# Smokescreen Perceptions.



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Hi.

I'm going to expand slightly upon an example I used in an earlier post on Ni - the smokescreen.

This example is helping people understand the perception functions in some Facebook groups - well-received so far, so here goes.

Imagine you're looking at a picture, and the entire thing is covered by a thick screen of smoke.

*Ni.*

As the smoke shifts and moves, you catch a couple of glimpses of what lies beneath.

Through Se, Ni picks up on all the spots it can see through, and fills in the rest of the image by asking itself what this information means, how is it all connected to each other and ultimately - what is behind the smokescreen.

Whether this image is accurate to what truly lies beneath the smokescreen, the Ni user will probably never know.

They are comfortable accepting the image created in their head, as the information they will receive.

This image, is their reality - and in a sense, they bypass the smokescreen.

*Se.*

As the smoke shifts and mov-*blows the smoke away to reveal entire image*.

Unlike Ni, Se isn't comfortable relying on simply guessing at what lies beneath the smoke.

Se types will prefer to remove the smoke, and expose the image for what it actually is, in reality.

The way in which they do this is by gathering more and more information - asking questions - clearing the smoke, by fleshing out the big picture.

Se types actively seek to understand the big picture, to clear the smoke.

*Si.*

As the smoke shifts and moves, the Si type zooms in on one section they can see through - what is this?

They explore within themselves the multiple possibilities that this singular piece of information might present - could this piece be the ocean? Could it be a pool? Could it be the sky? 

In order to figure this out, the Si type - without realising it - is comparing what they're seeing, to what they know - this blue is too dark to be the sky.. it's too dark to be a pool as well, never seen one like that.. it must be the ocean..

In doing this, Si types lift that section and surrounding sections of the image through the smokescreen to get a clearer image.

They search within themselves, for the answers they seek - relying on impressions they get, similarities, differences, vibes etc - in order to better understand what they're seeing.

Si would then repeat the process with the next bit of information they zoom in on, the next section they see through the smoke - and knowing what they already know about the previous piece of information, they are better equipped to identify what the next section is and pull it out of the smoke - eventually, through introspection and observing their own impressions, Si types will lift the entire picture through the smokescreen and see the whole thing for what it is - and, more than that, they will understand what each piece is, what it means to them, and how it fits into the big picture as a whole.

*Ne.*

As the smoke shifts and moves, the Ne type zooms in on one piece they can see through - what could this be?

Blue.. water, ocean? Pool? Sky? All of the above? 

They will then put all of this information together, as perhaps a pool in the sky, or one of those cordoned off swimming pools that are actually part of the beach.

The Ne type is comfortable with this. They don't need to flesh out the big picture from here.
They think they already know it - from this one piece of information, they explore numerous possibilities and create one, or more, most likely scenarios - "something like that, anyway" is good enough for Ne.

Ne has "the gist" of it and that's as far deep as Ne needs to, or wants, to go.

Ne may/may not decide to look for another gap in the smokescreen, and if they do, they'll apply the same thing to that - yellow, probably the sun or sand? Picture would have to be upside down for that, lol. Picasso? Sandy sun? Is it the horizon? Low tide? 

Notice how they've already moved on from the fact the last picture clearly has water. 

At some point they will connect them altogether and see the image for what it is, if they really try - but what is actually behind the smokescreen isn't what's important to Ne - it's what _ could _ be behind the smokescreen that's important and theorising about this, is what gets Ne rock hard.

Actually finding out, for real, what the image is kills the fun and excitement for Ne.
Novelty is gone. Ne moves on.

This is a _direct clash_ with Se, in which the information only becomes useful once the smoke has been cleared, so to speak.

--


Thoughts?


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

While this is not an opposition to what you wrote, and maybe to rephrase it a bit, I don't think Ni cares about the smokescreen or what's behind it at all. Ni cares about totality of the scene and its meaning. Tries to get at that by sending a query down the personal and collective unconscious and gets a response immediately, also not concerned if it is accurate or not. Pure Ni without any other interference works like this in my estimation.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Insentient said:


> While this is not an opposition to what you wrote, and maybe to rephrase it a bit, I don't think Ni cares about the smokescreen or what's behind it at all. Ni cares about totality of the scene and its meaning. Tries to get at that by sending a query down the personal and collective unconscious and gets a response immediately, also not concerned if it is accurate or not. Pure Ni without any other interference works like this in my estimation.


In what way does this differ from what I said?

EDIT: Added something similar in - key part of the process I left out - I implied it, but I do want it included in text, as well.
Cheers.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Insentient said:


> While this is not an opposition to what you wrote, and maybe to rephrase it a bit, I don't think Ni cares about the smokescreen or what's behind it at all. Ni cares about totality of the scene and its meaning. Tries to get at that by sending a query down the personal and collective unconscious and gets a response immediately, also not concerned if it is accurate or not. Pure Ni without any other interference works like this in my estimation.


I’m confused by this. So in this situation you’re saying Ni is ignoring the screen and the painting and asking “Why are we here in the first place and what is the meaning of this?”


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

spaceynyc said:


> I’m confused by this. So in this situation you’re saying Ni is ignoring the screen and the painting and asking “Why are we here in the first place and what is the meaning of this?”


I think he misread what "the scene" is, in a literal sort of "I'm looking at a jigsaw puzzle" kind of way, and is trying to get at how "deep" and "meaningful" Ni is, in that it doesn't care about the "scene" or what's behind the smokescreen, because there's more to the whole picture.. not comprehending the idea of the "scene" as being a totality in and of itself.

i.e not recognising the scene and smokescreen is a metaphor for the way the functions perceive information and unearth the whole picture.

I think he took it way more literal than intended, missing the point - but he did suggest something I implied and have now edited in more concretely, so that was handy.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Turi said:


> *Si.*
> 
> As the smoke shifts and moves, the Si type zooms in on one section they can see through - what is this?
> 
> ...


Extraordinarily accurate description of how the process works for me. In particular, the part about how identifying the first element... any element... provides an "anchor point" from which finding additional elements becomes much easier. Prior to finding that first element, there can be a great sense of disorientation. Also quite accurate is how the process will continue until all of the elements are identified and the big picture emerges... not JUST the big picture, but a thorough and detailed understanding of the framework needed to create and sustain that big picture.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

jcal said:


> Extraordinarily accurate description of how the process works for me. In particular, the part about how identifying the first element... any element... provides an "anchor point" from which finding additional elements becomes much easier. Prior to finding that first element, there can be a great sense of disorientation. Also quite accurate is how the process will continue until all of the elements are identified and the big picture emerges... not JUST the big picture, but a thorough and detailed understanding of the framework needed to create and sustain that big picture.


Awesome, this is great to hear - and yeah, I wanted the big picture 'emerging' to be how people visualised the process I had in my head - because for whatever reason, that's how I see Si.

I don't see Si as 'clearing the smoke' like Se, and I don't see it as bypassing the smoke like Ni does - I see it as kind of like when they pull up old ships etc out of the ocean - I see Si as hooking up a big ol' crane to a piece of information, and pulling it up through the smoke/out of the water.

I view it this way, because I see Si as being interested in more than the singular piece of information on the surface level - i.e pulling up a part of a ship out of the water lets you inspect the rest of the wreckage you pulled up - not just the bit you saw on the surface - you can see under the piece, see it from the sides etc, different angles etc, and Si types work with that information to basically put the ship back together - they understand all the parts, the more intricate details that the other perception functions miss, imo.

I'm not sure I'm accurately conveying what's in my head, but I hope you get the idea.

I believe that when an Si type grasps the 'big picture' they're practically an expert on the subject, it's not just a 'gist' or an 'overview' it's a deep understanding of everything that makes the 'big picture' the 'big picture'.


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

spaceynyc said:


> I’m confused by this. So in this situation you’re saying Ni is ignoring the screen and the painting and asking “Why are we here in the first place and what is the meaning of this?”


Ni doesn't ask. And it doesn't ignore anything. It takes in everything all at once and builds into it only using the person's own psyche. It doesn't just arrive at what it could mean, although it is part of it. It doesn't use what is right in front of it physically, because the only importance of that is that it's just a starting point and it's forgotten as soon as it starts the Ni process anyway.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Insentient said:


> Ni doesn't ask. And it doesn't ignore anything. It takes in everything all at once and builds into it only using the person's own psyche. It doesn't just arrive at what it could mean, although it is part of it. It doesn't use what is right in front of it physically, because the only importance of that is that it's just a starting point and it's forgotten as soon as it starts the Ni process anyway.


Source?


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

Turi said:


> Source?


Big bang.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Insentient said:


> Big bang.


Figured as much.


----------



## Heat Mirage (Jan 28, 2010)

Maybe it'd be different for an Ne-dom, but speaking just for myself, this is fairly accurate until the last portion. At the end of the day, as much fun as I might have speculating on what the picture might be or playing around with theories about it, I'm gonna want to know what it is and whether or not I was right or wrong or how close I was to either.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Insentient said:


> spaceynyc said:
> 
> 
> > I’m confused by this. So in this situation you’re saying Ni is ignoring the screen and the painting and asking “Why are we here in the first place and what is the meaning of this?”
> ...


I got you so what’s in front of Ni only serves as a launch pad or jumping off point for whatever personal tangent Ni might go off on its own mind. The physical only comes into play as sort of an starters pistol like at the beginning of a horse race and then Ni is going off on its own thing completely away from reality.

So it may see a painting, think of materialism and then dive into symbolic images of materialism and that will lead into another idea or connection like freedom from materialism and conjure up more visuals and then go off until it’s snapped back into reality. Bottom line is it ended up thinking of something that had nothing to do with the painting in the first place


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Heat Mirage said:


> Maybe it'd be different for an Ne-dom, but speaking just for myself, this is fairly accurate until the last portion. At the end of the day, as much fun as I might have speculating on what the picture might be or playing around with theories about it, I'm gonna want to know what it is and whether or not I was right or wrong or how close I was to either.


Yeah, of course - need for closure, right? 
Due to being a J dominant.

All of this was written from a 'dominant' perspective, I imagine it'll be a similar story for everyone who leads with a judging function - the need for closure, whether internal or external, will override what I've outlined, to some degree.

As a Ti dom, I imagine you require closure, of sorts, otherwise you're kind of at a loss for what to actually do with the information - i.e, what was the point?

The information, and speculations re: the information isn't actually closure for anyone who leads with a judging function, imo.
I expect this kind of reaction from all Fi, Fe, Ti and Te dominants - something should feel a little _off_ about what I wrote up - and that something is closure.

Fe and Te leading Si or Ni - wants to know what to actually do with the information - this is like, the final step, otherwise it's incomplete.
Fi and Ti leading Se or Ne - wants to know how this information fits into their inner world - how does it make sense? How can I use this information?

This might be a big difference between P and J doms - where P doms are comfortable just ending on the information itself, and the J doms feeling like this isn't 'finished' - wtf do we *do* with the information, now?
Maybe.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

spaceynyc said:


> I got you so what’s in front of Ni only serves as a launch pad or jumping off point for whatever personal tangent Ni might go off on its own mind. The physical only comes into play as sort of an starters pistol like at the beginning of a horse race and then Ni is going off on its own thing completely away from reality.
> 
> So it may see a painting, think of materialism and then dive into symbolic images of materialism and that will lead into another idea or connection like freedom from materialism and conjure up more visuals and then go off until it’s snapped back into reality. Bottom line is it ended up thinking of something that had nothing to do with the painting in the first place


I don't think this is accurate, to me this is just boredom.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

jcal said:


> Extraordinarily accurate description of how the process works for me. In particular, the part about how identifying the first element... any element... provides an "anchor point" from which finding additional elements becomes much easier. Prior to finding that first element, there can be a great sense of disorientation. Also quite accurate is how the process will continue until all of the elements are identified and the big picture emerges... not JUST the big picture, but a thorough and detailed understanding of the framework needed to create and sustain that big picture.


Agreed. After we find that first anchor point, the rest of the puzzle pieces have a guide that helps them fall into their respective places. "Blue...ocean, sky? Wait, texture looks more like water. Okay ocean. Is that sand? Sun? Okay I haven't seen the entire picture but I'm pretty sure this is a picture of the beach". Something like that...there's not 100% certainty until the entire picture is revealed but we do get a confidence about the probability of it being a beach. ISTJs are always comparing and contrasting things to other related things. We do it very often in order to solve problems.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Bunniculla said:


> Agreed. After we find that first anchor point, the rest of the puzzle pieces have a guide that helps them fall into their respective places. "Blue...ocean, sky? Wait, texture looks more like water. Okay ocean. Is that sand? Sun? Okay I haven't seen the entire picture but I'm pretty sure this is a picture of the beach". Something like that...there's not 100% certainty until the entire picture is revealed but we do get a confidence about the probability of it being a beach. ISTJs are always comparing and contrasting things to other related things. We do it very often in order to solve problems.


The biggest problem we face (at least I do), is that the importance and/or risk-factor of a decision/solution is inversely proportional to the level of trust we're willing to place in our inferior Ne to fill in missing information. With maturity, the threshold of where Ne "guesses" are sufficient to fill in the gaps becomes lower, but it never is something that feels natural/comfortable.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

jcal said:


> The biggest problem we face (at least I do), is that the importance and/or risk-factor of a decision/solution is inversely proportional to the level of trust we're willing to place in our inferior Ne to fill in missing information. With maturity, the threshold of where Ne "guesses" are sufficient to fill in the gaps becomes lower, but it never is something that feels natural/comfortable.


I know exactly what you mean. I'm always worried for no reason. It's actually pretty silly. My N peeps are like...how could those things happen? That's ridiculous. Gotta love inferior Ne. When I do try to "let go", it feels so foreign and still worrisome.


----------



## inregardstomyself (Mar 21, 2014)

Could you possibly do one for the judging functions?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> Source?


Sounded like it could be Jung.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Sounded like it could be Jung.


Doubtful.
Jung never described "Ni".
He described Introverted Intuitive types, i.e INxx in MBTI language, right?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

inregardstomyself said:


> Could you possibly do one for the judging functions?


I could try :/


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Sounded like it could be Jung.





Turi said:


> Doubtful.
> Jung never described "Ni".
> He described Introverted Intuitive types, i.e INxx in MBTI language, right?


Tertiary Ti, is childish, delusional, inflates itself and makes the person want to appear intellectual, scientific, when actually their "frameworks" are childish and inadequate as they are. And the worst part is, when you try to help them or try to engage in discussion with them, they take it as a personal attack and become hostile to you, and act on this out of nowhere. I ignored him in another thread too because arguing with this kind of thing is pretty pointless. So I'm writing this on the off chance that another Te type might stumble onto here and understand why some people may become suddenly hostile while they have no ground to stand on.



Carl Gustav Jung said:


> 8. Intuition
> 
> Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.
> 
> Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervation disturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> Doubtful.
> Jung never described "Ni".
> He described Introverted Intuitive types, i.e INxx in MBTI language, right?


Oh, but he did describe "Ni". And I see the direct source was already provided.

Although you are not mistaken on that Jung's _type_ description itself is about people who are introverted intuitives. May it translate to MBTI or not.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Oh, but he did describe "Ni". And I see the direct source was already provided.
> 
> Although you are not mistaken on that Jung's _type_ description itself is about people who are introverted intuitives. May it translate to MBTI or not.


This is perfect - the section quoted, I don't read as an "Ni" descriptor.
It's a descriptor of Introverted Intuitive types - i.e, INxx types.

I'm unsure of the point in the attack @Insentient made on "tertiary Ti" users, for numerous reason, the most glaring is where precisely does Jung say the direction of the tertiary function is in the same direction as the dominant function?

If we're going back to Jung (whether it supports your argument or not, @Insentient), then surely we should stick strictly to what Jung himself said, rather than pick and choose various pieces of various theories, yeah?


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

Turi said:


> If we're going back to Jung (whether it supports your argument or not, @Insentient), then surely we should stick strictly to what Jung himself said, rather than pick and choose various pieces of various theories, yeah?


This is exactly what I'm talking about, it's almost funny. Childish Ti is threatened; first it appeals to authority because it doesn't have the capacity to come up with theories itself and can't see that they can be fluid, that they are just ideas that can be just talked about; then secondly, it tries to turn the tables on the perceived threat passive aggressively. Finally it will end with a strong and wise Fi realization that maybe what happened was disrespectful and then if we're lucky, a good Fe judgement will be reached so that a potentially pointless argument will end before it starts.

I'm not gonna get dragged to this thing that I've witnessed so many times in the past. But that's the beauty of Jungian ideas; now I can understand why people behave the way do and identify them.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Insentient said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about, it's almost funny. Childish Ti is threatened; first it appeals to authority because it doesn't have the capacity to come up with theories itself and can't see that they can be fluid, that they are just ideas that can be just talked about; then secondly, it tries to turn the tables on the perceived threat passive aggressively. Finally it will end with a strong and wise Fi realization that maybe what happened was disrespectful and then if we're lucky, a good Fe judgement will be reached so that a potentially pointless argument will end before it starts.
> 
> I'm not gonna get dragged to this thing that I've witnessed so many times in the past. But that's the beauty of Jungian ideas; now I can understand why people behave the way do and identify them.


A diversionary tactic, nice - by pointing the finger at the others shortcomings, you're able to avoid responding to a critical issue and key part of the opponents argument that requires addressing in order for the conversation to continue.

Essentially, you've thrown in the towel and tried to make it look like this is because _I'm_ the fool, when in actuality, it's because you haven't formulated a coherent response, and have been caught in a check-mate.

Nice! I like it!


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> This is perfect - the section quoted, I don't read as an "Ni" descriptor.
> It's a descriptor of Introverted Intuitive types - i.e, INxx types.


Why not? It mostly talks about the effects of the attitude towards the nature of intuition. The example of the type is given separately.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

DOGSOUP said:


> Oh, but he did describe "Ni". And I see the direct source was already provided.


The direct source is from reddit. Do you know which book it appeared in? Or lecture?

Also, this source appears to be what a reddit user wrote.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Why not? It mostly talks about the effects of the attitude towards the nature of intuition. The example of the type is given separately.


Agree to disagree, but that is simply an introverted intuitive descriptor to me, not a description of a 'function'.
I'd love to hear from 'aux Ne' users, see if they relate more to that, or the extraverted intuitive descriptor.

Lol.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

brightflashes said:


> The direct source is from reddit. Do you know which book it appeared in? Or lecture?


Are you sure? I did not know Jung posts on reddit too.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> Agree to disagree, but that is simply an introverted intuitive descriptor to me, not a description of a 'function'.
> I'd love to hear from 'aux Ne' users, see if they relate more to that, or the extraverted intuitive descriptor.
> 
> Lol.


I most respectfully disagree to agree to disagree.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

DOGSOUP said:


> Are you sure? I did not know Jung posts on reddit too.


Huh? 

I don't know where the quote is from - if it does appear in a Jung publication. However, I found the exact quote provided posted by a reddit user here: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/46woi0/ni_jung/?st=jbfrd9v5&sh=288a6735

I'm just asking where the quote is from. Which book, publication, lecture, etc... did Jung say these things? Is my question really that hard to understand? You specifically said that another member here provided a "direct quote" from Jung. I was wondering where THAT quote was from, so I searched google for it. It led me to just that one post on Reddit. 

I don't use Reddit myself.


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

brightflashes said:


> The direct source is from reddit. Do you know which book it appeared in? Or lecture?
> 
> Also, this source appears to be what a reddit user wrote.


Are you kidding me? I copy pasted this from the PDF of Psychological Types that I have in my PC. Do you even have the book?

Don't answer that, I'm gonna get an aneurysm from all the irrationality here.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Insentient said:


> Are you kidding me? I copy pasted this from the PDF of Psychological Types that I have in my PC. Do you even have the book?
> 
> Don't answer that, I'm gonna get an aneurysm from all the irrationality here.


 @DOGSOUP

Oh yeah, I do have that book. I just wondered where the source was from. I have no clue why you guys are being so weird about my question. The only place I could find it online was on reddit, and I was wondering if this was quoted from a lecture that I hadn't reviewed yet. I haven't read psychological types in about 10 years, though. : )

I hope no one thought that I thought it was posted ORIGINALLY on reddit. I only meant that the only place I could find that exact quote was on reddit.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

brightflashes said:


> Huh?
> 
> I don't know where the quote is from - if it does appear in a Jung publication. However, I found the exact quote provided posted by a reddit user here: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/46woi0/ni_jung/?st=jbfrd9v5&sh=288a6735
> 
> I'm just asking where the quote is from. Which book, publication, lecture, etc... did Jung say these things? Is my question really that hard to understand?


Legit thought it was a trick question.

I have so far been under the illusion that the quote is from Psychological types, the pretty well-known chapter-whatever-where-he-describes-the-types-in-great-detail. Though it has been a while since I saw a paper copy of the book whereas now when checking something I must rely on internet sources, but the quote seemed to match that very description.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Insentient - no, you didn't.

That's not a direct quote.
There's a crucial difference right off the bat, that shapes the entire thing to support your argument.

Spot the difference:



> "Introverted intuition is directed to the inner object, a term that might justly be applied to the contents of the unconscious. The relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, though their reality is not physical but psychic. They appear to intuitive perception as subjective images of things which, though not to be met with in the outside world, constitute the contents of the unconscious, and of the collective unconscious in particular.
> 
> These contents per se are naturally not accessible to experience, a quality they have in common with external objects. For just as external objects correspond only relatively to our perception of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner objects are also relative—products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function.
> 
> ...


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

brightflashes said:


> @DOGSOUP
> 
> Oh yeah, I do have that book. I just wondered where the source was from. I have no clue why you guys are being so weird about my question. The only place I could find it online was on reddit, and I was wondering if this was quoted from a lecture that I hadn't reviewed yet. I haven't read psychological types in about 10 years, though. : )
> 
> I hope no one thought that I thought it was posted ORIGINALLY on reddit. I only meant that the only place I could find that exact quote was on reddit.


Well yes you see, I recalled you had the book in your possession. It confused me immensively when you were inquiring about something I knew you knew.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

@Turi 

Thanks so much for bringing reality home to me. I really couldn't remember where I had read that - and worried I was misremembering Jung. It was quite distressing for me, actually lol. Anyway, glad you found the true quote. : )


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

DOGSOUP said:


> Well yes you see, I recalled you had the book in your possession. It confused me immensively when you were inquiring about something I knew you knew.


I didn't remember that part from the book, though. So I was _extremely_ confused, myself.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

It should also be noted the book does not number the section with an 8.

Nor does it number any sections in that fashion.


@Insentient did not copy what he quoted from Psychological Types.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> @Insentient - no, you didn't.
> 
> That's not a direct quote.
> There's a crucial difference right off the bat, that shapes the entire thing to support your argument.
> ...


I'm tired and this is too much like finding waldo or some shit, what is the point you are trying to make. From what I see, Jung's description still supports his original argument, to which you wanted a source for. That has now been established. Then you just claim Jung wasn't describing function he was describing type. And I am supposed to agree to disagree about something that is just demonstrably untrue as he described both.

I'll soon have to start asking you to cite every single bit of your theorizations as well. As you seem fond of providing sources for others I am sure you won't mind providing them for yourself.


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

Turi said:


> It should also be noted the book does not number the section with an 8.
> 
> Nor does it number any sections in that fashion.
> 
> ...


Hahaha. OK. roud:


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Ooh I managed to find a source that DOES number the section as 8


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Ooh I managed to find a source that DOES number the section as 8


Cool, which one, and what about the alteration of the first paragraph? I haven't gone through the entire thing to see if other sections of the post @Insentient quoted from have been altered.

Are there numerous 'versions' of Psychological Types?


----------



## Insentient (Sep 22, 2016)

Turi said:


> Cool, which one, and what about the alteration of the first paragraph? I haven't gone through the entire thing to see if other sections of the post @Insentient quoted from have been altered.
> 
> Are there numerous 'versions' of Psychological Types?


Yes, I have devilishly altered Jung's text to suit my diabolical purposes and to win an argument. You have caught me. You are so perceptive, you've even caught me fabricating "number 8" on the chapter title. I admit, I was not expecting such thoroughness. I am a hack. You can sleep easy.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Turi said:


> Are there numerous 'versions' of Psychological Types?


I know there are at least two. I believe one is considered an edit of the original, rather than two English translations, however.

I would guess the numbered version is part of "The Collected Works..." since they'd need to organize the books in some way. But that's just a guess.

I'm kind of sorry for starting this, though. I didn't mean to derail the thread so far to the side.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> I'm tired and this is too much like finding waldo or some shit, what is the point you are trying to make. From what I see, Jung's description still supports his original argument, to which you wanted a source for. That has now been established. Then you just claim Jung wasn't describing function he was describing type. And I am supposed to agree to disagree about something that is just demonstrably untrue as he described both.



I may/may not be wrong about what Jung was outlining - was it a description of a function?
In what position? Any position? In general?
I'm aware the following section is on the "Introverted Intuitive type" - which is, what, now - Ni dominants? INxx types?
What happens to INxPs with 'Ne'?
If the "Introverted Intuitive type" section is describing an INxJ type (he does specify the descriptor is in relation to those who's introverted intuition gains ascendancy) - then what, exactly, is the section I quoted (directly from the book btw) in relation to?


Do people with 'tertiary' 'Ni' relate to what Jung wrote about introverted intuition, or introverted intuitive types?
How much? Does it define them? Is it a major part of who they are? Enough to type someone by?


Without getting on the defensive - do you relate more to that descriptor, or the way Jung describes extraverted intuition?
Does it not make more sense, that an extravert would relate more to extraverted intuition, if they're an intuitive of any kind?




> I'll soon have to start asking you to cite every single bit of your theorizations as well. As you seem fond of providing sources for others I am sure you won't mind providing them for yourself.


Go for it. :smug:


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Insentient said:


> Yes, I have devilishly altered Jung's text to suit my diabolical purposes and to win an argument. You have caught me. You are so perceptive, you've even caught me fabricating "number 8" on the chapter title. I admit, I was not expecting such thoroughness. I am a hack. You can sleep easy.


The one you've quoted differs from my copy here, by a fair bit.
Like most sentences are slightly different.

Just realised mine's a 'revision' - say "A revision by R.F.C Hull of the translation by H.G Baynes" at the start.
Very interesting.


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

@Turi so would you consider both INTx types, for example, to be equally well described by Jung's "introverted intuitive" description and his "introverted thinking" description? And do you personally relate to both his "introverted intuitive" and "introverted feeling" [and to the same degree]?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

spiderfrommars said:


> @Turi so would you consider both INTx types, for example, to be equally well described by Jung's "introverted intuitive" description and his "introverted thinking" description? And do you personally relate to both his "introverted intuitive" and "introverted feeling" [and to the same degree]?


Not to the _same_ degree, I believe one will edge the other out a tad.

I'm curious as to whether people would agree with this kind of thing, I'll just use myself as an example, but I want to hear other people talk about themselves rather than just magically turn this into another thread that questions my type >_<

I'd go this, I'll use the 'function' names for ease:

Ni - most powerful
Fi-Ti - both almost as powerful, I use both to make decisions with, Fi edging out Ti a little.
Se - inferior function.

I do make decisions via 'Fe' as it's commonly understood to manifest in an IxFJ, but I feel like this is just an IxFx trait, maybe even just 'Feeling' in general.
I feel like I swap between Ni and Se, depending on my mood, really, where Se is my "I can't be fucked" mode, and Ni being default.

Even referring back to my smokescreen examples - I prefer how I outlined Ni, but if I'm tired, or can't be bothered, or 'in a mood' etc, then I prefer Se.
I prefer both Ni, and Se, over how I outlined Si or Ne.

How would you make up your little 'stack' if you just clean ignore the 'rules'?


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Turi said:


> How would you make up your little 'stack' if you just clean ignore the 'rules'?


I like this question. I think the most accurate stack for me is this: Ni>Te=Fi>Se. I'd also say that I have more Ti than not appearing anywhere in my stack, but I don't know where exactly I'd put it.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

spiderfrommars said:


> @Turi so would you consider both INTx types, for example, to be equally well described by Jung's "introverted intuitive" description and his "introverted thinking" description? And do you personally relate to both his "introverted intuitive" and "introverted feeling" [and to the same degree]?


I know you're not asking me but his Ni type is clearly describing INxPs and I can confidently type his Ti type as INTJ. However, I think it's possible that INTPs (the strongly T kind especially) will relate to the Ti type more than the Ni type. The Ni type has such strong P traits that it is hard to imagine any actual Judger relating to it although I'd think it would be possible. Jung cited Nietzsche as leading with Ni (with Ti behind), and he seems like he is INTJ by letters.


----------



## Heat Mirage (Jan 28, 2010)

Turi said:


> Agree to disagree, but that is simply an introverted intuitive descriptor to me, not a description of a 'function'.
> I'd love to hear from 'aux Ne' users, see if they relate more to that, or the extraverted intuitive descriptor.
> 
> Lol.


I read Jung's descriptions of both Ne and Ni in Psychological Types and frankly I can scarcely make heads or tails of his explanation of Ni, let alone relate to it. It could just be a deficiency in my understanding, but I definitely related better to his Ne description, although it was obviously written for Ne-doms and is thus a much more extreme version of what I experience. I'm very certain of my being an INTP for what it's worth.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Heat Mirage said:


> I read Jung's descriptions of both Ne and Ni in Psychological Types and frankly I can scarcely make heads or tails of his explanation of Ni, let alone relate to it. It could just be a deficiency in my understanding, but I definitely related better to his Ne description, although it was obviously written for Ne-doms and is thus a much more extreme version of what I experience. I'm very certain of my being an INTP for what it's worth.


Cheers mate, I'm unsure what to do with this information at the moment, because if you don't understand it, then it makes sense you can't relate to it.

What about introverted, and extraverted, thinking?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Heat Mirage @Turi I should've made it clear that I believe the general statement "if you relate most to Jung's Ni, then you are very likely INxP" to be true. However I do not believe the converse to also true ("if you are INxP, you will very likely relate most to Jung's Ni"). Jung's Ni is more like a subset of MBTI INxP, while a lot of INxPs will identify most with a different Jung type. So while Jung's Ni is the closest you'll come to an analog of INxP, the actual prevalence of Jung Ni types is quite a bit rarer than MBTI INxPs who are almost 10% of the population.


----------



## Heat Mirage (Jan 28, 2010)

Turi said:


> Cheers mate, I'm unsure what to do with this information at the moment, because if you don't understand it, then it makes sense you can't relate to it.
> 
> What about introverted, and extraverted, thinking?


Yeah, I admit I've never read a description of Ni that I felt I understood adequately; it's a strange function, but from what I garner it doesn't seem suited to me.

I can honestly say that I didn't relate to the description of Te at all, but I definitely related to the description of Ti. From reading those descriptions I can say with some certainty that my dad is a strong Te type, and while I've always admired that side of him, I've never been able to emulate it. I think most often in syllogisms when figuring something out and I rarely bring my ideas into the outside world. My thinking isn't about relating it back to the things and people in my environment, I don't enforce my ideas on others. I keep it to myself for personal amusement and intellectual growth.


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> I know you're not asking me but his Ni type is clearly describing INxPs and I can confidently type his Ti type as INTJ. However, I think it's possible that INTPs (the strongly T kind especially) will relate to the Ti type more than the Ni type. The Ni type has such strong P traits that it is hard to imagine any actual Judger relating to it although I'd think it would be possible. Jung cited Nietzsche as leading with Ni (with Ti behind), and he seems like he is INTJ by letters.


Thanks, very interesting. I agree the type is very P. It describes my mom very well and I can’t imagine she’d ever score J.

Do you think the same of Jung’s Si; that no J could relate to it?



Turi said:


> I'm curious as to whether people would agree with this kind of thing, I'll just use myself as an example, but I want to hear other people talk about themselves rather than just magically turn this into another thread that questions my type >_<


Yeah, sorry, didn't intend to do that, just wanted to get a better idea of how you were viewing it. Because you described Jung's "introverted intuiting type" as describing all INxx types equally, which implied to me that his "introverted feeling type" should describe all IxFxs equally, and therefore both INFx types should be described equally by both. I only asked about you as one path to understanding how you viewed it generally.



> I do make decisions via 'Fe' as it's commonly understood to manifest in an IxFJ, but I feel like this is just an IxFx trait, maybe even just 'Feeling' in general.


Interesting.



> I feel like I swap between Ni and Se, depending on my mood, really, where Se is my "I can't be fucked" mode, and Ni being default.


If anything, I feel I swap between Ni and Ne, which does not really work, of course.



> Even referring back to my smokescreen examples - I prefer how I outlined Ni, but if I'm tired, or can't be bothered, or 'in a mood' etc, then I prefer Se.
> 
> I prefer both Ni, and Se, over how I outlined Si or Ne.


Referring back to your smokescreen examples, I relate most to Ni. I noticed that Ni+Se both are apprehending the whole picture at once (Ni by filling in the details and Se by clearing all the smoke to see the full picture), while Si+Ne are both focusing on one chunk at a time, understanding that to the extent they want to (the gist for Ne and depth for Si), then moving onto another and likely later combining them.

So this would suggest Ni > Se for me but I see less Se usage (as you've described it, or in other ways) in myself than you are seeing in yourself.



> How would you make up your little 'stack' if you just clean ignore the 'rules'?


I'm not certain. Part of the reason I asked is because I am trying to determine if I am Ni or Ti. Perhaps thinking about this will be helpful.

My definitions of the functions are a composite of Jung's types, socionics descriptions, various MBTI descriptions, and so on, so I'll ignore all that for a bit and answer based solely on how Jung describes his types. From that, my three 'functions' would be Ni, Ti and Te. (I can also relate to some descriptions of Ne...but not really Jung's "extraverted intuition" type, so Te > Ne in this case.)

Ni-Ti
Te
(Fe or Se) -- again, both seem possible, and it seems to depend somewhat on what exactly the inferior is

Let's assume my inferior should be "properly" tied to my first, as that's intrinsic to how Jung describes them. So

Ni
Ti-Te
Se

or

Ti
Ni-Te
Fe

I mean, I don't have an answer for sure, because I guess if I could definitively answer this question, I'd know my type, even if my answer didn't exactly match that type, you know? Because if I could definitively pick Ti or Ni, I'd be picking Ti-Ne/INTP/LII or Ni-Te/INTJ/ILI and I'd be done.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

spiderfrommars said:


> Thanks, very interesting. I agree the type is very P. It describes my mom very well and I can’t imagine she’d ever score J.
> 
> Do you think the same of Jung’s Si; that no J could relate to it?


Jung's Si type is trickier. When you look at it as a subset of "Introverted Irrational" which Jung recaps after describing his Ni and Si type, it becomes significantly more difficult to see it applying to J types. A lot of ISxJs don't really have a great home in Jung's types due to the intuitive connotation he attaches to introverts, which also can explain INxPs relating to his Si type.

I'd guess a lot of ISxJs relate most to Je types, but even so they aren't a perfect fit because they describe clearly extraverted traits. Still they do emphasize shared/group values, which a lot of ISxJs do prioritize. The Ti type is very anti-conventional in a way that a lot of ISTJs may have trouble relating to, although some may fit it best. Fi is a lot less "intuitive" and can probably be related to by a lot of ISFJs and even ISTJs.

Anyway given the lack of great options, and the Si description which can be sort of stretched to fit most people, I can see quite a few ISxJs picking it out as the description they relate most to even if it doesn't have any specific resonance. However, they probably have a difficult time identifying as Introverted Irrationals.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Turi said:


> I may/may not be wrong about what Jung was outlining - was it a description of a function?
> In what position? Any position? In general?
> I'm aware the following section is on the "Introverted Intuitive type" - which is, what, now - Ni dominants? INxx types?
> What happens to INxPs with 'Ne'?
> If the "Introverted Intuitive type" section is describing an INxJ type (he does specify the descriptor is in relation to those who's introverted intuition gains ascendancy) - then what, exactly, is the section I quoted (directly from the book btw) in relation to?


If I remember everything correctly, Jung goes through what happens to intuition when it becomes extroverted or introverted and talks in detail about "types" that rely solely on this function attitude.

There is nothing "J" about Jung's description of introverted intuition / intuitive type. It is almost the opposition of all judgement, pure irrationality and instinctive intuition. Someone here once said that a feral child coming up with myths to explain the world would be pure intuition -- no taught facts, no reliable observations, no external structure or ideology, no reasoning, no value even.. It just emerges as parts of perception, to fill in for what is rejected or left out when there is no rationality or sensation. To understand and interpret things that are out of reach for the other functions.



> Do people with 'tertiary' 'Ni' relate to what Jung wrote about introverted intuition, or introverted intuitive types?
> How much? Does it define them? Is it a major part of who they are? Enough to type someone by?


It might be that there are elements in it that resonate with them, although theoretically it ought not be very conscious to them. As type is a habitual tendency, it would be wiser to focus on identifying the functions that are strong, adapted and in the conscious focus. Typing by the 'tertiary' is not ideal also because there isn't really a clear idea held in common about its exact role, whereas the dominant and inferior have a pretty distinct dynamic going on in comparison. Depends on the typing system and definitions you use.



> Without getting on the defensive - do you relate more to that descriptor, or the way Jung describes extraverted intuition?
> Does it not make more sense, that an extravert would relate more to extraverted intuition, if they're an intuitive of any kind?


I'm pretty ambiguous about intuition and oftentimes do not deem it necessary to separate between "potential of objects" and their "symbolical meaning to the subject" because both _anticipate change_, which seems like the essential part. If I were to pick a jungian type it'd mainly be extroverted feeling type, or extroverted intuition as the only other alternative, just not very likely one. Introverted intuition doesn't seem like me because all Jung's introverted types are extremely and profoundly _ detached_ from my pov, although I have incorporated some ideas and perspectives into how I experience and view intuition in general. It seems that some people see me as more Ne-ish and some as more Ni-ish, funny enough it usually depends on their own preferences. I'd say it is both and neither. I prefer Ni by most interpretations, however.



> Go for it. :smug:


It wasn't meant as a challenge or a dare but I am glad you are ready to rise to the occasion.


----------



## boozsnooz (Feb 19, 2021)

Insentient said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about, it's almost funny. Childish Ti is threatened; first it appeals to authority because it doesn't have the capacity to come up with theories itself and can't see that they can be fluid, that they are just ideas that can be just talked about; then secondly, it tries to turn the tables on the perceived threat passive aggressively. Finally it will end with a strong and wise Fi realization that maybe what happened was disrespectful and then if we're lucky, a good Fe judgement will be reached so that a potentially pointless argument will end before it starts.
> 
> I'm not gonna get dragged to this thing that I've witnessed so many times in the past. But that's the beauty of Jungian ideas; now I can understand why people behave the way do and identify them.


i dont know this turi guys, and i don't care what he used to say. reading through this 5 year old thread, you are clearly wrong. you have not once even attempted to debate because others are "irrational" but you haven't said anything that is correct. all i see is that you first misunderstood the analogy, and second shared a misplaced quote.

you were unable to criticize the OP's description of Ni with facts and reason. it is accurate as far as Ni's metaphysical and linear focus go. if you want your high horse, you gotta earn it cuz not every dingus gets to right it


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

lol does anyone else miss Turi


----------

