# Real life examples of how each function would look at something..



## DatAssInDaGrass (Sep 14, 2010)

I was wondering about this and have searched around but haven't found much. This is one thing I found on another forum but I was wondering if you all could think of anymore.... More of a real life why to try to understand the functions a little better, and how they would be applied in the real world or how they would look at something, or may react in a certain situation. (I know you can't really call all things out by functions because it not a thing but a mindset you have on how you look at the world, but hey, it has to have something behind it..)

This is something I read on Ne/Ni that someone wrote on another forum.

"For example, Ni is capable of saying "If you drop an apple, it has a chance of flying into the sky."

Ne will say, "Well no, that's impossible. Through the series of objective occurrences and patterns that have happened, my intuition feels it will always fall." Ne is an objective intuitive function, by the way, so it only looks into possibilities that is restricted by the laws of "reality".

Ni will reply, "Just because it always seem to fall during every observations doesn't discredit that it can't fly up into the sky." Ni is capable of saying this with strong belief that it's possible without having to suppress any part of itself. Meaning, it can naturally and strongly belief that an apple is very well indeed capable of flying into the sky when let go, instead of falling onto the ground. Basically, Ni is able to strip reality of laws of physics and even all forms of common sense. In the Ni world, there is no such thing as counter-intuitive thinking and there is no such thing as "impossible" thinking for the things yet left unknown. Even for things that are perceived to be known, Ni believes that more often than not, reality is lying and is hiding something from all of us.

C.G. Jung actually finds the Ni function to be the most ridiculous and fantastical function out of all eight. I honestly can't tell if he has interest in the Ni function or finds all Ni users to be crazy and insane. In his work, he rants for one paragraph on how he personally felt about Ni and it was the only moment in his work where he used first person perspective. To him, he personally can't believe anyone is capable of perceiving data in such a manner.

Examples of Ni users who seem to have ridiculous imaginations in regards to how reality could work are Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, and Leonard Susskind. They can envision the world in such a way that just seems to break all rules of physics. More often than not, a lot of scientists who usually have their ideas laughed at were Ni-doms who saw things that were completely different from the usual concepts of reality. The hilarious part is, a lot of these ideas sometimes finally make it into science hundred years later."


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Carl Jung was an INTP. His primary function was introverted intuition (Ni). So, when he wrote about the function, he was speaking from his mind about his mind. 

All right I would love to give you an example that Jung gave about the different functions. 

All the functions (not people, not types just embodiments of the functions) are sitting in the kitchen when the stove spontaneously bursts into flames. 

Ni sees all fires in the past and future, sees the house consumed in a bath of flames. Sees the future where everything is consumed in the fire. 

Si physically feels the heat of the fire. Is reminded of the physical sensation of heat as they have felt it throughout their lives at different times. Is perhaps reminded of other things that have made them feel this hot. 

Ne sees all the possibilities of the fire. Sees how the fire could consume the house but it could also be used for warmth. Ne sees the potential for the fire to destroy or rebuild, we could use it to roast marshmallows or we could extinguish it.

Se sees the fire and wants to conquer it. Se seeks to experience the fire, notice the color the way it feels and wants to own it physically by putting it out or reacting to it. The fire is competition and we must destroy it!

Te sees: "This is fire. Fire has many purposes. The fire is behaving in such and such a manner. The fire was first there and now it is there." (more concrete than that but you get my meaning.) Te is purely objective about the manner and nature of the fire.

Ti sees the fire as a one in a series of all fires in it's history, from experience what did we do when we were faced with fire in the past? Ti will say what is logically necessary what is the duty we have to the fire. So, it might be, I have a duty to put this fire out. 

Fe will say: I don't like the fire. or I like fire or wow, everyone sure is frightened of the fire or I am frightened by the fire. 

Fi will say: This fire is harmful to the human beings in this room. I want us all to be safe and happy I would prefer if there was a not a fire in this room.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Not to nit pick, more than likely I will show my own possible ignorance, but wouldn't Fe and Fi be reversed?


----------



## antiant (Jul 4, 2010)

marzipan01 said:


> Carl Jung was an *INTP*. *His primary function was introverted intuition (Ni)*. So, when he wrote about the function, he was speaking from his mind about his mind.


Correction: INTP's do not have Ni as their primary function.


----------



## RemiX (Dec 6, 2010)

There's a rocking chair in the middle of nowhere.

Se: It's a rocking chair. Screw this I'm setting off to Vegas. 
Si: Reminds me of the good 'ol days me and my sis would sit on our granny's lap while she'd rock that mean chair 'til we fall asleep. And nah it ain't that amazin that I remember these stuff when i was three years old.. my sis remembers things when she couldn't even see things!!
Ne: Awesome, a rocking chair!! *gets on it* *then rocks* THE SHIP IS SINKING! *ROCKS HARDER* ABANDON SHIP! *ROCKING CHAIR FLIPS OVER* ... "ROSE?"
Ni: Nothing special.. it's just a rocking chair. It will soon be obsolete absolutely. *walks away*
Fe: I need to get this because that would make my granny happy!
Fi: This means a lot to me because of x and y. So I think will keep this chair for myself because of z.
Te: What is this weird-looking chair?Whose is it, and when the hell did it get here, not to mention and HOW? And why is it placed in the middle of nowhere? Somebody ought to clean it up.
Ti: Oh look.. a rocking chair. Hmm, looks sturdy and strong enough to hold me. I think I should just sit down and rest for a bit.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

SuPERNaUT said:


> Not to nit pick, more than likely I will show my own possible ignorance, but wouldn't Fe and Fi be reversed?


You aren't wrong in that myers-briggs for whatever reason mixes them up in reference to introverts. I don't know the history, nor am I totally interested. All I know is that this is how I learned it from the Jungian school of thought.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

antiant said:


> Correction: INTP's do not have Ni as their primary function.


My understanding of the types is more consistent with socionics than with myers-briggs because I find myers-briggs to change their definition of each function depending on whether the type is introverted or extraverted. Thus, logically inconsistent. If you want a theory that is logically consistent, I suggest you consider socionics which does not change their definitions so liberally.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

RemiX said:


> There's a rocking chair in the middle of nowhere.
> 
> Se: It's a rocking chair. Screw this I'm setting off to Vegas.
> Si: Reminds me of the good 'ol days me and my sis would sit on our granny's lap while she'd rock that mean chair 'til we fall asleep. And nah it ain't that amazin that I remember these stuff when i was three years old.. my sis remembers things when she couldn't even see things!!
> ...


I think your Te is more like Ni. Ni is about understanding the past, present, and future. 
I shake my head at your description of Ne.


----------



## antiant (Jul 4, 2010)

marzipan01 said:


> My understanding of the types is more consistent with socionics than with myers-briggs because I find myers-briggs to change their definition of each function depending on whether the type is introverted or extraverted. Thus, logically inconsistent. If you want a theory that is logically consistent, I suggest you consider socionics which does not change their definitions so liberally.


This forum/site is not a socionics site, therefore you mislead and assume that people will follow the same line of thinking, thus it will lead to a lot of misunderstanding. You should have been clearer from the beginning as far as which vantage point you were speaking of.


----------



## myexplodingcat (Feb 6, 2011)

marzipan01 said:


> You aren't wrong in that myers-briggs for whatever reason mixes them up in reference to introverts. I don't know the history, nor am I totally interested. All I know is that this is how I learned it from the Jungian school of thought.


Your introvert/extrovert stuff is completely muddled. Please don't post information unless you're certain of its accuracy in relation to our topic.



marzipan01 said:


> My understanding of the types is more consistent with socionics than with myers-briggs because I find myers-briggs to change their definition of each function depending on whether the type is introverted or extraverted. Thus, logically inconsistent. If you want a theory that is logically consistent, I suggest you consider socionics which does not change their definitions so liberally.


That is not our topic. 

If you'd actually bother to look at the cognitive functions and think about them, you'd realize that introverts and extroverts WOULD deal with things a certain way, and still be using a similar function. There are base similarities between Si and Se, for example--they both pay attention to the environment and the situation. Both Ts are systematical. Et cetera.

Please verify your information FIRST. And if you're going to talk about socionics, then make sure you let us know while you're posting... because we're doing MBTI.



marzipan01 said:


> I think your Te is more like Ni. Ni is about understanding the past, present, and future.
> I shake my head at your description of Ne.


Nope. RemiX personified this very accurately, actually. And come on! The Ne description was fun, even to an Ne aux. 

Anyway, didn't you claim that the MBTI was wildly inaccurate and that you're not interested in it (earlier post I didn't quote here)? How come you're claiming to know better about MBTI than RemiX does if you dislike it so much?

Just saying. Don't take this the wrong way.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Twinkletwinklelittlegrape said:


> Ne will say, "Well no, that's impossible. Through the series of objective occurrences and patterns that have happened, my intuition feels it will always fall." Ne is an objective intuitive function, by the way, so it only looks into possibilities that is restricted by the laws of "reality".
> 
> Ni will reply, "Just because it always seem to fall during every observations doesn't discredit that it can't fly up into the sky." Ni is capable of saying this with strong belief that it's possible without having to suppress any part of itself. Meaning, it can naturally and strongly belief that an apple is very well indeed capable of flying into the sky when let go, instead of falling onto the ground. Basically, Ni is able to strip reality of laws of physics and even all forms of common sense. In the Ni world, there is no such thing as counter-intuitive thinking and there is no such thing as "impossible" thinking for the things yet left unknown. Even for things that are perceived to be known, Ni believes that more often than not, reality is lying and is hiding something from all of us.


 [/quote]

I'm not sure I fully agree with this.. Take the idea of a flying apple to Ne, it might explore the comedic possibilities, or some fantastical possibilities, or Ti + Ne together may search for a way to make it fly. But to say it cannot be done seems more of a judgment function at work.

Ni on the other hand, may shift the meanings of 'apple', 'fly' and 'sky' until it's correct


----------



## RemiX (Dec 6, 2010)

marzipan01 said:


> I think your Te is more like Ni. Ni is about understanding the past, present, and future.
> I shake my head at your description of Ne.


No, actually, the Te description fits since it wants to know the reasons behind what the hell the chair is doing there. Its organized mind struggles to fully accept such strangeness, since it makes absolutely _no_ sense (the whole situation). An Ni would not try to organize it; instead it would reach some sort of unforseen conclusion. 

No, you shouldn't be shaking your head at my description of Ne. I think you probably define Ne as a way of seeing endless abstract possibilities that necessarily doesn't involve one acting goofy all the time, but in this case it clearly displays characteristics of Ne as it links the chair's function (rocking back and forth) with the sinking ship, therefore connecting ideas (abstract or not) with two unrelated things (but in the Ne's eyes, very much related). 

You know what I'm sayin', dawg?


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Twinkletwinklelittlegrape said:


> "For example, Ni is capable of saying "If you drop an apple, it has a chance of flying into the sky."
> 
> Ne will say, "Well no, that's impossible. Through the series of objective occurrences and patterns that have happened, my intuition feels it will always fall." Ne is an objective intuitive function, by the way, so it only looks into possibilities that is restricted by the laws of "reality".


If Ne is restricted to the laws of "reality," it is because of the influence of Si. The functions work together in a relay so it isn't always easy to separate them. Just as a fun exercise, I thought I'd record the internal dialogue as Ti>Ne>Si:

Proposition: "If you drop an apple, it has a chance of flying into the sky."

*Ne:* It's possible.
*Si:* Apples do not just spontaneously fly into the sky.
*Ti:* Before I can draw a conclusion I need a mechanism by which this could happen. This is imperative. I need to know _how_ it could work before I can decide _whether_ it could work. 
*Ne:* There could be an anomaly.
*Si:* I remember learning that anomalies such as passing your hand through a solid object are theoretically possible, but so highly unlikely that we may as well say it's impossible. It just doesn't happen.
*Ne:* There are also reports of anomalies known as "miracles" usually attributed to the divine.
*Ti:* Yes... I could investigate whether or not any of these claims of anomalies have any merit. But I do not believe in divine intervention, and this is getting off topic. How could the apple fly into the air? How might it defy gravity? 
*Si:* uh... quantum mechanics... strong force.. weak force... Sorry, I don't have enough data.
*Ne:* Random movements, all of the molecules of the apple flying together into the air at once...
*Si:* Yeah right. 
*Ti:* How might that work? I'm tempted to Google "atomic forces." But, it isn't necessary. I agree with Si that these things don't happen, and we're moving on. What else do you have, Ne?
*Ne:* A gust of wind.
*Ti:* Indeed.
*Si:* Possible, but a gust of wind strong enough to throw an apple would be a storm, it would not just happen suddenly.
*Ti:* Are you sure?
*Si:* Pretty sure.
*Ne:* A large bird could scoop it up as it drops and fly off.
*Si:* *snicker*
*Ti:* Does that count as flying? 
*Ne:* People fly in airplanes. That counts as people flying.
*Ti:* ...
*Ti:* What else?
*Ne:* Alien tractor beam.
*Si:* *rolls eyes*
*Ti:* That's absurd.
*Ne:* Yeah but some people say they've been abducted by aliens. And, you know, Star Trek... you never know what the future might hold.
*Si:* Too fanciful.
*Ti:* Fine. There could be aliens. But it's irrelevant.
*Ne:* ...
*Ti:* Nothing else? 
*Ne:* A bunch of bees could pick the apple up.
*Si:* Wut?
*Ti:* Never mind. This is my judgment. The presence of a storm would increase the probably that the above statement is true, although I don't think you'd want to be out in that weather. Otherwise, it is so unlikely that I deem it "false."


----------



## DatAssInDaGrass (Sep 14, 2010)

Nitou said:


> If Ne is restricted to the laws of "reality," it is because of the influence of Si. The functions work together in a relay so it isn't always easy to separate them. Just as a fun exercise, I thought I'd record the internal dialogue as


So would you say Ni is as restricted by the laws of reality? 
How do you think Ni would look at it....Same situation, Ni instead :tongue:


----------



## DatAssInDaGrass (Sep 14, 2010)

NeedsNewNameNow said:


> I'm not sure I fully agree with this.. Take the idea of a flying apple to Ne, it might explore the comedic possibilities, or some fantastical possibilities, or Ti + Ne together may search for a way to make it fly. But to say it cannot be done seems more of a judgment function at work.
> 
> Ni on the other hand, may shift the meanings of 'apple', 'fly' and 'sky' until it's correct




I guess I see what you mean, but this isn't exactly my idea on it, I got it from somewhere else....Though I keep seeing stuff like this about Ni around. And Ne also. I tend to find a lot of contradicting definitions of the functions. But this is the most consistent one. I've also heard that Ne would be more likely to do this instead. Who knows. Jung does. Agh. 

Either way, I found it interesting =P


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

twinkletwinklelittlegrape said:


> So would you say Ni is as restricted by the laws of reality?
> How do you think Ni would look at it....Same situation, Ni instead.


To tell the truth, Ni is mystifying to me. I'll try to answer the question, but hope that an Ni user will be able to. It is easier for me to conceive of Ni in the tertiary in relay with Se as used by SP types. I observe Ni in them as being like a sixth sense they have about practical matters. 

I imagine that when presented with the proposition, "If you drop an apple, it has a chance of flying into the sky," Se will gather information about the physical environment in that moment. It will take note of weather conditions, animals, whether there are UFO's in the sky, and anything and everything else. Ti or Ni will filter what is relevant and what isn't, and Ni takes the relevant information and compiles a "report" of its interpretations. So Ni is not limited in itself, but is limited to the parameters set by Se. Extroverted perception is broad and transmits large amounts of information to the judging function, while introverted perception is narrow and transmits only what it decides is true or relevant. Also remember that perceiving functions aren't really making judgments themselves (although Pi can seem a bit judging); they're just passing information to the judging function. 

What about Ni as the dominant mode of perception? It compiles interpretations and reports from whatever Se feeds it. It is said that Ni types can shift context rapidly, and I think what it is doing is generating multiple reports from the same data. Like Si, it is very sure of its own correctness. This is the opposite of Ne-Si function, which takes a lot of data and then relies on Si to trim it down and check its accuracy. 

In itself, I think Ni might agree with the statement "If you drop an apple, it has a chance of flying into the sky." But so would Ne. The intuitive functions rely on their sensing and judging counterparts to keep them reasonably realistic. If someone makes the claim that this is a true statement, I don't agree with it, and I believe a weakness of the sensing or thinking function might lead someone to that conclusion.


----------



## DatAssInDaGrass (Sep 14, 2010)

Awesome! Okay so someone should write a dialoge of Ni, Fi, Te Se and Fe....
Setting: They're all going to disney world. That or they get abducted by aliens while going home.


----------



## minkaybell (Aug 15, 2010)

LOL i haven't had a good laugh today until I'd read this. Thankyou @Nitou for your amusing posts


----------



## DatAssInDaGrass (Sep 14, 2010)

Nitou said:


> To tell the truth, Ni is mystifying to me. I'll try to answer the question, but hope that an Ni user will be able to. It is easier for me to conceive of Ni in the tertiary in relay with Se as used by SP types. I observe Ni in them as being like a sixth sense they have about practical matters.
> 
> I imagine that when presented with the proposition, "If you drop an apple, it has a chance of flying into the sky," Se will gather information about the physical environment in that moment. It will take note of weather conditions, animals, whether there are UFO's in the sky, and anything and everything else. Ti or Ni will filter what is relevant and what isn't, and Ni takes the relevant information and compiles a "report" of its interpretations. So Ni is not limited in itself, but is limited to the parameters set by Se. Extroverted perception is broad and transmits large amounts of information to the judging function, while introverted perception is narrow and transmits only what it decides is true or relevant. Also remember that perceiving functions aren't really making judgments themselves (although Pi can seem a bit judging); they're just passing information to the judging function.
> 
> ...


Thank you, I concur  and your post entertained me highly. You understood the idea I had in mind also. I just couldn't word what I was looking for. Thanks.


----------



## Silas the Idealist (Oct 18, 2010)

marzipan01 said:


> My understanding of the types is more consistent with socionics than with myers-briggs because I find myers-briggs to change their definition of each function depending on whether the type is introverted or extraverted. Thus, logically inconsistent. If you want a theory that is logically consistent, I suggest you consider socionics which does not change their definitions so liberally.


It is incorrect to suggest that the changing of type based on introversion or extraversion is illogical. If anything, it is a very necessary and logical distinction between types. Carl Jung describes the attitude functions (E vs. I) to be the "foundation" function that describes the orientation or general focus of the individuals preference. That being either focused towards their internal world (I) or focused towards their external world (E). Any logical individual would understand the major distinctions between the two, and that type itself would change drastically based on their attitude/orientation. Each dichotomy is formulated to describe a psychologically *opposite* preference, which should be an indicator to you that not defining differences between introversion and extraversion is illogical. In the way each respective function relates to their attitude, would be the way in which the judgement functions are directed; in this case being internal or externally directed. An extroverted feeler would make decisions (and express them) in a very different manner than that of an introverted feeler, much like an extroverted intuitive would channel their perception in a much different way than an introverted intuitive. 

I suggest that you pay greater attention to the instrument that has had complete devotion to Jungian theory since it's start, and 60+ years of acknowledgement and praise as a substantial instrument based on decades of research and testing. 

Also, this forum is based on MBTI, not socionics (which is a theory I learned of today).


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

My Ti says this thread is a bs  But no worries it has nothing to say while Ne is present. Ne says countless possibilities of flying apple interpretation. Now I combined Ne with my laziness and Ti saying that I have limited time on the planet. The conclusion is just eat the apples and let freaks like Newton think about them being able to fly off.


----------



## DatAssInDaGrass (Sep 14, 2010)

DarkSideOfLight said:


> My Ti says this thread is a bs  But no worries it has nothing to say while Ne is present. Ne says countless possibilities of flying apple interpretation. Now I combined Ne with my laziness and Ti saying that I have limited time on the planet. The conclusion is just eat the apples and let freaks like Newton think about them being able to fly off.


Glad to see your Ti thinks this thread is bs.
I was kinda looking for opinions, if you notice the quotation marks around what I originally posted, it shows that I am not the one who wrote this, so I take it that you don't agree..
I'd actually be interested in hearing why you don't..
(I don't agree or disagree btw.)


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Okay say something happens in a situation, a detail.
Ni picks it up. 
See that it relates to another detail in another situation.
It makes the connection.
It is then up to Fe, Te, Ti or Fi to judge if that connection is valid.
A Ni dom makes the connection regardless of validity and implements it into the a structure regardless of judgments.
It has an alternate dimension for things that Te and Fe has rejected.
I would guess that types that are not Ni dom has somehow imprisoned their Ni under some judgment functions rule.


----------



## DatAssInDaGrass (Sep 14, 2010)

hornet said:


> Okay say something happens in a situation, a detail.
> Ni picks it up.
> See that it relates to another detail in another situation.
> It makes the connection.
> ...


Interesting! So what do you think Ne initially would do as compared to Ni in a situation? An Ne dom perhaps..


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Ne makes the connection externally amongst the objects. 
Ni makes the connection in a more symbolic and abstract way.
I don't use Ne so I have no better answer. An ENTP could tell you.


----------



## ProfessorLiver (Mar 19, 2011)

I agree with the Flying Apple theory. If one is to be truly objective, witnessing a series of occurences would neevr discredit the chance that something might happen. For isntance, if one flips a coin five hundred times, and it comes up tails every time, the chances of it coming up heads is still 50/50, assuming the flipper doesn't have a loaded coin or something.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Unless you add faith that life will give you what you need, and you think you need heads.

Its called the gamblers fallacy actually I think, but, if looked at from faith, it doesnt have to be a fallacy.

I think gamblers just get a bad rap because we assume they are being destructive HAHHAHAA


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

I would say Ne takes external information and makes connections between the information and anything present in the surrounding or my mind.
For instance when I see an apple I can:
- make connection to something totally abstract let's say start talking about aliens looking like big apples,
- make connection to something present like someone arround me being fat because eating to many apples,
- make connection to something that is my memory like drinking cider (English kind of shit made of apples) with friends a week ago.

Another example someone says "Apples can fly":
- connection with abstract - sure I've seen three yesterday by my window
- connection with present - one is chasing you at the moment, about to hit your head
- connection with a memory - I've seen the movie with UFOs I bet someone is going to make them look like apples someday.

This comes as a comment instantly if judging function is switched off (limited).
When my guardian Ti watches what is going on it may be said or comes off as a thought and I think it may even be discarded before it gets to consciousness. This last thing is based on my own observation. When I'm using clear Ne without Ti I say much more then I would even think about. It is more about mindset at this stage. 

OK writing that made my laugh as Ne being first cognitive function is fucking hilarious to be honest  I'm working on my Fe so probably I should feel sorry for all the poor Se, Si users listening to what I sometimes say.

One more thing, the more extroverted I feel the faster I speak and the more comes alive. Btw I write faster then I can speak for sure  I guess I know why ENTP's are so good at debating, because before you even finish your sentence I have a set of anwsers that mostly fit into the 3 categories I've just wrote about to face you with. Split a second and I make a conscious choice what hits you in the face. From time to time it's random as shit.

Warning Ne and Ni might be confused ;] and I would appreciate if you see any Ni example above.


----------



## alamont (Mar 23, 2011)

I didn't see any Ni in your post. It does appear to be Ne which is about envisioning, improving and enabling the future. Ni is about Foreseeing, summarizing, and knowing the significance. If you want to learn more attend one of the Type Resources workshops on the eight mental functions.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

This is another post as it takes my perspective from different angle. I will focus on how Ti works. Sometimes I'm Ti dominant other time having it as a supporting function.

Ti confronts external information with internal knowledge. This information is compared to what has been before. It looks at least in my case for logical flows and corectness (in this order) with something that has been acknowledged as true (binary judgment) before.

I'm sort of extreme thinker so I have to say that I don't take into account human factor (feelings are dropped by default). Things must make sense to me. Ti for me is about logic and facts. So anything below is placed in this context.

I use Ti in several ways:
- as an ongoing process that evaluates current situation for example: I may be watching someone having a conversation and picking beheviours that I would like to adapt, because they make sense or the results of them make sense in which for instance my personal improvement takes place or range of my own behavioural palette may be expanded. Yes having variety of responses is somehow important for poor ENTP like me  This is more a part of multitasking, but may take full focus like probably INTP's kind of thing,
- as analysis after action that has been taken. I would recall what has happened and think about that. Looking for an improvement might be a good reson for this,
- as an action controlling factor. Sort of insight into what is happening when it's happening. A serious debate when some arguments have to be choosen in order to achieve something would be an example of that. Right mindset comes in handy so this might be done more at unconscious level. My bet is that this is the killer in terms of ENTP's vs INTP's pace,
- as exploration of something in depth. Ti is looking for more information to improve/update anything interesting for me at a given time.

Let's put it in a context of "flying apples" conversation:
- sensual Ti - observing/listening to another individuals having a conversation about flying apples and making judgments probably something in terms: they are imaginative, this subject is hilarious, let's join in, they are fucked up etc
- retrospective Ti - I could say this or that. He was right or wrong. I should have done this or that
- controlling Ti - preventing from saying that they are fucked up becasue such a thing cannot exist, discarding something way too abstract (one of them being born as an apple that flew by the sun - actually I would say that with a straight face Ne > Ti heh) , that has been said, boring etc
- exploring Ti - googling more information about flying apples, reading books on the subject (u know any?) 

This is not necessarly about how the functions look at just something but more how my Ti is looking at my own Ne and Ti working 

There is more about ENTPs in general, but this wouldn't be about each function but rather about combinations of them.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

> Sometimes I'm Ti dominant other time having it as a supporting function.


I've been Ni dominant my whole life.
Do you get energized sometimes from Ne and sometimes from Ti?
Or is it that you get energized from Ne but have no problem going into exclusive Ti mode.
I can go into super Te mode, but in the long run it is draining.
Not as draining as Fi or Se, but slowly draining away.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

hornet said:


> I've been Ni dominant my whole life.
> Do you get energized sometimes from Ne and sometimes from Ti?
> Or is it that you get energized from Ne but have no problem going into exclusive Ti mode.
> I can go into super Te mode, but in the long run it is draining.
> Not as draining as Fi or Se, but slowly draining away.


So I'm not imagining things when I say deliberate Se use gives me energy? I also have the same Te experience after a while, I can definitely feel like it's been too much. I've always wondered why this sort of thing happens while listening to music can give me so much energy (unless that's just my extraversion). Doing mindfulness exercises that involve the senses just charge me up incredibly, I don't get that with Fi. I get stirred up if it's regarding an issue I feel strongly about but it gets exhausting after a while too.


----------



## trice (Nov 7, 2010)

side note: I am exhausted from trying to figure out people at work. And I think it's NE that is draining me.... Still not entirely knowing what I am , I think SE is most energizing for me. Definitely not FE, FE feels like work lots of work..


----------



## trice (Nov 7, 2010)

hornet said:


> I've been Ni dominant my whole life.
> Do you get energized sometimes from Ne and sometimes from Ti?
> Or is it that you get energized from Ne but have no problem going into exclusive Ti mode.
> I can go into super Te mode, but in the long run it is draining.
> Not as draining as Fi or Se, but slowly draining away.


Question to you hornet, how does Ni energize you? Can you give an example?


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

trice said:


> side note: I am exhausted from trying to figure out people at work. And I think it's NE that is draining me.... Still not entirely knowing what I am , I think SE is most energizing for me. Definitely not FE, FE feels like work lots of work..


Fe IS a lot of work, at least for me. Unless it's parts of Fi I still haven't separated from Fe just yet and I just THINK Fe is doing that. I guess it depends on how it's used and in what position. Any N is draining for me and so it too much Te, I've literally noticed how sapped my mind gets doing Te things after a few hours. After a while it's like my brain turns to mush and what I have been doing is a mystery as to how I've been doing it.


----------



## DatAssInDaGrass (Sep 14, 2010)

Okayyyyyyyyyy so.... Here I go.

Ne Fi Fe Ni are just breathing around....

Suddenly a magical leprechaun appears riding his magic carpet out of no where....

Ne: OMG! Is that a leprechaun?! Wth! Run! Wait.... am I dreaming?.... Is this a magical leprachaun?.... Did I get high by accident when I inhaled that potpourri not to long ago.... 

Ni: Um....

Fe: What a cute leprechaun! But how do we treat it....Is it evil or good..

Fi: Um....

..............................................................................................

Okay so I can't continue or make this not sound dumb because I must get off this computer now and onto a mobile device but maybe someone here can branch of this?
Hmm. 
(Yeah, I'm bad I know.)

You can use any functions you like, especially the thinking functions because I think it would be interesting to hear.
OK.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

> how does Ni energize you? Can you give an example?


How does Ni energize me?
I have no idea...
The mechanism is eluding me.
I just get really charged by using it.
I can sit and dream about a possible future, afterwards I have more mental energy.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

trice said:


> side note: I am exhausted from trying to figure out people at work. And I think it's NE that is draining me.... Still not entirely knowing what I am , I think SE is most energizing for me. Definitely not FE, FE feels like work lots of work..


Figure out what gives you battery charge durning a normal day. 
If it something external then most likely you are an extrovert. Otherwise an introvert.
The next step should be further analysis of the thing that gives you energy. Check cognitive function descriptions.
Let's say comming up with abstract responses to external stimulation then you are most likely to be Ne dominant and so on.

I figured out that what I do in the flow, zone whatever you want to call it seems a natural way to give myself a charge.
I tend to do analysis for most time, but clearly slower or faster it drains me. So even beeing in the Ti mode in some periods for most of the time this is only my secondary function. Have to have the external abstractive part in order to energize my ass. So Ne is dominant.

Another thing that clearly showed me my own preferences is being dead tired AND positive. At this time I'm able only to use my DOMINANT c. function. In my case fast, abstractive responses come out of nowhere


----------



## SPtheGhost (Apr 26, 2010)

marzipan01 said:


> My understanding of the types is more consistent with socionics than with myers-briggs because I find myers-briggs to change their definition of each function depending on whether the type is introverted or extraverted. Thus, logically inconsistent. If you want a theory that is logically consistent, I suggest you consider socionics which does not change their definitions so liberally.


doesn't socionics correlate personality type with physical attributes ?.....hargwarsh


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

SPtheGhost said:


> doesn't socionics correlate personality type with physical attributes ?.....hargwarsh


They claim that it does here at least!

Psychological Type profiles


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

SPtheGhost said:


> doesn't socionics correlate personality type with physical attributes ?.....hargwarsh


Of course. Correlations can be measured low, moderate, strong, etc..

There are probably many moderate correlations, such as, intuitives having worse posture.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

hornet said:


> How does Ni energize me?
> I have no idea...
> The mechanism is eluding me.
> I just get really charged by using it.
> I can sit and dream about a possible future, afterwards I have more mental energy.


It doesn't energize you, however, things that Ni directs you to, can energize you. Ni is just what you focus on, based on what has given you less energy and/or pain OR pleasure and/or more energy unto an emotional/ physical homeostasis unique per individual.

Also, help yourself with combinbing Ni with Se.

Se, hey look at all these details! Ni, yes lets find how those details relate to me, my past, and my understanding of the world, yay!

Se Ni= simple details + assigning complex meanings to the details.

Ne Si= complex meanings + assigning past details to the meanings.

A Ne Si user still uses Se, in that, when you are driving, you can still see where you are going, you just arent focused on the details, because you are busy assigning broader meaning to your past details.

Okay, sorry aabout this entire post. Lol.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Souled In said:


> Of course. Correlations can be measured low, moderate, strong, etc..
> 
> There are probably many moderate correlations, such as, intuitives having worse posture.


ENTj full lips, ENTp long fingers... Sounds like some form of eugenics.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

hornet said:


> ENTj full lips, ENTp long fingers... Sounds like some form of eugenics.


Lol. People don't usually get rowed up if you correct their posture, haha.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

hornet said:


> ENTj full lips, ENTp long fingers... Sounds like some form of eugenics.


Interesting  
Hmm if that _were_ true, that would make ME an ENTx and despite my admiration for those types, that is un-possible *duh*.


----------



## trice (Nov 7, 2010)

I have horrible posture. Se says straighten up that back every now and then, but not too too often. Ni or Ti says your gonna be crooked when you're older if you keep sitting like that...Is that right?


----------



## Dental Floss Tycoon (Apr 4, 2011)

I hate this kind of behaviour, in the flying apple alegory, associated to Ni. Crazy links you make inside your head are just crazy links. I generally prefer a more pragmatic approach. 

(However, for instance, sometimes I laugh at things with no apparent reason for doing it. It just reminded me of something or I built some sort of mental image of it and how the situation could develop, and it was funny for me.) 

Ironically, I'm a dominant Ni. Or at least, I think so. Is this possible?

Also, I would like to ask someone this: sometimes, I don't feel quite sure if I'm INTJ or INFJ, and I'd like to know some probable practical situation where I could know if I mostly use Te or Fe.


----------



## Pearose (Nov 22, 2010)

Twinkletwinklelittlegrape said:


> Basically, Ni is able to strip reality of laws of physics and even all forms of common sense. In the Ni world, there is no such thing as counter-intuitive thinking and there is no such thing as "impossible" thinking for the things yet left unknown. Even for things that are perceived to be known, Ni believes that more often than not, reality is lying and is hiding something from all of us.


I understand the Ni viewpoint and how the seemingly impossible is possible, but only if everyone is willing to see it, too. Most people seem to believe only what they can see or feel directly and may not be open to believing what they can't see or feel. If it's not clear to them, then it's not true. Kinda like smart engineer types who think their backyard is the benchmark for global warming because of their not so funny jokes about 10" of global warming that needs to be shoveled from their driveway. It's like they make it personal in regard to their own ability to see something.


----------



## alamont (Mar 23, 2011)

*Understanding Ni*

Introverted intuition is an extremely difficult mental process to understand for even those for whom it's natural because it summarizes or synthesizes what has been acquired through the other perceiving processes. In doing so it identifies what is significant or has meaning, or it foresees or has insight into what is to be. 

Jung stated that Ni was an insight from the unconscious, and I find that it is the only one of the eight functions that cannot be accessed on demand. Additionally, the insight cannot be supported or defended without the person conjecturing how the insight materialized. This fact has been confirmed by many who have it as their dominant or most natural process. 

We need to recognize that no type has a monopoly on using Ni. We all use Ni just as we use all of the other functions. It's just that some of us are more aware and trusting of it than others.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

alamont said:


> Introverted intuition is an extremely difficult mental process to understand for even those for whom it's natural because it summarizes or synthesizes what has been acquired through the other perceiving processes. In doing so it identifies what is significant or has meaning, or it foresees or has insight into what is to be.
> 
> Jung stated that Ni was an insight from the unconscious, and I find that it is the only one of the eight functions that cannot be accessed on demand. Additionally, the insight cannot be supported or defended without the person conjecturing how the insight materialized. This fact has been confirmed by many who have it as their dominant or most natural process.
> 
> We need to recognize that no type has a monopoly on using Ni. We all use Ni just as we use all of the other functions. It's just that some of us are more aware and trusting of it than others.


Great post on Ni. 

I'd say that this -


> Jung stated that Ni was an insight from the unconscious, and I find that it is the only one of the eight functions that cannot be accessed on demand. Additionally, the insight cannot be supported or defended without the person conjecturing how the insight materialized. This fact has been confirmed by many who have it as their dominant or most natural process.


Is counter to my experience. Well, not so much the support/defend point, but I haven't needed to do that (it's true that I draw a blank if someone wants me to explain how I got the information - I just get it in this instant and mystical sort of way).

Your point about doing it on command, or on demand, does not hold for my own experience. I can slip into rapport with my unconscious mind and grok all sorts of things about myself - or even professional clients (I have a web-based intuitive business). For me, it's all about having some practice with what that state is like and trusting myself to resonate in that way. Even though I'm ESFP, I can draw on Ni purposefully when I want to.

But I would agree, if someone wanted me to explain how I got the info, I can't say more except that it comes from the unconscious which reveals it to me through certain impressions that I can translate successfully into words.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Se: Look! A bridge! Looks fun, let's go get a closer look.
Si: I did not have fun last time I got a closer look at a bridge. I'll sit this one out guys.
Ne: That's ridiculous! You can have fun looking at it today even if it sucked last time.
Fi: Angtsy idealism and I'm going to whine a bit about this but it seems okay enough.
Te: Of course it is, Fi. Quit whining and have some fun.
Fe: Well, if you're all going to do it, then I will too.
Ne: Look, I'm hanging off the edge and nothing is going wrong. Magic! 
Se: Oh yeah, Ne? Well, look at me I'm leaning farther and think I'll jump over into the water, just for the pure joy of feeling the cold splash.
Si: This is insane. Too much like what happened last time. Should have stayed back like I wanted to!
Ni: Hmm I wonder if I can find a way to put this moment in my sci-fi novel.

(yeah maybe not, don't know what I'm talking about...)


----------

