# Te/Ni and Ni/Te



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

1. INTJ is Ni dominant and ENTJ is Te dominant: Correct?

2. Extraverts are classified by how they react in social situations: Correct?

3. Is it possible for a person to have an introverted cogntive function and actually be extraverted in personality?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

RobynC said:


> 1. INTJ is Ni dominant and ENTJ is Te dominant: Correct?


Aye, that's the theory of it.



RobynC said:


> 2. Extraverts are classified by how they react in social situations: Correct?


May depend on who you talk to. The most common distinction used for extrovert/introvert is: Being drained by social interaction like a battery (introvert) vs. being energized by social interaction (extrovert).



RobynC said:


> 3. Is it possible for a person to have an introverted cogntive function and actually be extraverted in personality?


I think it is - and vice-versa. 

Which is one of the reasons why I initially delved into the functions and wasn't satisfied with the MBTI model. 

If we're defining extrovert/introvert _personality_ by the above condition (drained or energized by social interaction) I have little doubt we could find someone who - for example - identifies most with Te-dominant, but is drained by social interaction. Or identifies with Ni-dominant, but is energized by social interaction. 

Gives us more breathing room for exceptions and honestly, makes more sense imo, considering that the condition "drained or energized by social interaction" can be influenced by special circumstances. For example, someone with social anxiety is probably going to be more drained by social interaction than someone with little to no social anxiety.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> 1. INTJ is Ni dominant and ENTJ is Te dominant: Correct?


Correct



> 2. Extraverts are classified by how they react in social situations: Correct?


Not necessarily, extraverts are classified by their positive relation to the objects (external things), which does tend to lead extravert's to have a more positive relation in social settings, but being social isn't a definitive trait for all extravert's, or should I say the scale of how social an extravert is depends on, not only what type of extravert they are (Thinking, feeling, intuition, sensing), but environmental aspects (nurture) also factor in. There are extravert's who can go into an introvert phase, and vice versa. There are also extravert's who can be much more introverted in comparison to other extravert's because of growing up in a household of all introverts, which would greatly influence them to be less extraverted than other extravert's.



> 3. Is it possible for a person to have an introverted cogntive function and actually be extraverted in personality?


Read answer to second question, but yes one could have a differentiated introverted function but come off as more extraverted in comparison to other introverts, due to a combination of what content is the introvert oriented towards (thinking, intuition, etc.) and nurture (environmental influences). 

Its also common for types too look like, to outsiders, as if they are equally as introverted as they are extraverted, which can also cause confusion.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

RobynC said:


> 1. INTJ is Ni dominant and ENTJ is Te dominant: Correct?
> 
> 2. Extraverts are classified by how they react in social situations: Correct?
> 
> 3. Is it possible for a person to have an introverted cogntive function and actually be extraverted in personality?


1 is correct.

2 is wrong.
Extroversion/introversion is where you place your attention predominantly. Extroverts look to the world for engagement. They will define themselves in relation to objects in the world. They will often align their inner values and adjust themselves to the world. Even if the extrovert opposes the outside world (like Ne doms are notorious for), this is still relative to the outside world.

Introverts are the opposite, they are more content with looking within. They find who they are from within. They will either force the environment around them to align with their inner values, or will move to an environment that aligns to them. When they are are not in their prefered environment they can feel they are wearing a mask to get by (but they don't lose their inner sense of self)

(the above, paraphrasing Lenore Thomson)

Both an introvert and extrovert will react to a social situation.

3 is correct.
Yes an introvert can appear as an extrovert, and vice versa (key word appear). Social anxiety or fears, lack of confidence, etc. may make someone appear as an introvert (in more laymans terms) however this has nothing to do with cognitive functions. Even extroverts can be shy.
Introverts in the right environment (as mentioned above) are able to be themselves and may appear very outgoing and extroverted to their closest friends. Not to mention we communicate with the world with our extroverted functions, this is what people predominately see, again an introvert can be mistaken for an extrovert.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

RobynC said:


> 1. INTJ is Ni dominant and ENTJ is Te dominant: Correct?


Correct.



> 2. Extraverts are classified by how they react in social situations: Correct?


Incorrect.



> 3. Is it possible for a person to have an introverted cogntive function and actually be extraverted in personality?


Correct.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

RobynC said:


> 3. Is it possible for a person to have an introverted cogntive function and actually be extraverted in personality?


Jung viewed extraversion/introversion as the most fundamental division underlying his types, and spent more of Psychological Types talking about the personality characteristics he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together. And Chapter X — the only part of Psychological Types where he gets into the functions in any detail — is organized accordingly. The first half of the chapter is devoted to "The Extraverted Type" and the second half to "The Introverted Type" — and the eight "function-types" consist of four varieties of the "extraverted type" and four varieties of the "introverted type."

So as far as Jung was concerned, you couldn't be one of his eight types without being either an extravert or an introvert, and without the attitude of your dominant function matching that overall orientation.

Myers said that the attitude of the _auxiliary_ function would be the _opposite_ of your E/I status — which is inconsistent with Jung (as discussed here) — but she followed Jung when it came to the idea that the attitude of a person's _dominant_ function would always _match_ their E/I status.

And that _E/I = attitude of dominant_ perspective is also shared by Thomson, Nardi, Berens, Quenk and every other relatively well-known function-centric MBTI theorist I've ever read.

The only people I've ever heard claim that an introvert can have a dominant extraverted function (or _vice versa_) are internet forumites who are either confused about the theory or have boldly formulated their own theory.

As a final note: If anybody's misled you into thinking that Jung's notions of E/I had nothing to do with what you might call _social extraversion_ and _social introversion_, that's very much not the case. Jung described introverts as "reserved, ... rather shy people," and explained that "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny" went to the heart of what it meant to be introverted; and said that extraverts, conversely, tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."

For more on Jung's (and Myers') view of extraverts and introverts, see this post.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Deus Absconditus



> Not necessarily, extraverts are classified by their positive relation to the objects (external things), which does tend to lead extravert's to have a more positive relation in social settings


Can you clarify what you mean by positive relation to objects?



> There are extravert's who can go into an introvert phase, and vice versa.


I seem to fit this profile




> Edit: I should also note that I'm referring to cognitive functions, which could differ from behavioral extraversion/introversion


I was thinking of the latter, the person feeling energized in groups.


@Ksara



> 2 is wrong.
> Extroversion/introversion is where you place your attention predominantly. Extroverts look to the world for engagement. They will define themselves in relation to objects in the world.


Can you clarify -- like provide an example?



> They will often align their inner values and adjust themselves to the world.


Almost everybody does that on some level...



> Even if the extrovert opposes the outside world (like Ne doms are notorious for), this is still relative to the outside world.


Can you clarify?



> Introverts are the opposite, they are more content with looking within.


What do you mean looking within? Doesn't everybody look within?



> They find who they are from within.


Can you clarify with an example?



> They will either force the environment around them to align with their inner values, or will move to an environment that aligns to them.


That seems kind of forceful and more extraverted LOL



> 3 is correct.


Understood



> Not to mention we communicate with the world with our extroverted functions, this is what people predominately see


Then what do the introverted functions do?


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

RobynC said:


> Can you clarify -- like provide an example?


I recommend reading the book- personality type: An Owners Manual, by Lenore Thomson. She has a lot of examples thought out the book.

One example she gave (again paraphrasing) was when running personality classes she administered mbit tests. She noticed that there were many introverts who attended (and found it all fascinating). She also noticed that the extroverts started to think they were introverts, and their mbti test results reflected this, that is they were adjusting themselves to the environment (being predominately introverts). She also noticed how the extroverted needed some sort of objective proof about what she was saying for them to buy into her personality theories.

My personal observations (these are my observations, could be trainted with my biases and may note speak for all types)

My sister is a Se Dom, she is always looking for something, or someone to engage with. When on her own she is bored because there is no event happening around here. Her attention is in the world and is not as interested in introspection. Who she is is defined in the moment.

My partner is a Ne Dom. Whilst he may not be as actively involved in activities, he is always looking for connections between things and all the possibilities in the world. His attention is towards what is happening in front of him and linking this to other events and ideas. Yes he may oppose aspects in the world, but even opposing something is still relating the self to something.





> Almost everybody does that on some level...


I think this may be because there are aspects of introversion and extroversion in a person's personality.
However, an extrovert is more likely to adjust themselves to their environment. Je takes their judgment from their environments and this will change as what they base their judging criteria changes. Pe is always taking in information from the environment and what they perceive will change as the environment changes.
Yes the other functions may have opposite attitudes, however they work to support the dominant function, which is the users world view and where they form their identity.



> Can you clarify?


Sorry I realise I wasn't clear with this.

_To draw an identity_ from opposing something is still drawing an identity in relation to it. If my ENFP thinks commercialism is wrong because it has led to a throw away culture, and now he bases his identity as someone who is conservative a won't throw things away, he is still measuring himself with something external to him. This is still relative to the outside world (if the throw away culture did not exist, now his identity in context to this can not exist)




> What do you mean looking within? Doesn't everybody look within?


Yes as there are aspects of out personality is introverted.
However, the primary mode of the introvert, where their attention is most of the time. They are not paying attention to their environment (Pe), they are focused on their inner perception (Pi) be it their subjective sensations or intuition. They are not paying attention to ordering their environment (Je) they are more concerned with structuring their mind (Ji)
And introverts other functions are to support their dominant introverted function, this is their world view and their identity.



> Can you clarify with an example?


Now all introverted functions have internal values (I have not limited value to feeling values associated with Fi here).
Si draw a sense of who they are from their subjective inner sensations and details important to them
Ni draws a sense of who they are from the images and visions that arise from their subconscious.
Fi draws a sense of who they are through what the subjectively consider right/wrong
Ti draws a sense of who they are through what personally makes sense to them.

None of these introverted functions relate the user to the outside world or define them in context to the world.



> That seems kind of forceful and more extraverted LOL


Haha it does,
Never come across a stubborn introvert? 

Ni will attempt to bring about their inner vision into the world. They will not listen to someone who says it's not possible and will still attempt to make it happen.
Si will arrange their environment to be comfortable, for them. If someone tries to push them into a new environment Si may resist or change it to their liking.
Fi will attempt to do what it considers right, and will avoid environments that do not align with this view.
Ti will do what makes sense and will avoid environments that don't make sense.

Either the environment is changed to suit their inner desires, or they find a space in the world that fits them. An introvert does not want to have to defer their inner views or ideals if they can avoid it.





> Then what do the introverted functions do?


I think the Ji functions are more about self discipline, internal order, a moral code, what is important.

I have seen the Pi functions described as information storage functions.


Again a lot of information I am paraphrasing (so I could have made a mistakes)
Lenore Thomson's book does explain this well, and probably better than I. Going straight to Jung is probably even better than this.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Ksara



> One example she gave (again paraphrasing) was when running personality classes she administered mbit tests. She noticed that there were many introverts who attended (and found it all fascinating). She also noticed that the extroverts started to think they were introverts, and their mbti test results reflected this, that is they were adjusting themselves to the environment (being predominately introverts).


So they tried to fit in?



> She also noticed how the extroverted needed some sort of objective proof about what she was saying for them to buy into her personality theories.


Like real examples?



> However, an extrovert is more likely to adjust themselves to their environment. Je takes their judgment from their environments and this will change as what they base their judging criteria changes.


1. Is Je coupled to Pi?

2. What would be the explanation of a person's judging criteria changing?



> Pe is always taking in information from the environment and what they perceive will change as the environment changes.
> Yes the other functions may have opposite attitudes, however they work to support the dominant function, which is the users world view and where they form their identity.


1. Is Pe coupled to Ji?

2. So Pe's tend to adjust readily with the environment even if it's not wise to do so?



> _To draw an identity_ from opposing something is still drawing an identity in relation to it. If my ENFP thinks commercialism is wrong because it has led to a throw away culture, and now he bases his identity as someone who is conservative a won't throw things away, he is still measuring himself with something external to him.


Uh, compared to the most extreme liberals I'm very conservative; compared to conservatives I'm kid of liberal. Is that what you mean?

How would a person work if they defined themselves from inside?



> However, the primary mode of the introvert, where their attention is most of the time. They are not paying attention to their environment (Pe), they are focused on their inner perception (Pi) be it their subjective sensations or intuition. They are not paying attention to ordering their environment (Je) they are more concerned with structuring their mind (Ji)


Uh, I've done all these things.



> Si draw a sense of who they are from their subjective inner sensations and details important to them


To clarify what would qualify?



> Ni draws a sense of who they are from the images and visions that arise from their subconscious.


Like a dream?



> Fi draws a sense of who they are through what the subjectively consider right/wrong


I relate to that a bit



> Ti draws a sense of who they are through what personally makes sense to them.


I get that...



> Haha it does, Never come across a stubborn introvert?


I've come across stubborn PEOPLE!



> Ni will attempt to bring about their inner vision into the world. They will not listen to someone who says it's not possible and will still attempt to make it happen.


If I was told it wasn't possible I wouldn't do it unless the person who told me this was wrong.



> Ti will do what makes sense and will avoid environments that don't make sense.


That's pretty straight forward!



> Either the environment is changed to suit their inner desires, or they find a space in the world that fits them.


I've done both of these...



> I think the Ji functions are more about self discipline, internal order, a moral code, what is important.


It's important to have a sense of discipline and self control. If you don't control yourself -- you will get in trouble a lot: You also cannot do what you want if you don't have the dedication to succeed.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> Can you clarify what you mean by positive relation to objects?


A positive relation to objects is a movement of libido (individuals energy) from subject (individual) to object (external things). Its when the object compels the individual, or when the individual becomes energized from associating with the object or external things.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Deus Absconditus

1. When I hear the word Libido: I think sex-drive

2. When you say energized from associating with the object, you mean energized by socialization in this case?

3. Regarding extraverts and introverts
A. Extraverts would be more likely to go along to get along, correct?

B. Introverts would be more rigid and more willing to stick to their guns? 

C. ENTP/ENFP's tend to often go against the flow, despite relating themselves in relation to society itself?

D. I often see myself by two variables: How I am different from others (You have asperger syndrome, it's hard not to), and how I am seen by others (I've long since accepted the fact that many view me as an asshole -- I've made peace with it).


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

RobynC said:


> 1. INTJ is Ni dominant and ENTJ is Te dominant: Correct?


Correct.



> 2. Extraverts are classified by how they react in social situations: Correct?


As far as cognition goes, this is technically incorrect. It has to do with where your dominant focus lies and what are your tendencies in thought.

Sometimes an extraverted focus will lead to you matching the social tropes. Sometimes it won't, at least not particularly.



> 3. Is it possible for a person to have an introverted cogntive function and actually be extraverted in personality?


You mean, lead with an introverted cognitive function? Yes, possible.

More likely that the person is temporarily "extraverted in personality", but actually more reserved when the world leaves them alone.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @Deus Absconditus
> 
> 1. When I hear the word Libido: I think sex-drive


I should've probably explained that better. Sex drive libido is derived from Freud, Jung on the other hand defines libido as psychic energy, but psychic energy is just a synanym for the individuals energy as a whole. So when I say libido I'm not referring to Freud's definition but Jung's.



> 2. When you say energized from associating with the object, you mean energized by socialization in this case?


It matters on the function, Fe would be more prone to obtain energy from socialization, but all 4 extravert's are more prone to socialization that is oriented towards their interests in relation to introverts. 



> 3. Regarding extraverts and introverts
> A. Extraverts would be more likely to go along to get along, correct?


Te and Fe would, Se coming in next for most likely to do this, and Ne being repelled the most away from this. Ne and Se chase their perceptions, so going along to get along isn't their natural method. Both don't want to be limited, and impulsively act on their perceptions even if that would upset others or Pitt them against others. Ne specially has a problem with going along to get along, it chases its own possibilities at the expense of everything else and everyone else. The only time it'll ever "go along to get along" is when it leads them to the most possibilities, it basically uses the group to achieve its own possibilities, but once achieved it'll drop the group for new possibilities sooner or later. The same could be said for Se.



> B. Introverts would be more rigid and more willing to stick to their guns?


For the most part if we are talking about their main function only, but if we are looking st them as wholes then its a bit complicates. ISFJ and ISTJ both are more prone to "go along to get along" at a much higher rate than let's say "ENTP" and "ENFP", but on the other hand ENTJs and ENFJs are more prone to " go along to get along" than ISFJs and ISFPs. For the most part though introverts are least likely to "go along to get along" but I would say the type least likely to "go along to get along" would be between INTJ/ENTP.



> C. ENTP/ENFP's tend to often go against the flow, despite relating themselves in relation to society itself?


Its because of how they are related to society, which is they want to change society because of Ne's natural desire to accomplish its possibilities, and many of these possibilities including the ones we use to achieve them go against the framework of society, so we tend to want to change society in order to accomplish those possibilities or make it more acceptable. 

It also goes against society because it can see how it can make society better, but society doesn't always want to accept change in order to become better, so society pushes back, the more Ne's to push try to push society in a different direction.

Another reason is because society is naturally built to go against Ne. Society wants to be stabilized, it doesn't want change, it wants to be stagnant but content and surviving. That's why societies build up traditions and rules, to keep society grounded. Ne hates being grounded, it doesnt like rules, and it can care less for traditions. All it cares about is achieving its possibilities and that comes at the expense of everything else, and everything that becomes an obstacle it finds a way to destroy or beat it. Society is always stating what you can and can't do, Ne does what it wants to do, and hates being restricted.

Basically Society doesn't want change, Ne desires change, this causes a rift or a strife between the two, a never ending battle that sometimes ends in change, and other times ends up never changing at all. Ne also likes to be "unique" due to chasing new possibilities, what's new is what Ne desires, so being "unique" is a side effect of Ne.



> D. I often see myself by two variables: How I am different from others (You have asperger syndrome, it's hard not to), and how I am seen by others (I've long since accepted the fact that many view me as an asshole -- I've made peace with it).


Can you elaborate? Many different types can, and may do this for different reasons. Can you provide the reasoning behind why you compare & contrast yourself to others, and why you are focused on how others see you? 

If you want an answer based on what you have given though, then my answer is those are extraverted characteristics. Extravert's are usually the ones who compare themselves to others, while being focused on how others see or view them. 

I was going to present a statement from Jung on the matter but cant find it for some reason, when I do I'll make sure to post here as a future reference.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Deus Absconditus



> I should've probably explained that better.


I suppose you sorts of did, but the fact of the matter is that the definition is not one that's commonly used by society. Admittedly if I said impotent rage somebody could say "that sounds like a person's livid about being unable to get it up" rather than "rage over being powerless".



> It matters on the function, Fe would be more prone to obtain energy from socialization, but all 4 extravert's are more prone to socialization that is oriented towards their interests in relation to introverts.


Wouldn't that necessarily mean that they would be prone to find people who share their interests and be driven to change society in favor of them?

After all there were many activists that were Fe dominant (MLK probably), as well as many Te types in politics (who are driven to get things done logically in a sort of consequentialist fashion)



> Te and Fe would


Do they tend to lose their principles in their desire to go along moreso than introverted types? That being said, how is it that some activists tend to be remarkably consistent (MLK)



> Both don't want to be limited, and impulsively act on their perceptions even if that would upset others or Pitt them against others.


Which can range from being perceived as undisciplined, reckless, even antisocial or dangerous by other types, correct?



> Ne specially has a problem with going along to get along, it chases its own possibilities at the expense of everything else and everyone else.


The mad scientist and anarchist?



> The only time it'll ever "go along to get along" is when it leads them to the most possibilities, it basically uses the group to achieve its own possibilities, but once achieved it'll drop the group for new possibilities sooner or later.


Unless it becomes in charge of the group -- then they would potentially be driven to dominate the group (or reconfigure it) for their own interests making them one type of dictatorial personality, and would explain why many Ne types are often assertive types _(enneagram 7, 8, or 3)_



> The same could be said for Se.


ESTP is more concrete, ENTP is more unconventional for better or worse; both are surprisingly manipulative; both can be imposing though ESTP can be rougher.



> For the most part if we are talking about their main function only, but if we are looking st them as wholes then its a bit complicates. ISFJ and ISTJ both are more prone to "go along to get along" at a much higher rate than let's say "ENTP" and "ENFP", but on the other hand ENTJs and ENFJs are more prone to " go along to get along" than ISFJs and ISFPs. For the most part though introverts are least likely to "go along to get along" but I would say the type least likely to "go along to get along" would be between INTJ/ENTP.


INTJ and ENTP would probably not go along to get along for different reasons though...

Regardless
ISFJ and ISTJ would be at the top of going along to get along
ENTJ and ENFJ would be second in the line
ISFJ and ISFP would be further down
INTJ and ENTP would be the last in the listing

Where's ENFP, ESTJ, INFP, ESFJ, ESTP, and INFJ all rank? :th_wink:



> Its because of how they are related to society, which is they want to change society because of Ne's natural desire to accomplish its possibilities, and many of these possibilities including the ones we use to achieve them go against the framework of society, so we tend to want to change society in order to accomplish those possibilities or make it more acceptable.
> 
> It also goes against society because it can see how it can make society better


If they're right...



> society doesn't always want to accept change in order to become better


Actually, some people would probably see some of the ENTP's proposed changes as dangerous -- either through a lack of understanding, or through the fact that they tend to be more interested in the end result than the journey so to speak.



> Another reason is because society is naturally built to go against Ne.


Not always



> Society wants to be stabilized, it doesn't want change, it wants to be stagnant but content and surviving.


Well, I wouldn't say stagnant -- but a society generally prefers rules that are reasonably easy to understood, know what to do in order to survive, and so forth.

Stability is actually a quality that does tend to facilitate survival: As an example, supergiant stars, while they burn hot and brilliantly bright, don't last very long; they tend to go out with a devastating surge of energy that outshine whole galaxies for a few months, a couple of years, and as they die -- some of the energy they emit could even wipe out life on planets with life on them (like us) from thousands of LY away.

Red dwarfs on the other hand lasts trillions of years, and the yellow dwarf that we orbit stays stable for about 10 billion years, of which we're about 6 billion years through now: It has a high enough output to allow life to form, and stable enough for it to have evolved into creatures as smart as us.

A blue supergiant lasts a few hundred million years, even if a planet could form some archaebacteria on them (in addition to the obvious fact that planets that could tolerate life would have to be very far away from the star), they might be wiped out before multicellular life got to take a foothold (and almost certainly before human level intelligence could form and develop into advanced civilization).



> That's why societies build up traditions and rules, to keep society grounded.


For a good reason -- one should know what's expected of them, what they can, cannot, should, should not do; also rapid change in society past a certain rate of speed can be destructive. I won't say all traditions and rules are good though.



> Basically Society doesn't want change


Not when there's a plague or a draught...



> Ne also likes to be "unique" due to chasing new possibilities, what's new is what Ne desires, so being "unique" is a side effect of Ne.


That I never heard before...



> Can you elaborate? Many different types can, and may do this for different reasons. Can you provide the reasoning behind why you compare & contrast yourself to others, and why you are focused on how others see you?


I was socially awkward, my family moved around a bunch of times: I saw myself as an oddball and an outsider.

As for wanting to fit in, it's not good to be the oddball and outsider, plus I got picked on a lot



> If you want an answer based on what you have given though, then my answer is those are extraverted characteristics. Extravert's are usually the ones who compare themselves to others, while being focused on how others see or view them.


Understood 



> I was going to present a statement from Jung on the matter but cant find it for some reason, when I do I'll make sure to post here as a future reference.


I understand


BTW: Deus absconditus means something like to abandon god right?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> I suppose you sorts of did, but the fact of the matter is that the definition is not one that's commonly used by society.* Admittedly if I said impotent rage somebody could say "that sounds like a person's livid about being unable to get it up" rather than "rage over being powerless".


That's correct. Also I see you've watched the commercials in GTA V.



> Wouldn't that necessarily mean that they would be prone to find people who share their interests and be driven to change society in favor of them?
> 
> After all there were many activists that were Fe dominant (MLK probably), as well as many Te types in politics (who are driven to get things done logically in a sort of consequentialist fashion)


I would think so



> Do they tend to lose their principles in their desire to go along moreso than introverted types?* That being said, how is it that some activists tend to be remarkably consistent (MLK)


I wouldn't say they lost their principle, its just that their principles are oriented and directed by the general consensus. Te/Fe is the reflection of society and its external framework, or it may be more accurate to say society and its external framework are reflections of Te/Fe.

It matters on what you mean by consistent, but usually once Fe/Te has a formula or guideline, it sticks to it until its no longer consistent with the general consensus.



> Which can range from being perceived as undisciplined, reckless, even antisocial or dangerous by other types, correct?


Yea Judger's, especially extraverted, tend to view dominant extraverted perceivers as reckless, not rational, and even sometimes they view them as "lesser" rationals, but it must be noted that both extraverted perceivers and extraverted judger's tend to view each other as a lesser human, or less rational.

Heres Jung on the matter:



> To the rational types the real character of these people might well appear rationalistic and calculating in the worst sense. But this judgment would be valid only for their unconscious, and therefore quite incorrect for their conscious psychology, which is entirely oriented by perception, and because of its irrational nature is quite unintelligible to any rational judgment. To the rational mind it might even seem that such a hodge-podge of accidentals hardly deserves the name “psychology”at all. The irrational type ripostes with an equally contemptuous opinion of his opposite number: he sees him as something only half alive, whose sole aim is to fasten the fetters of reason on everything living and strangle it with judgments.





> From the standpoint of the rational type, the other might easily be represented as an inferior kind of rationalist—when, that is to say, he is judged by what happens to him. For what happens to him is not accidental—here he is the master—instead, the accidents that befall him take the form of rational judgments and rational intentions, and these are the things he stumbles over. To the rational mind this is something almost unthinkable, but its unthinkableness merely equals the astonishment of the irrational type when he comes up against someone who puts rational ideas above actual and living happenings. Such a thing seems to him scarcely credible. As a rule it is quite hopeless to discuss these things with him as questions of principle, for all rational communication is just as alien and repellent to him as it would be unthinkable for the rationalist to enter into a contract without mutual consultation and obligation.


Both rational doms and perceiver doms view the other from the standpoint of their unconscious, since the others dominant is unconscious in the other.



> The mad scientist and anarchist?


Yea pretty much. 




> Unless it becomes in charge of the group -- then they would potentially be driven to dominate the group (or reconfigure it) for their own interests making them one type of dictatorial personality, and would explain why many Ne types are often assertive types _(enneagram 7, 8, or 3)_


Ne doms usually don't like being put in charge, they would much rather guide than lead, this is dependent on enneagram also (Ex. Ne 8 would rather take charge if it means to control rather than being controlled). If though whoever is in charge goes against the Ne's visions, then Ne will either leave the group to go about it alone, or they will find a way to take over the leadership to make sure the group is headed in the direction that Ne envisions.



> ESTP is more concrete, ENTP is more unconventional for better or worse; both are surprisingly manipulative; both can be imposing though ESTP can be rougher.


This is, for the most part true, but an ENTP 8 will take you up on that notion that ESTPs are rougher. I would say that ESTPs are rougher at a more consistent rate, but an ENTP will become rough if its necessary to accomplish their vision. The enneagrams would also factor in this, i.e. 8s are more rough than 3s and 7s. 



> INTJ and ENTP would probably not go along to get along for different reasons though...


Yes and no. They both don't go along to get along because of their visions, but its the difference in visions that would cause a difference in reasoning.



> Regardless
> ISFJ and ISTJ would be at the top of going along to get along
> ENTJ and ENFJ would be second in the line
> ISFJ and ISFP would be further down
> ...


ESFJs and ESTJs are more likely than ISTJs and ISFJs to "go along to get along". 
ESFP and ESTP are less likely than ENTJ and ENFJ to "go along to get along" but more likely than ISFP and ISTP.
INFP and INTP are less likely than ISFPs and ISTPs to "go along to get along" but more likely than INTJ and ENTP.
INFJ and ENFP are right in between then ISxPs and INxPs.





> If they're right...


I wouldn't say "if they're right", but more so if it benefits the society at the time, or if society perceives a benefit.



> Actually, some people would probably see some of the ENTP's proposed changes as dangerous -- either through a lack of understanding, or through the fact that they tend to be more interested in the end result than the journey so to speak.


This is true



> Not always


True but for the the majority of the time it is the case. When Ne can make life easier then they are more accepted by society.



> Well, I wouldn't say stagnant -- but a society generally prefers rules that are reasonably easy to understood, know what to do in order to survive, and so forth.


True



> Stability is actually a quality that does tend to facilitate survival: As an example, supergiant stars, while they burn hot and brilliantly bright, don't last very long; they tend to go out with a devastating surge of energy that outshine whole galaxies for a few months, a couple of years, and as they die -- some of the energy they emit could even wipe out life on planets with life on them (like us) from thousands of LY away.
> 
> Red dwarfs on the other hand lasts trillions of years, and the yellow dwarf that we orbit stays stable for about 10 billion years, of which we're about 6 billion years through now: It has a high enough output to allow life to form, and stable enough for it to have evolved into creatures as smart as us.
> 
> ...


This is also true, and I like the use of the analogy you presented. There needs to be a balance between chasing potential and stabilizing to ensure surviving as long as possible.



> Not when there's a plague or a draught...


Yea a crisis is always an efficient way to get society to accept Ne, or call on Ne's gifts for help on how to overcome the crisis.



> That I never heard before...


Don't get me wrong, any type can attempt to be unique or strive for it, for instance enneagram 4s tend to strive for uniqueness, and not all enneagram 4s are Ne. On the other hand though, because Ne only strives for novelty this makes others perceive them as unique, due to either wanting to embody the novel possibility, or chasing it. Others perceive this as odd, or not the norm, which inevitably puts them in the category of "unique".



> I was socially awkward, my family moved around a bunch of times: I saw myself as an oddball and an outsider.
> 
> As for wanting to fit in, it's not good to be the oddball and outsider, plus I got picked on a lot


Well I can say for sure that you're not Ne , being an oddball and an outsider are kind of inherent qualities of being an Ne dom-aux. 

Did you only want to fit in just so you wouldn't be seen as an oddball and an outsider? If so then I would say that this too is generally characteristic of extravert's, or an extraverted function.




> BTW: Deus absconditus means something like to abandon god right?


Actually its the contrary, it means "Hidden God" in Latin. It refers to God being unknowable to the human mind because it has consciously hidden itself away somewhere. I use it to refer to the blindness of humanity, as in humanity (collective reference)as a whole are blind to divine truths. Shadow Logic, and Ghost, also refer to humanities inability to perceive, conceive, or understand divine truths. I don't really ever remember using it here (on this site), maybe I did though and forgot, but there's another name, called Subtledark, that I commonly use to refer to or symbolize the same concept of humanities blindness or predisposed aversion to divine truth.

That's, at least, my surface level references that the terms symbolize I should say, but all four of them refer to and symbolize many other things at each level below the surface interpretation/reference/symbol.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Apologies for taking so long to respond.



RobynC said:


> @Ksara
> 
> So they tried to fit in?


In a way yes. Not consciously choosing to fit in to go with the crowd. More that they identify a sense of self from their environment. They require feedback from their environment and if all the feedback (from this example) is introverted in nature they saw themselves as introverts. Extroverts adjust to to environment.




> Like real examples?


Was that not an example?? 
a personal example, I was talking to my partner (ENFP) about the different quadrants (SJ, SP, NT, NF) and only a quarter of the way through he asked, can you prove this? To him yes it's a great theory but does it actually apply to the real world?




> 1. Is Je coupled to Pi?
> 
> 2. What would be the explanation of a person's judging criteria changing?


I think that has been generally accepted Je followed by Pi (but there are a few other function stack models out there)
The things is that if Je is first, Pi is a slave to Je, it's role is to support Je.

I'll give some examples to help with judging criteria changing.

Te draws it's information from facts in the world. A fact could be that Johnny crossed the road. He either did or he didn't. It's either true or false. he can't undo crossing the road once he has crossed.
another facts could be measuring the size of a box, it is xcm in length. Te will base it's judging criteria on what it can objectively measure. it judges the box as xcm in length.

Now if the size of the box were to change in some way, Te judgment of the box being xcm in length as true will change, because the facts have now changed. the box has now been measured to be a length of ycm in length.


I'll give an Fe example.

now my mum is an Fe user. Growing up she saw Valentines day as a day you tell your secret admirer that you like them, usually through an anonymous card. that is what the day is about.

Fe users of my generation see Valentines day as the day you dote on your loved one to show how much they mean to you. To not do anything for Valentines day suggests you don't care about your partner.

Now these expectations of how people should behave for Valentines day are objective. However here the judging criteria or social rules have changed over time, and with the Fe users judgments have changed.




> 1. Is Pe coupled to Ji?
> 
> 2. So Pe's tend to adjust readily with the environment even if it's not wise to do so?


again this is what seems to be generally accepted.

Yes. This is because Pe waits as long as it can to acquire as much information as possible before making a decision. So yes they will put off decisions being made even if it is not wise to do so (but they would think it is not wise to commit to something when they don't yet have all the information at hand)




> Uh, compared to the most extreme liberals I'm very conservative; compared to conservatives I'm kid of liberal. Is that what you mean?
> 
> How would a person work if they defined themselves from inside?


No, not in the political sense. When I said conservative in my example I meant it as being conscious about how much waste and reducing how wasteful he is.

to define themselves on the inside, this would be opposite to defining from the outside.
Pi doms wait for for as much information as possible to come to them, but from inside them not the outer world.
Ji doms have a judging criteria they apply to themselves that they have determined from the inside.

If the outer world opposes what they have defined within themselves they are likely to ignore the outside world in favour of their own internal world view.




> Uh, I've done all these things.


Yes (we are human and use all the functions)
however there will be one particular way that is conscious, easy, and you predominant way of perceiving of judging the world. Most of the time a Pi dom is not observing the object, they are observing their subjective perception of the object. Again most of the time A Ji dom is concerned with structuring their mind, and judging how close they are from their inner ideal. They are much less concerned for forcing change in their environment.




> To clarify what would qualify?


Lenore Thomson explains this well when she talks about Si doms.
http://personalitycafe.com/sjs-temperament-forum-overseers/107983-lenore-thomsons-introverted-sensation.html




> Like a dream?


I guess it's a bit like a dream where the images symbolise something to that person. This however is in the waking state.
here's a good quote by Jung contrasting introverted sensation and introverted intuition.

" Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, 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."




> I get that...


(Now I don't fully understand Ti myself keep that in mind)
Now what makes sense for Ti is that their thoughts make sense. They check that their thoughts are logical and the origin of their thoughts are based on principles based on universal truths.
Te likes to make sense too but they look at what can be measured in the world and are concerned with the world making sense.




> I've come across stubborn PEOPLE!


haha yes.
my point was that introverts generally won't just follow the crowd, so to speak, because they find they are being fake.




> If I was told it wasn't possible I wouldn't do it unless the person who told me this was wrong.


perhaps Te>Ni will take others advice who prove themselves as being right, and so will change their vision.
Ni>Te will find any evidence to prove the other person is wrong to maintain their vision




> That's pretty straight forward!


Yeah. I am over simplifying it. As I mentioned what makes sense for Ti is that their thinking is logical. When it comes to Fe things they may struggle to make sense of it, and so reject having to comply to social conventions.




> I've done both of these...


Perhaps, but an introvert feels they can not fully express themselves unless one of these two options are met.




> It's important to have a sense of discipline and self control. If you don't control yourself -- you will get in trouble a lot: You also cannot do what you want if you don't have the dedication to succeed.


Yes I agree with this somewhat for myself, but different types (and people for that matter) value different things. For some what they want is more important than the end goal. Some people see the journey as more important than the destination. Some veiw experiences (be it good or bad) and learning to improvise is more important, some people value security. What people define as being successful can be very different.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

I don't understand the point of this thread.

Is OP asking whether or not ENTJ's can be cold and aloof? Or if INTJ's can have the appearance of extraversion due to their confidence?

Yes. The answer to both of those is yes.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Deus Absconditus



> That's correct.


One of the many thing I learned about George Orwell was how words can be creatively contorted to one's purpose. Therefore it was important to understand the correct meaning of words.



> Also I see you've watched the commercials in GTA V.


I watched a person play GTA once or twice, but I never played.



> I would think so


Okay



> I wouldn't say they lost their principle, its just that their principles are oriented and directed by the general consensus.


Then how is it that MLK's positions were considered radical?



> It matters on what you mean by consistent, but usually once Fe/Te has a formula or guideline, it sticks to it until its no longer consistent with the general consensus.


Okay



> Yea Judger's, especially extraverted, tend to view dominant extraverted perceivers as reckless, not rational, and even sometimes they view them as "lesser" rationals


I view some perceivers I know as undisciplined, unreliable, and sometimes reckless. That's not the same



> but it must be noted that both extraverted perceivers and extraverted judger's tend to view each other as a lesser human, or less rational.


I don't think that



> Yea pretty much.


Thought so



> Ne doms usually don't like being put in charge, they would much rather guide than lead


7's and 5's... especially



> If though whoever is in charge goes against the Ne's visions, then Ne will either leave the group to go about it alone, or they will find a way to take over the leadership to make sure the group is headed in the direction that Ne envisions.


Well subverting the group and controlling it sort of qualifies as taking control.



> This is, for the most part true, but an ENTP 8 will take you up on that notion that ESTPs are rougher.


I'll take your word for it. 



> Yes and no. They both don't go along to get along because of their visions, but its the difference in visions


That's what I meant... one is dominated by Ni and Te; the other by Ne and Ti.



> I wouldn't say "if they're right", but more so if it benefits the society at the time, or if society perceives a benefit.


I meant if they are right about the change they want -- they can do a lot of good: If not they cancause mayhem.



> True but for the the majority of the time it is the case. When Ne can make life easier then they are more accepted by society.


Probably true



> True


Which is not entirely a bad thing



> This is also true, and I like the use of the analogy you presented. There needs to be a balance between chasing potential and stabilizing to ensure surviving as long as possible.


Of course



> Yea a crisis is always an efficient way to get society to accept Ne, or call on Ne's gifts for help on how to overcome the crisis.


When unconventional thinking is needed... 



> Don't get me wrong, any type can attempt to be unique or strive for it, for instance enneagram 4s tend to strive for uniqueness, and not all enneagram 4s are Ne.


Correct



> Did you only want to fit in just so you wouldn't be seen as an oddball and an outsider?


Well, who doesn't want to be liked too...



> If so then I would say that this too is generally characteristic of extravert's, or an extraverted function.


Understood



> Actually its the contrary, it means "Hidden God" in Latin.


Fascinating


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> One of the many thing I learned about George Orwell was how words can be creatively contorted to one's purpose. Therefore it was important to understand the correct meaning of words.


I understand, its one of the main things I pay attention to while in conversation, the precision of concepts being referred too, in order to make sure that all participating parties are referring to the same concepts instead of just using the same terms. 



> I watched a person play GTA once or twice, but I never played.


In the latest GTA (V) there is a commercial, well its not really a commercial but instead an in game animated TV show called Impotent Rage. That's why I asked that question, but since you haven't seen it I suggest you type it in on YouTube to get a look at. I think you would probably get a laugh or maybe a truth out of it. It focuses more on satirically presenting/discussing the issues of liberalism vs socialism, if you want to know what it revolves around. 

Then how is it that MLK's positions were considered radical?


RobynC said:


> One of the many thing I learned about George Orwell was how words can be creatively contorted to one's purpose. Therefore it was important to understand the correct meaning of words.


I understand, its one of the main things I pay attention to while in conversation, the precision of concepts being referred too, in order to make sure that all participating parties are referring to the same concepts instead of just using the same terms. 



> I watched a person play GTA once or twice, but I never played.


In the latest GTA (V) there is a commercial, well its not really a commercial but instead an in game animated TV show called Impotent Rage. That's why I asked that question, but since you haven't seen it I suggest you type it in on YouTube to get a look at. I think you would probably get a laugh or maybe a truth out of it, because the topics it discusses it are right up your ally



> Then how is it that MLK's positions were considered radical?


A country is a group made up of groups, MLKs positions were considered radical (negatively) to the government (or certain parts of to be more exact) and others who opposed the civil rights movements. He wanted to change the status quo because of how it negatively affected him and his group, and this to his opposition was considered radical (negatively) because it planned on nothing else but changing the social and economic aspects of society to be more tolerant and accepting to those who were once considered (and still at that time) as less than human. MLK was still focused on general consensus but it wasnt the general public as a whole, but instead the general consensus if his own group which is, and was at that time, only a minority. When any minority tries to fight for more rights in any country they are usually considered radical (negatively) because they are changing the status quo of their time.



> I view some perceivers I know as undisciplined, unreliable, and sometimes reckless. That's not the same
> 
> I don't think that


Not everyone of each group does think that, but a good enough portion of each group does tend to think that way. I have to admit that even I catch myself questioning how truly "rational" judger's are in reality, but after understanding it more by exactly what is meant by being a "rational type" I've come to question it much less in recent times.

Are you sure its not the same? Your view seems to be consistent with how judger's tend to view perceivers (well most likely Pe doms), so I don't find it too much different.




> 7's and 5's... especially


Definitely, those two are more inclined to guide than 3s and 8s
Well subverting the group and controlling it sort of qualifies as taking control.



> That's what I meant... one is dominated by Ni and Te; the other by Ne and Ti.


Yea its funny how the functions are all in the same order which creates alike thought patterns, but the directions of their functions are different which can alter the reasoning between the two. 



> I meant if they are right about the change they want -- they can do a lot of good: If not they cancause mayhem.


Thats true.



> Which is not entirely a bad thing


It matters on the type of system, a non efficient system is always a "bad" thing to me, and I don't see any modern country with a system that works efficiently, maybe effectively, but far from efficient. An efficient system would be great in limiting all potential hiccups, and this type of system would ensure higher rates of survival while still being easily understood by the general public.



> When unconventional thinking is needed...


I wouldnt really consider it a crisis if it could be solved with the use of Ne, but I'm aware thats just my bias speaking.



> Well, who doesn't want to be liked too...


Everybody wants to be liked (maybe not INTJs lol) but what would you forego to be liked, and who would you want to be liked by? Some people may just want to be liked among their family, while caring less for their peers, while others are vice versa. Some would rather be seen as an oddball or outsider if it means staying true to themselves, or belonging to a group that is already perceived as being oddballs and outsiders. 




> Fascinating


I know right..... :tongue:


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Deus Absconditus said:


> In the latest GTA (V) there is a commercial, well its not really a commercial but instead an in game animated TV show called Impotent Rage. That's why I asked that question, but since you haven't seen it I suggest you type it in on YouTube to get a look at.


Oy



> Not everyone of each group does think that, but a good enough portion of each group does tend to think that way.


That's good



> Are you sure its not the same?


I said I view some that way... not all.



> Well subverting the group and controlling it sort of qualifies as taking control.


Yes



> Yea its funny how the functions are all in the same order which creates alike thought patterns


You mean N then T?



> but the directions of their functions are different


E/I you mean?



> Thats true.


Scary stuff



> I wouldnt really consider it a crisis if it could be solved with the use of Ne, but I'm aware thats just my bias speaking.


How so?



> Everybody wants to be liked (maybe not INTJs lol)


Not sure about that...



> but what would you forego to be liked


Important question -- some people have seemingly no limits (3 especially).



> and who would you want to be liked by?


Also important!



> Some people may just want to be liked among their family, while caring less for their peers, while others are vice versa.


True



> Some would rather be seen as an oddball or outsider if it means staying true to themselves


Type 4



> or belonging to a group that is already perceived as being oddballs and outsiders.


ENTP's and E4's




I know right..... :tongue:[/QUOTE]


----------

