of their functions, I used to suppress my aux Fe a great deal and seemed 'colder' than usual Fe-types, it's all a matter of how the individual deals with their personal growth. Say, you value Ti over Ne a great deal, your horizons might be a bit different...



> What exactly do Si eyes do? Same as Ni?


I'd say it's quite similar, with a longing vibe paired with the focus. My ISTJ father has that kind of neutral, serious and intense yet melancholic look in his eyes.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

This is based on what I've been told by people and what I've observed of myself.

If you were to look at me a majority of the time, you would basically see my eyes focused intensely on some sensory aspect of the environment around me while still taking a journey through the rivers and fantasy-lands of my mind. When I shift my attention, all I really do is roll my eyes around to the side or maybe a very slight head turn.

Something like this:


----------



## Vincent Trujillo

PaladinX said:


> Umm ok...? You can take it up with Jung.
> 
> They can exist at the same time in any IxxP and ExxJ type according to this:


Yes, I actually took my statement back upon my realizing that he stated "at the same time", which I agree with. These two functions do not operate simultaneously, it is that detail that I missed, sorry.


----------



## PaladinX

Vincent Trujillo said:


> Yes, I actually took my statement back upon my realizing that he stated "at the same time", which I agree with. These two functions do not operate simultaneously, it is that detail that I missed, sorry.


No worries.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Zamyatin said:


> A bit like they're looking through you, distant even when paying attention. It's the result of the difficulty of using Se -- it's draining to use Se, so it's easy for an Ni dominant to zone out of his/her senses to save energy, *and if they're tired it can be hard to re-focus*, even if they're in conversation. The feeling of using Se for an Ni dom is a tad like when someone who needs glasses takes them off and tries to focus his or her vision, which gets tiresome quickly, so when you see that "Ni gaze", they're quite literally relaxing their vision and taking things in a more passive way.
> 
> In socionics they talk a lot about the unique gazes of ILI/IEIs, it's a big part of their visual typing.


This made me think about this angle, picture below. That Ni eyes are kinda lagg'y. Head don't always point in the same direction. Taking in information about stuffs from weird angels. Searching with the eyes.


----------



## RunForCover07

Edward Norton is said to be an INFJ.


----------



## Draki

O_o said:


> What exactly do Si eyes do? Same as Ni?


watch the videos I gave you ^^... Si has the Si scrowl. (Did I send you the TiNe video? or only NeTi and NiFe? NeTi might do the si scrowl too quickly), they also space out. (usually to the side and a little down).
Ni just keeps looking in one direction, like keeping eye contact but spaced out. Ne toggle around a lot, if they keep eye contact than because they really look at you. They usually also start to smile in an Fe fashion  

When I keep eye contact (usually when I'm listening to the other person), it's interpersonal. I perhaps observe body language or hints in the facial expressions to understand better what they are telling me. I smile at them, nod my head for confirmation or whatever. When I speak and have to think, I can't keep eye contact. Si scrowl, Ne searching, Ti engaging down all that interrupts the eye contact. But I saw in the videos how Ni users just stare at you *while* speaking, sometimes they don't even blink. But you see that they zone out instead of Se which is really looking at you (which I find very uncomfortable).

Ni and Si space out. Se and Ne look at you. Se is very penetrative, they have sharp, piercing eyes. Ne just toggle around a lot, like seeing all the infinite possibilities. What I really love about Ne eyes is the enthusiam. In INTPs it's rare, you see it more often in Ne dominants. Probably what @Karma described: 


> I've observed it in an INTP I used to be close to, he had those curious focused gazes but only when he had good reason to


 @O_o I didn't read everything you wrote here but from what I've read you fit the NeSi eye contact description

I also don't see these gazes in photos... you have to watch videos. 
That's a typical ENTP for example: Ne enthusiam moments (small, short ones in 14:18 and 16:39 and a stronger one at 3:49)





Unfortunately I don't have time and not a good internet connection to look for good examples of other videos for the Se gaze and Ni gaze. But you would need to find an interview because when people are only talking to a camera, they usually keep less eye contact with you


----------



## Draki

Teachers are good objects to observe by the way ^^ 
If you sit in their lesson and have to listen, you can also observe what they are doing.
I have an ENTP teacher who like to keep eye contact with me, because I'm an interested listener, he does a lot of things which I also described in my behavior above. For example he starts smiling when I smile at him. 
I have another teacher, I don't know his type. He has a very penetrative stare (Se fashion I would say). I noticed that he never smiles back, but expects to see a sign that I understand what he is saying. I later learned that Te users always nod their head a bit, so he probably is searching this in other people(One of those people where you always have to nod or something like this). 
And I have one teacher who really has this Ni gaze... could be Si though. But he sometimes really stares at me but in a zone-out fashion he doesn't really look at me ^^

So it's interesting to observe all this but usually I don't know the exact type of my teachers. I am only sure of the ENTP teacher. But yea, the more you pay attention to that, the more you will see the patterns. Not sure if they are really a good hint for typing people though. But it makes sense. You can also see that Ni users somtimes have the Ne gaze. I guess it's because everyone of us has all 8 functions (socionics). But most of the time they use their dominant or other prefered functions. And sometimes they just look at something which has nothing to do with the cognitive functions.

perhaps he is an Se example: ESTP (SeTi), Se directly looking at you, Ti disengaging down.


----------



## Captain Mclain

So what does Ni gaze feels like? That the person is disengage and don't listen? Cold? Perhaps soft? Stuck? Frozen, like nothing happened, just that the person is in a lagg?


----------



## monemi

This has been discussed ad nauseam. I try to politely ignore the discussion but it's being asked... again. A lot of different types have penetrating stares and bitch faces. This is not unique.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Don't say that! It's horrible when unnecessary stereotypes crash and burn...


----------



## Captain Mclain

monemi said:


> This has been discussed ad nauseam. I try to politely ignore the discussion but it's being asked... again. A lot of different types have penetrating stares and bitch faces. This is not unique.


Its not about uniqueness... Its a question about correlations and type, in this case Ni-dom. So far it seems Se/Ni eyes can be harsh and cold at times, Ni-dom can when zooming out and daydreamingish have an kinda empty, staring look. Ne/Si eyes can be very warm and active and Si/Ne also kinda intense at times but looks away when recalling something from mind.


----------



## electricky

I'm not sure how to describe it other than what has already been said: the Ni eyes look through things. They seem to be looking at nothing but at the same staring onto something. It's not something that pictures easily tell. It's more rare than the standard "penetrating gaze," and a whole lot more rare than the "resting bitch face." It's the only look that looks at nothing, even Ne eyes actually look at things for a split second before darting to the next thing.


----------



## VinnieBob

is this the look you mean?


----------



## Captain Mclain

vinniebob said:


> View attachment 228554
> 
> is this the look you mean?


Hard to tell, few pixels.  But seems legit

I think one need to spend time with other Ni and notice it as a pattern to really recognize it.


----------



## LostFavor

Shadow Logic said:


> I just think it's funny that you hate or dislike the Ni threads, I mean it is your 4th function, so it's like textbook inferior function projecting. You and I both know that these are the subjects that Ni users, mostly INFJs talk about these subjects and you have an aversion from it. The connection is pretty obvious, you are an obvious ESTP with inferior Ni and bease of that you are repelled from it.
> 
> The thing is being grounded in reality doesn't make what you know to be correct. Maybe there is something to these Ni threads that the Ni users really do share and you lack because its the function your most repelled from. Either way, if you are solely repelled from these types of threads then there is no reason for you to enter them to voice, inadvertently, how stupid NI or Ni threads or people who engage in Ni behavior or entertain Ni thoughts are. You don't think respecting others ideas /beliefs are a more efficient way of going about it, or do you think it may cause harm in the world, this way of thinking (Ni oriented)? I don't want to assume so correct me at anytime if I may have misunderstood anything.
> 
> Anywhoo, I think I may finally have my answer to the first question I originally asked you "Why do it bother you", which is what I ultimately wanted, maybe there is more to it though.


To be fair, you don't have to be an ESTP to dislike rampant speculation that borders on religious fanaticism. 

When it's _just_ speculation, I think most people are ok with it. When it becomes a belief with no basis in reality, then it's kind of concerning.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

LostFavor said:


> To be fair, you don't have to be an ESTP to dislike rampant speculation that borders on religious fanaticism.
> 
> When it's _just_ speculation, I think most people are ok with it. When it becomes a belief with no basis in reality, then it's kind of concerning.


I agree wholeheartedly, but to go out of your way to voice how much you dislike it without any rational basis, or without giving any logical analysis as to how it is wrong is a sign of distraught/exasperation which is product of how the inferior function activates. Maybe it's just a coincidence that she was an ESTP, but I thought it was funny that it played out in such a textbook fashion. 

Now if there is a logical reasoning as to how Ni does not in any way possible have a specific type/form of "eye", then that should be brought up, but calling people stupid without giving any rational reason is a bit of an empty statement, it holds no weight, it's unproductive, and it's pointless.


----------



## Captain Mclain

LostFavor said:


> To be fair, you don't have to be an ESTP to dislike rampant speculation that borders on religious fanaticism.
> 
> When it's _just_ speculation, I think most people are ok with it. When it becomes a belief with no basis in reality, then it's kind of concerning.


How about this thread then? I think the thing is that this would be applied theory, kinda a full-spin back. One cannot be sure what motivated jung to "create" these fundamental functions, if its a correlation thing, a vision he had, maybe he was finding them ect. But if one can type others from visual clues, which is some way is the topic of this thread (does eye behavior correlate with function), does that prove the theory to be correct in some way? Give it credibility, If the correlations with perceiving and judging applies to these typings.

Its like saying there are bosons before finding them, and then find them. And to give reason to them we need to find something smaller that explains how they are created. How can we be sure, or not sure, that there are 4 fundamentally different directions in a humans psyche, how one perceives and judge. It does not really have an solid explanation but most things, theories that are very general and involves most stuffs, doesnt have one. Or we just don't fully understand it. The explanation is usually very simple, as for evolution for example. Perhaps its just intuition thing, connect the dots, finding correlations that does not necessary ground in the reality but is merely shortcuts and might hide whats really going on.

When to think about it, it seems sensing is the most complex explanation of reality (if its even have explanation), and intuition is the most general and shortcut'ed explanation. Like two ends on the same spectrum.

But its bother me that an estp doesnt see this eye thing. I know Djarendee was talking about something similar, that people have an feeling to them for him ect and he is estp. Otherwise I think its a focus thing. For a sensor this eye thing might be irrelevant small detail. A sensor do not see the greater picture of what such an act or behavior might involve or mean. They kinda filter it out. But for intuition they can make shortcuts and make greater sense of it and find use in it. I don't think this is BS, just we remember things that might be of use for us. The rest get blurred out.

Edit; I think this kind of text's is what monemi was raging about. Ni text I suppose.


----------



## LostFavor

Shadow Logic said:


> I agree wholeheartedly, but to go out of your way to voice how much you dislike it without any rational basis, or without giving any logical analysis as to how it is wrong is a sign of distraught/exasperation which is product of how the inferior function activates. Maybe it's just a coincidence that she was an ESTP, but I thought it was funny that it played out in such a textbook fashion.
> 
> Now if there is a logical reasoning as to how Ni does not in any way possible have a specific type/form of "eye", then that should be brought up, but calling people stupid without giving any rational reason is a bit of an empty statement, it holds no weight, it's unproductive, and it's pointless.





Captain Mclain said:


> How about this thread then? I think the thing is that this would be applied theory, kinda a full-spin back. One cannot be sure what motivated jung to "create" these fundamental functions, if its a correlation thing, a vision he had, maybe he was finding them ect. But if one can type others from visual clues, which is some way is the topic of this thread (does eye behavior correlate with function), does that prove the theory to be correct in some way? Give it credibility, If the correlations with perceiving and judging applies to these typings.


I wasn't really meaning to get into a deep discussion about it. Everybody has their pet peeves - this sort of stuff may be one of Monemi's. Is she being rude? I dunno. Not really interested in delving into it.

Just wanted to point out that it doesn't need to have anything to do with type. 

I am certainly not against speculative discussion and do plenty of it myself. I am just wary of people believing stuff based on shaky evidence and falling victim to confirmation bias, is all. Whether that's happening here, and to what extent, I'm not even sure.

I will leave my end of it here. All the best to you.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Shadow Logic said:


> I just think it's funny that you hate or dislike the Ni threads, I mean it is your 4th function, so it's like textbook inferior function projecting.


Problem with that idea is that the ESTP's _actual_ "inferior" is Ne or Fi, depending on how you look at it, as they both directly oppose the dominant and auxiliary functions and general worldview. Four-function models are so 1960's. 

These Ni-eyes threads are _silly_ and as @_monemi_ said, are far past the border of credibility. I'm saying that as an intuitive dominant.


----------



## electricky

The_Wanderer said:


> Problem with that idea is that the ESTP's _actual_ "inferior" is Ne or Fi, depending on how you look at it, as they both directly oppose the dominant and auxiliary functions and general worldview. Four-function models are so 1960's.
> 
> These Ni-eyes threads are _silly_ and as @_monemi_ said, are far past the border of credibility. I'm saying that as an intuitive dominant.


These threads are silly when people start acting like any sort of stare is related to Ni. But I'd at least say it's not exactly far flung flights of fancy to suggest that what a person's eyes do when they are thinking may have something to do with the cognitive function at hand. Maybe a consolidated guide is in order?


----------



## Entropic

Captain Mclain said:


> Its more of an momentary thing. I was hoping someone knew a infj or intj and can speak from experience. How about this one?


No, in my opinion. That's too focused.



RunForCover07 said:


> Edward Norton is said to be an INFJ.



Yes on Norton! But INTJ, not INFJ. The first picture is good.



MindPersonified said:


> This is based on what I've been told by people and what I've observed of myself.
> 
> If you were to look at me a majority of the time, you would basically see my eyes focused intensely on some sensory aspect of the environment around me while still taking a journey through the rivers and fantasy-lands of my mind. When I shift my attention, all I really do is roll my eyes around to the side or maybe a very slight head turn.
> 
> Something like this:
> 
> View attachment 228026


You don't look like an INxJ. 

This is how I look like for comparison whatever, lulz:










I've been VI typed as an Ni dom whatever that is worth /shrug. Gf also thinks I look very Ni or whatever.


----------



## Entropic

@Shadow Logic how does this subject make it Ni? I mean, with that said, I _do_ think, contrary to the vast majority of typers and not for flimsy reasons i.e. there's an Ni death stare, that there is some underlying merit to VI and I see what you say about that INFJs in general tend to be more attracted to oddly flimsy subjects and see merit in them e.g. astrology before realizing that they are all BS, but how does this relate it to Ni? Because it's "occult/esoteric" (not sure what else to call it)?

My general impression if anything, seems to be that those that support VI as a theory and arrived at such conclusions tend to be Si types, not Ni. You for example find that most of the prominent VI theorists in socionics are all value Ne-Si.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

Entropic said:


> @Shadow Logic how does this subject make it Ni? I mean, with that said, I _do_ think, contrary to the vast majority of typers and not for flimsy reasons i.e. there's an Ni death stare, that there is some underlying merit to VI and I see what you say about that INFJs in general tend to be more attracted to oddly flimsy subjects and see merit in them e.g. astrology before realizing that they are all BS, but how does this relate it to Ni? Because it's "occult/esoteric" (not sure what else to call it)?
> 
> My general impression if anything, seems to be that those that support VI as a theory and arrived at such conclusions tend to be Si types, not Ni. You for example find that most of the prominent VI theorists in socionics are all value Ne-Si.


I shouldn't say it's solely Ni but in my experience it seems that Ni users talk the most about these stares or other "occult/Esoteric" subjects. I should stop saying Ni users and apply it more to INFJS since it's them who discuss them the most. INFPS and ENFPs also have a fancy for such subjects but it's the INFJs who discuss it the most. This may be more of Ni-Fe thing more than an Ni thing alone. It is true that when talking about correlations between facial features and personality types that an Ne user would be better equipped to notice such patterns/possibilities because of Ne being the extraverted function that picks up patterns. It's not solely the VI theory I'm putting under the responsibility of Ni users, but this Ni stare issue along with aura's are things I can attribute to them or at least INFJs, which our ESTP friend seems to be aversed too which comes off as a kind of textbook example with ESTP and INFJs being opposites in the four function modeln which was kind of humorous to me.

My question to you, is why do you think Si types (as in dom or aux) arrive at these conclusions or how do you attribute VI theory to Si? If I had to choose I would definitely consider this more of an Ni attribute than Si, but I consider Ne (dom or aux) to be better equipped to deal with such patterns as a whole, not just the Ni stare.

My opinion is that facial features do at some percentage correlate with personality types. That your body and face is combination of factors that make up you are and is connected to everything else you are, would imply that if there are a set pattern of cognitive processes, that these cognitive processes would play out at some level in our facial and body features. 

So to answer question in a more direct way, I do think VI is more so an Ne subject, while the Ni stare (along with auras) itself is more of an Ni subject, and even moreso an INFJ subject.


----------



## Entropic

Shadow Logic said:


> I shouldn't say it's solely Ni but in my experience it seems that Ni users talk the most about these stares or other "occult/Esoteric" subjects. I should stop saying Ni users and apply it more to INFJS since it's them who discuss them the most. INFPS and ENFPs also have a fancy for such subjects but it's the INFJs who discuss it the most. This may be more of Ni-Fe thing more than an Ni thing alone. It is true that when talking about correlations between facial features and personality types that an Ne user would be better equipped to notice such patterns/possibilities because of Ne being the extraverted function that picks up patterns. It's not solely the VI theory I'm putting under the responsibility of Ni users, but this Ni stare issue along with aura's are things I can attribute to them or at least INFJs, which our ESTP friend seems to be aversed too which comes off as a kind of textbook example with ESTP and INFJs being opposites in the four function modeln which was kind of humorous to me.


Ok, thanks. And yes, she's not overly fond of my Ni even when paired with T _either_, for whatever that's worth :tongue:



> My question to you, is why do you think Si types (as in dom or aux) arrive at these conclusions or how do you attribute VI theory to Si? If I had to choose I would definitely consider this more of an Ni attribute than Si, but I consider Ne (dom or aux) to be better equipped to deal with such patterns as a whole, not just the Ni stare.


Because such is my observation; as you yourself noted, Ne, with Si, sees extroverted patterns derived from the subjective depth of the sense-world. I find that Si types are as a whole, very focused on and concerned about body language because it deals with the physical world, and they try to see and find archetypes underneath say, facial features or body language. I used the example of facial composites to explain how I see how Si sees the world, which is less to do with every object as it is, that would be Se, but abstracting commonalities among several perceived objects and finds the archetype that unites them. There's also the part about Si that concerns itself with the body and bodily sensation in itself, which is relevant to this observation. I've seen both Ne and Si ego types discuss physical observations in relation to type. 

Case in point, what you wrote in the below:



> My opinion is that facial features do at some percentage correlate with personality types. That your body and face is combination of factors that make up you are and is connected to everything else you are, would imply that if there are a set pattern of cognitive processes, that these cognitive processes would play out at some level in our facial and body features.


This is, in my opinion, a very Si-Ne derived point of view. While I too think that our beings are synthetized of all aspects that we are, this synthesis does not lie in the physical realm. As you yourself touch on here: 



> So to answer question in a more direct way, I do think VI is more so an Ne subject, while the Ni stare (along with auras) itself is more of an Ni subject, and even moreso an INFJ subject.


It's more otherworldly, not directly linked to the physical and physical experience. I agree with you also that Ni when paired with Fe would be more prone towards this. Auras, as you say. My Ni is not naturally bent towards it though I have an interest in it. I'm more into semiotics and the like where symbols take on a more impersonal and detached systematic form.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

Entropic said:


> Ok, thanks. And yes, she's not overly fond of my Ni even when paired with T _either_, for whatever that's worth :tongue:
> 
> 
> 
> Because such is my observation; as you yourself noted, Ne, with Si, sees extroverted patterns derived from the subjective depth of the sense-world. I find that Si types are as a whole, very focused on and concerned about body language because it deals with the physical world, and they try to see and find archetypes underneath say, facial features or body language. I used the example of facial composites to explain how I see how Si sees the world, which is less to do with every object as it is, that would be Se, but abstracting commonalities among several perceived objects and finds the archetype that unites them. There's also the part about Si that concerns itself with the body and bodily sensation in itself, which is relevant to this observation. I've seen both Ne and Si ego types discuss physical observations in relation to type.
> 
> Case in point, what you wrote in the below:
> 
> 
> 
> This is, in my opinion, a very Si-Ne derived point of view. While I too think that our beings are synthetized of all aspects that we are, this synthesis does not lie in the physical realm. As you yourself touch on here:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more otherworldly, not directly linked to the physical and physical experience. I agree with you also that Ni when paired with Fe would be more prone towards this. Auras, as you say. My Ni is not naturally bent towards it though I have an interest in it. I'm more into semiotics and the like where symbols take on a more impersonal and detached systematic form.


What or whoSe definition of Si are you using? It's a bit confusing to me because I have never seen Si described as being prone to noticing patterns or the similarities between things in the extrextraverted world. Si has to do with the sensing subject abstracting sensations that correlate to its individual preferences, but to see it as a function that picks up on patterns in the extraverted world seems to be something Si doesn't do or is aversed to itself.


----------



## Entropic

Shadow Logic said:


> What or whoSe definition of Si are you using? It's a bit confusing to me because I have never seen Si described as being prone to noticing patterns or the similarities between things in the extrextraverted world. Si has to do with the sensing subject abstract in sensations that correlate to its individual preferences, but to see it as a function that picks up on patterns in the extraverted world seems to be something Si doesn't do or is aversed to itself.


Ok, I was unclear then because I don't mean the extroverted world as in seeing objects as they are, but abstracting experience from the sense world. That's why I emphasized Si and archetypes. Jung referred Si doms to being prone towards clinging to idols and this is what I am referring to; when a specific object start to, not too different from Ni, symbolize an archetype beyond its actual objective physical representation e.g. the way Jesus is reproduced on the cross which we, would we actually go and make an accurate historical account about Jesus and how he looked like and how he died, probably not be factually accurate. That's why I mentioned facial composites. I can only assume you are confused because the only way I can really access to Si is to understand it through Se by likening it to Ni, but Se is extroverted so it sees objects as they are and Ni does not concern itself with the physical experience of a thing. To Se a chair is a chair but to Ni it has a symbolic meaning beyond its physical presentation and experience. Si does neither and is the experience of the chair as a cumulative experience of all previos chairs which therefore removes it from the actual object world in favor of a personal impression the person has of it. 

Does that make more sense? I'm mostly operating with Jung's definitions of the perception functions here.


----------



## Chesire Tower




----------



## Deus Absconditus

Entropic said:


> Ok, I was unclear then because I don't mean the extroverted world as in seeing objects as they are, but abstracting experience from the sense world. That's why I emphasized Si and archetypes. Jung referred Si doms to being prone towards clinging to idols and this is what I am referring to; when a specific object start to, not too different from Ni, symbolize an archetype beyond its actual objective physical representation e.g. the way Jesus is reproduced on the cross which we, would we actually go and make an accurate historical account about Jesus and how he looked like and how he died, probably not be factually accurate. That's why I mentioned facial composites. I can only assume you are confused because the only way I can really access to Si is to understand it through Se by likening it to Ni, but Se is extroverted so it sees objects as they are and Ni does not concern itself with the physical experience of a thing. To Se a chair is a chair but to Ni it has a symbolic meaning beyond its physical presentation and experience. Si does neither and is the experience of the chair as a cumulative experience of all previos chairs which therefore removes it from the actual object world in favor of a personal impression the person has of it.
> 
> Does that make more sense? I'm mostly operating with Jung's definitions of the perception functions here.


I understand what you are saying and even agree with facial composites being attributed to Si. The thing is, noticing physical patterns between a group of individuald is very differect from a facial composite. It's true that the sensing subject abstract senses that are cumulated to what has already been abstracted prior but noticing patterns and discerning them isn't an attribute I would apply to Si.

Here is Jung on Intuition (in the Ne description):



> The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or *perceptions of relations and conditions*, which could be gained by the other functions, *either not at all*, or only by very roundabout ways. Such images have the value of definite discernments, and have a decisive bearing upon action, whenever intuition is given the chief weight; in which case, psychic adaptation is based almost exclusively upon intuition.


To perceive the relation and conditions is to perceive the connections, to perceive the connections is to perceive patterns. Si as Jung stated does not preceive the relations and conditions but instead perceives the abstracted sense as a cumulation of the prior abstractions of such a sense. 

Now here is Jung on Si:



> The decisive thing *is not the reality of the object*, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world.


The thing about the patterns and possibilities of an object is that they are the reality of the object, they aren't a subjective perception. Each object holds a patten which is why we can differentiate one object from another because their patterns differ. The reality aspect of the object is of no concern, or at the least not the decisive factor of Si.

So I agree with you that facial composites can be attributed to Si, but picking up on patterns in the extraverted world (objects, things, people, etc.) is the area of Ne, not Si. Noticing that certain types share patterns of facial and body features would be Ne since the patterns and possibilities are deroded from the reality of the object.


----------



## Judson Joist

I'm told that I have gentle dog-like eyes.
:happy:


Captain Mclain said:


> ...I have associated Se and Ne function as warm, they are creating and always see possibilities. When someone does the Ni gaze, is it the opposite? Kinda harsh look in the eyes?


No, it's more like a vibe of absent-mindedness. Like phasing out of spacetime. But inside, the mind is *not* absent, just focused. It's a right-brain thing. It's mostly left-brain sensate types who perceive Ni-doms as absent-minded when we're "trancing." Speaking from my own experience, I lose track of the concrete (becoming unaware of time, etc.) but become somehow Jedi-like. One night, were I used to work, I phased out like that. In that state, I noticed that the clock on the nearest I-beam was synchronized with the operator's digital readout but was missing its second hand. I'd never consciously noticed that before. It's like being in "detective mode," only you're using the Force instead of your natural observatory senses. Makes you able to *see* what lies underneath what is *seen*.


----------



## Entropic

Shadow Logic said:


> I understand what you are saying and even agree with facial composites being attributed to Si. The thing is, noticing physical patterns between a group of individuald is very differect from a facial composite. It's true that the sensing subject abstract senses that are cumulated to what has already been abstracted prior but noticing patterns and discerning them isn't an attribute I would apply to Si.
> 
> Here is Jung on Intuition (in the Ne description):
> 
> 
> 
> To perceive the relation and conditions is to perceive the connections, to perceive the connections is to perceive patterns. Si as Jung stated does not preceive the relations and conditions but instead perceives the abstracted sense as a cumulation of the prior abstractions of such a sense.
> 
> Now here is Jung on Si:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about the patterns and possibilities of an object is that they are the reality of the object, they aren't a subjective perception. Each object holds a patten which is why we can differentiate one object from another because their patterns differ. The reality aspect of the object is of no concern, or at the least not the decisive factor of Si.
> 
> So I agree with you that facial composites can be attributed to Si, but picking up on patterns in the extraverted world (objects, things, people, etc.) is the area of Ne, not Si. Noticing that certain types share patterns of facial and body features would be Ne since the patterns and possibilities are deroded from the reality of the object.


Ok, I understand Ne shit aside the whole "potential" thing anyway. It doesn't matter how I try to make sense of how to discern intuitive data in an extroverted way; I can't. The limitations of an introverted preference, lol. Because like, if we begin to talk about patterns I think of archetypes but archetypes are in the realms of introversion and specifically Ni, not Ne. I can recognize Ne when I see it but I have very poor understanding of how it actually works and what kind of data it really perceives.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

What Ni does is focus on the archetypes, which are patterns of the unconscious. What Ne does is focus on the patterns of the extraverted world.

Let's look this quote again:



> The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or *perceptions of relations and conditions*, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways.


In Ni the perception of relations and conditions is focused on discerning archetypes, patterns of the unconscious. For Ne, The perception of relations and conditions is directed to the extraverted world. Since Ni is abstracting that means it's building/expanding upon a core, while Ne is pushing outwards towards the object. Now understand that anything in the outside world is part of the extraverted including all objects, people, or situations. Ne takes the present moment and measures the potential of not only the moments situation, but all other objects that pertain to the moments situation, by intuiting all the possibilities that situation/object/moment has to offer. The possibilities are the different possible relations and conditions that the objects/situation/moment can attain without losing the core of what makes them what they are. Ne measures potential of the object/situation/moment by seeing how far they can go without losing the characteristics that make them what they are, and how far they can't go by seeing the possiblities they can't do. 

The whole purpose of Ne is to transmit these images of relations and conditions into and from the object/situation/moment which is why Jung states this:



> so it is with intuition, which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process *that builds into the object just as much as it takes out*. But, because this process extracts the perception unconsciously, *it also produces an unconscious effect in the object*.


Maybe this will help you better understand Ne.


----------



## Entropic

Shadow Logic said:


> What Ni does is focus on the archetypes, which are patterns of the unconscious. What Ne does is focus on the patterns of the extraverted world.
> 
> Let's look this quote again:
> 
> 
> 
> In Ni the perception of relations and conditions is focused on discerning archetypes, patterns of the unconscious. For Ne, The perception of relations and conditions is directed to the extraverted world. Since Ni is abstracting that means it's building/expanding upon a core, while Ne is pushing outwards towards the object. Now understand that anything in the outside world is part of the extraverted including all objects, people, or situations. Ne takes the present moment and measures the potential of not only the moments situation, but all other objects that pertain to the moments situation, by intuiting all the possibilities that situation/object/moment has to offer. The possibilities are the different possible relations and conditions that the objects/situation/moment can attain without losing the core of what makes them what they are. Ne measures potential of the object/situation/moment by seeing how far they can go without losing the characteristics that make them what they are, and how far they can't go by seeing the possiblities they can't do.
> 
> The whole purpose of Ne is to transmit these images of relations and conditions into and from the object/situation/moment which is why Jung states this:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this will help you better understand Ne.


Yeah ok, that makes a lot more sense. Experientially, I still don't get it but I guess I never will. How would you say this differs from Se?


----------



## Deus Absconditus

Entropic said:


> Yeah ok, that makes a lot more sense. Experientially, I still don't get it but I guess I never will. How would you say this differs from Se?


Se has no focus of the relations and conditions, only intuition shares this property. Se on the other hand is the desire to access the highest pitches of sensation, whenever the highest pitch of sensations is present then the Se user will seek it. Se may see the possibility of attaining these sensations but Ne is focus on all the possibilities and patterns of the object/situation/moment. When I say all the possibilities I mean the possibilities it can't attain due to the nature of it, and every other possibility it can attain based on the the nature of it. Ne walks into the room with the sole purpose of seeing what everything's potential is in the room (all the possibilities it can and can't attain), Se walks into the room with the sole purpose of experiencing the highest pitch of sensation present.


----------



## Entropic

Shadow Logic said:


> Se has no focus of the relations and conditions, only intuition shares this property. Se on the other hand is the desire to access the highest pitches of sensation, whenever the highest pitch of sensations is present then the Se user will seek it. Se may see the possibility of attaining these sensations but Ne is focus on all the possibilities and patterns of the object/situation/moment. When I say all the possibilities I mean the possibilities it can't attain due to the nature of it, and every other possibility it can attain based on the the nature of it. Ne walks into the room with the sole purpose of seeing what everything's potential is in the room (all the possibilities it can and can't attain), Se walks into the room with the sole purpose of experiencing the highest pitch of sensation present.


How would you separate that from Se's ability to experience the kinetic potential of objects, though? I see what you are saying but in my mind, I have a very difficult time not seeing how Se also cannot be concerned about potential. It's just that Se's idea of potential is different from Ne's.

Like I feel the biggest difference between the two is that Se cannot be content with the idea of simply _knowing_, but it also seeks _experiencing_. If we take the fantasy genre for example, we can agree on that it deals with fantastical worlds and scenarios that are all about the potential "what if the world was like this instead?" logic. But I find that Se at least, is very concerned with the actual experience of what it would be like. Not just content that wielding magical powers can be fun, but what are its actual real life implications? What would it truly be like to wield magical powers? How does it affect myself and my environment? What can I use it for to achieve my own means, goals and ends? 

From my own perhaps biased perspective, I find that Ne does not do this. It does not care about how it has real world impact. It's more about toying with the very idea itself of what something could be but how it's actually felt and experienced is, that's not its primary focus. It cares insofar that magical powers has potential to be many things but that's it.

@arkigos how do you see Ne vs Se?


----------

