# Questions regarding N, especially dom Ne



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

My husband recently started working with an ENxP and the person is constantly flooded with ideas. He also has ideas about most areas in his personal life and changes things around based on his idea generation, frequently but not always for the better, but always creative. I'm wondering if it's an inherent necessity for Ne's to have ideas all the time rather than, for example, in a couple areas that fascinate them. From reading Dario Nardi and listening to some Ne's on PerC, it sounds as if frequent personal idea creation in many to most areas of life is a necessity for being Ne.

The MBTI test I took many years ago doesn't specifically say Ne's are flooded with ideas, and in fact someone could test as Ne based on enjoying reading about theories more than facts and preferring to be around Intuitives, among many characteristic that don't address personal idea creation. Yet it's possible the questions were trying, and sometimes failing, to get at the characteristic of frequent idea generation triggered from reading, talking or the senses and branching out from there, so that tests or even Jung's definitions are only a starting point that must eventually lead to an Ne being a frequent idea generator and engaging in abstract creativity as opposed to just having a strong interest in the abstract. If that convoluted sentence is true, then many people who think they're Ne's are actually Se's and the population of Ne's is likely smaller than tests indicate.

I read other people's abstract ideas and talk them to death, trying to understand in more depth and come up with insights for a deeper understanding, rather than creatively coming up with my own new ideas. What function would that be? Since it's abstract, it would be N, or maybe Ti based on N. But which N? Ne, but looking for insights and deeper understanding rather than being a fountain of new ideas, more insight based than brainstorming? Is that possible for Ne? Or Ni, even though it's used in an extroverted sense in that talking is what triggers insights? When I take the MBTI test, N tests stronger than S because of my interest in the abstract and being change oriented and alternative, even though I'm not particularly creative. The N gets put with E and I test as Ne, but I'm not good at brainstorming/creativity/generalized idea generation. I'm definitely Pe dom. Do I seem more Ne or SeNi?

I've been going in circles with this for months, so I'm hoping someone can shed some light on what it's like to be Ne, and on Ni if that would help clear things up.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

If we break it down Extraversion deals with the objective, outer/real world and thoughts being directed there and Intuition (at least to Jung - but not in MBTI but we'll get to that in a second) deals with hunches, gut-feelings, notions, basically seeing things without _seeing _them. Thus an Extraverted Intuitive is someone defaults to a perspective of appealing to their hunches, notions, gut-feelings about things in the outer world. Imagine a journalist who has a hunch that there is a story to be uncovered about a politician. This would be Extraverted Intuition because the intuition relates to something existing in the objective world (the person isn't imposing anything from within onto the object, but rather just 'reading' the situation without there being any sensory data there to back up the notion). Another example would be being able to look at someone as a child and predict with accuracy what kind of adult they will be (now some of this comes from experience and thinking and a lot of other stuff, so not just types with Ne can do this, but again the reliance here is on the hunch or the notion not on physical evidence). Thus you can imagine the sports or talent agent who is able to sell his client to a pro-team while the client is still in high school or college and has shown no real indication that he can play at the next level is relying heavily on his intuitions. It's why you might find, as Von Franz points out a lot of these types as art dealers, salesmen, journalists, stock brokers, etc.

What this does not mean is that the person is flooded with ideas. That's something of a misconception because it really depends on the nature of the ideas we're talking about. They could be thinking ideas or feeling ideas or sensation related ideas that don't really deal with having a hunch about something.

You see we have to sort of get away from the whole "the only people who are creative are Ne-types" mantra that is so pervasive online (part of this is because MBTI places creativity as the sole realm of intuition, which to me is a mistake and a number of people like Lynne Levesque have written on that subject). This mindset implies then that for example a dominant Sensation type has no ability to think outside the box or be creative and in reality we know this to be far from the case. We can't even say with certainty that the creativity of these types will be centered around sensation. 

It sounds like you have falling into the trap of mixing and matching theories and they are not necessarily all compatible with one another. MBTI being an amalgamation that tries to reduce its precepts down to the functions and J/P sort of oversimplifies things, Nardi is looking at things from a neurological standpoint, Jung is looking at things almost purely psychologically, the temperament folks are more interpersonal and sociological, so while everyone may have an ENxP in their typology, not all the ENxPs are the same from definition to definition. Originally the big giveaways that someone was an Extraverted Intuitive was their tendency to have issues around Sensation (as all intuitives do) and their tendency to not follow through, dropping the last thing on a dime for the new latest and greatest thing only to reckless abandon that. Much like a puppy always sniffing around the corner for the next thing never satisfied and thus having a hard time reaping what they've sown. This is basically how Jung described this type, and MBTI follows closely but not exactly adding things like being abstract and creativity and other stuff that may or may not apply to given Ne-types (again while Sensation types may prefer practicality somewhat, it might be an overstatement to say they can't be abstract especially if we get into a discussion of Introverted Sensation which by nature as an introverted function is abstract). So I think before you can get past your dilemma you have to choose a definition and a framework from which to work otherwise you might tie yourself in knots trying to make it all work.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> What this does not mean is that the person is flooded with ideas. That's something of a misconception because it really depends on the nature of the ideas we're talking about. They could be thinking ideas or feeling ideas or sensation related ideas that don't really deal with having a hunch about something.


This is what I was asking in my Ne/Se thread all along. =P 

Anyway, you never answered me about if the possibility seeking stuff I described about myself was SeNi or SiNe in a jungian sense. If you have time to check sometime I'd really appreciate it  The post number (to make it easier if you do have time) would be this: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/103457-ne-vs-se-different-theories-2.html#post2622179

And that post referred back to this one if you need more details to decide: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/103457-ne-vs-se-different-theories.html#post2618003


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

@itsme45, I started this thread because the issue was never fully answered in the Ne/Se thread. 

@LiquidLight, thank you for clearing up some misconceptions. And yes, I have been tying myself in knots by trying to come up with an all-encompassing type. The theories all have Jung at their base and in a perfect world shouldn't demand that people be different types.

Since a flood of creative ideas isn't a necessary part of the Ne definition, then I'm curious as to what is necessary. Can Ne be defined purely by strong interest or belief, without any personal creativity attached? For example, I love discussing and have read many dozens of books about ideas that have no basis in the ordinary definition of the five senses. I've been interested in Zen enlightenment, breatharianism, NDE's, gardening with nature spirits (such as Findhorn), conspiracy theories, raw food diets, ad infinitum. Whatever weird and outlandish idea comes along, I won't rule it out just because it lacks physical proof. I've had so many weird and outlandish things happen to me that at times it's almost my day-to-day life, so I've learned pretty much anything can happen, and seems to. Does my belief system alone, and the fact that I'm very unconventional, alternative and open minded, by necessity mean I'm Ne, even without much in the way of abstract creativity, because it's so far outside the Se description that I no longer fit?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Since a flood of creative ideas isn't a necessary part of the Ne definition, then I'm curious as to what is necessary. Can Ne be defined purely by strong interest or belief, without any personal creativity attached? For example, I love hearing and talking about ideas that have no basis in the ordinary definition of the five senses. I've been interested in Zen enlightenment, breatharianism, NDE's, gardening with nature spirits (such as Findhorn), conspiracy theories, raw food diets, ad infinitum. Whatever weird and outlandish thing comes along, I won't rule it out just because it lacks physical proof. I've had so many weird and outlandish things happen to me that at times it's almost my day-to-day life, so I've learned pretty much anything can happen, and seems to. Does my belief system alone, and the fact that I'm very unconventional, alternative and open minded, by necessity mean I'm Ne, because it's so far outside the Se description that I no longer fit?


Your interest in these things probably represents an overall preference toward intuition (a sensation type might see them more as novelty or be dismissive choosing to focus on things that are little more 'real'), but it would be hard to say whether or not its Ne or Ni (you might actually do better trying to figure out Se vs Si and work in reverse). But the intuitions themselves are just that: intuitions. Notions, hunches, gut-feelings, whatever you want to call them. What you do with them, or how you appeal to them deals more with your values, upbringing, education, beliefs, and so on -- things that aren't necessarily tied to type.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Karen said:


> Since a flood of creative ideas isn't a necessary part of the Ne definition, then I'm curious as to what is necessary. Can Ne be defined purely by strong interest or belief, without any personal creativity attached? For example, I love discussing and have read many dozens of books about ideas that have no basis in the ordinary definition of the five senses. I've been interested in Zen enlightenment, breatharianism, NDE's, gardening with nature spirits (such as Findhorn), conspiracy theories, raw food diets, ad infinitum. Whatever weird and outlandish idea comes along, I won't rule it out just because it lacks physical proof. I've had so many weird and outlandish things happen to me that at times it's almost my day-to-day life, so I've learned pretty much anything can happen, and seems to. Does my belief system alone, and the fact that I'm very unconventional, alternative and open minded, by necessity mean I'm Ne, even without much in the way of abstract creativity, because it's so far outside the Se description that I no longer fit?


Sounds like Ni to me  _"I won't rule it out just because it lacks physical proof". _OK that without the context could be Ne too but it seems like it's these intangible abstract internal things. _

"unconventional, alternative, open minded"_ are concrete traits, not a deeper analysis of your mind's functioning, of what motivates you towards these things. I'm unconventional and open minded too...  Though, not "alternative" like you 



LiquidLight said:


> Your interest in these things probably represents an overall preference toward intuition (a sensation type might see them more as novelty or be dismissive choosing to focus on things that are little more 'real'), but it would be hard to say whether or not its Ne or Ni (you might actually do better trying to figure out Se vs Si and work in reverse). But the intuitions themselves are just that: intuitions. Notions, hunches, gut-feelings, whatever you want to call them. What you do with them, or how you appeal to them deals more with your values, upbringing, education, beliefs, and so on -- things that aren't necessarily tied to type.


I'm not dismissive to all such things myself. It depends. I can love very abstract things. It is true I'm a lot more dismissive of some of the things she listed though but that could be down to her different experiences in life. I didn't experience the things she did and I prefer to go by the scientific thinking in general. 


Anyway, my opinion.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

LiquidLight said:


> Your interest in these things probably represents an overall preference toward intuition (a sensation type might see them more as novelty or be dismissive choosing to focus on things that are little more 'real'), but it would be hard to say whether or not its Ne or Ni (you might actually do better trying to figure out Se vs Si and work in reverse). But the intuitions themselves are just that: intuitions. Notions, hunches, gut-feelings, whatever you want to call them. What you do with them, or how you appeal to them deals more with your values, upbringing, education, beliefs, and so on -- things that aren't necessarily tied to type.


Are you saying that notions, hunches and gut feelings cover everything that can't be immediately proved by the senses? A belief in Zen enlightenment, which already exists for people and has had hundreds of books written about it, and the feeling a talent scout would get about a player with the answer somewhere in the future would both be considered hunches/gut feelings? I'm not saying they're not, I'm just trying to understand the idea of notion/hunch/gut feeling as applied to Jung/MBTI. I've come across the concept before and didn't think it applied to my beliefs, and now wonder if it does and I am engaging in hunches on a regular basis.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> "unconventional, alternative, open minded"[/I] are concrete traits, not a deeper analysis of your mind's functioning, of what motivates you towards these things.


It's true there are plenty of SP's who live unconventional lives, but maybe what it's based on is different. My life is based on the following: 1) caring more about physical adventures than money, so that I most enjoy a vagabond existence in order to get in the most experiencing, 2) making many decisions based on the spiritual aspects of life, 3) not following belief systems of mainstream society since their ideas and mine don't connect. The first two aren't in conflict, since I don't consider the physical to be inherently separate from the spiritual, and 2 and 3 overlap some but are for the most part separate. Does that inherently make me Ne? My ISTJ relative also believes the physical is spiritual.




itsme45 said:


> I'm unconventional and open minded too...


Maybe you're N.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Are you saying that notions, hunches and gut feelings cover everything that can't be immediately proved by the senses?


In terms of happenstances or moments, generally yes. But obviously there are many other things that are outside of the realm of physicality that don't require intuitions about. Which is why we have Introverted Thinking and Feeling. 

But the thing about perception functions is that they really only work in the moment and for moments. They're much more experiential and thus people who are perception types tend to be people who are oriented to the events or moments that encompass life rather than oriented to trying to define or evaluate them (in fact Jung goes as far as to say rationale types will generally tend to find the happenstances of life irrational, Murphy's Law if you will, where the perception type via his intuition or sensation finds a particular, but undefinable rationale of his own in these moments. The reason Jung calls perception types irrational is because this 'rationale' of theirs cannot really be qualified in conceptual terms.) If life is a series of momentary events (both physical and psychological) then it is perception functions that allow us to process these events either in terms of the raw physical data of the moment (sensation or 'what is there') or intuitively (what isn't there, what might've been there, what could've been, what will be there, etc). But often times you hear people say "my Se tells me this object is nice," but Se does no such thing. Sensation just tells as, as Jung put it, that something is. Not what it is (that's thinking), or whether or not I like it (that's Feeling). Intuition then can fill the metaphysical blanks, so to speak, giving us a sense of the qualities of the object or experience that are not immediately tangible (so in a really primitive form, superstition can be a manifestation, where someone reads symbolism into an object that the object itself doesn't possess, like thinking that the Rabbit's Feet or Crucifix will bring them good luck, when in fact tangibly, its just a furry rabbits foot keychain and a wooden necklace, all of the symbolism, the notion that there might be more to this object generally falls under the realm of intuition - introverted in this case). 

If we think of the different types of perception as different shades of glasses that you wear, different lenses if you will, it doesn't change what you are seeing, just how you are seeing it. But, to continue the analogy, it is seeing itself, perception itself, that encompasses the individual not the defining or evaluation of the thing they are looking at. Almost by definition perception types are experiencers of life. Myers sort of latched onto this when she determined J/P, that rationale types tend to be judge life and perception types tend to simply experience (the only problem is that in focusing only on extraversion they don't recognize that Ni and Si dominants are also perception types and that Fi and Ti doms are actually judgment types). But this is why she, perhaps rightfully claims that Pe types have a tendency to 'live in the moment,' even if she failed to acknowledge that same tendency in Pi types (Ni-dominants after all have Se and Si-dominants have Ne). Jung spells out that the only reason he calls the perception types irrational is because of his own bias for Thinking (judgment) and that if he was a perception type he might very well see it the other way around. 

Again this is why we sort of have to be careful about what we apply to the functions. A belief or interest in say Eastern religions, mysterious things, fantasies, metaphysics or whatever does not necessarily indicate someone is an intuitive. We can only, as I did earlier, sort of loosely infer that someone who is more open to these ideas might be an intuitive, but I should've qualified we really don't know this because it could be Thinking or something else going on too. Beliefs are grounded in beliefs not functions, but your functions might influence the way in which you handle those beliefs, so a rational type might handle their belief systems more from a conceptual or evaluative standpoint. 

Openness to new ideas and experience are grounded in the construct of your ego, your upbringing and a whole host of other things that may or may not relate to the functions. Think of it like learning mathematics or literature. Just because you're a thinking type doesn't mean you will automatically like math or philosophy (since whether or not you like something is largely a factor of the feeling function anyway), but there is a good chance that your approach to these subjects will tend to be colored by the specific way in which you prefer to think, so an Extraverted Thinking type might default to dealing with these things from the standpoint of objective criteria rather than his own subjective understanding. 

The functions would just be your ego's (the 'I' or 'me') way of accomplishing what it wants in your conscious mind. Literally functions of the ego's wishes. In AP it is the complexes that dictate who you are (the ego being one of many complexes, the others being the shadow, the persona and the anima/animus). Thus the functions become the ego complex's way of filtering information that either works along with the goals of the ego (ego-syntonic) or rejecting information that doesn't jive (ego-dystonic). That's what the functions do. The end result of this will be certain patterns, like the sensation type having a tendency to be much more 'down-to-earth' so to speak, but we shouldn't take this so far as to say they will always be rejecting of anything metaphysical because they too, after all, have introverted and intuitive functions, they just are generally less robust and affect them on more of a primitive level (similar to how the intuitive's sensations tend to be more primitive and primal than the refined sensual perceptions of a Se or Si-dominant). 

What happens is, largely because most of us have come to this stuff through MBTI and other inventories that generally try to explain everything with functions rather than complexes (which is a much more psychoanalytically sound way of approaching things) there is thus a tendency for people prescribe too much to the functions. They say, "well I like a good night out dancing and drinking at the night club therefore I must be Extraverted and a Sensation type" and all this kind of stuff. When really whether or not you like is not really dependent on your functions. What motivates someone to go dance and drink at the club? Perhaps Se could play a role here (probably if we looked at someone longitudinally and not in a given instance) but generally its the person's ego and their persona, their upbringing, their ideas about who they are and what they want to be (or not be) and so forth that are much bigger influences here than simply saying "X-function." Because what of the Se-type who abhors drinking and dancing and socializing? Are they any less a Se-type? What if they grew up in a rigid, staunch, religious atmosphere and have adopted those values? Are we going to make the assumption that they MUST have a Fe-preference and CAN'T be Se-types. This would be ridiculous, yet you hear people talk like this all the time ("I like trigonometry therefore I MUST be a Thinking type.") Its ridiculous. 

If you can understand the content of your complexes, what emotionally charged ideas do you have about yourself, about the world around you, which are products from within and products that you've been socialized with (not easy to discern) which are aspects of your persona, and which are aspirations, then you can begin to start to figure out your type because now you will have a basis for knowing how you tend to approach these things. Otherwise you have no way of knowing whether or not you are just marching down your own road of self-delusion by focusing solely on the type code. After all type is a delusion in and of itself. The only reason a person is an Extraverted Intuitive is because of their rejection, consciously, of Si. Ne-dominance represents an exaggeration of what should be two compensatory functions. The more the person gives themselves consciously over to extraversion, the more their inner world will rage with barely recognized introversion and such a person risks being overwhelmed from within. 

Oftentimes people will blame stuff on type that has nothing to do with type. Just because you're shy, as we all know, doesn't mean you must necessarily be an introvert. There isn't always a causal relationship here. What of the introvert that grows up in a huge family and is used to having a lot of people around and comfortable and can be gregarious? Are they less oriented to the subjective inner world? Is this person incapable of being say an Introverted Intuitive? That would be silly to make that assertion. Some people are avoidant because of the experiences of their early youth (in fact this is often the reason) not typological disposition. 

This is why the process of actually knowing yours or anyone's actual type is painstaking. Because it can take years to truly figure out. Jung himself often spent years with clients before deciding on a type for them, because you have to really get past the person's personas, and masks and all of the convoluted things that people twist themselves into trying to present themselves a certain way (a lot of times trying to convince themselves they are something, perhaps to avoid some pain or embarrassment or whatever), You'll find a lot of people who hide behind "I'm an introvert" (even though everything they talk about is directed at the outer world) simply because they are socially inept and introvert is a convenient persona to adopt. As often you will find the man who disguises himself as a Thinking type because it is more socially acceptable or the Sensation type who, upon really dealing with the fuzzy world of intuitions fashions himself as an intuitive (its not at all uncommon for people to type themselves the opposite of what they really are because the inferior function, one some level, people recognize as being closer to the 'true' self). 

So extraverts often think they are introverts, for example, because when they do have those rare moments of true subjectivity they are often more meaningful and stand out more, and thus they think truly deep down they must really be introverts (it often doesn't happen the other way around only because in our extraverted society introverts are a stigmatized group, so they're much more aware of not fitting in, but I've still observed a number of so called Ti and Fi types who are pretty clearly Te and Fe types on forums like this without recognizing it).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> (...) This is why the process of actually knowing yours or anyone's actual type is painstaking. Because it can take years to truly figure out. Jung himself often spent years with clients before deciding on a type for them, because you have to really get past the person's personas, and masks and all of the convoluted things that people twist themselves into trying to present themselves a certain way (a lot of times trying to convince themselves they are something, perhaps to avoid some pain or embarrassment or whatever), You'll find a lot of people who hide behind "I'm an introvert" (even though everything they talk about is directed at the outer world) simply because they are socially inept and introvert is a convenient persona to adopt. As often you will find the man who disguises himself as a Thinking type because it is more socially acceptable or the Sensation type who, upon really dealing with the fuzzy world of intuitions fashions himself as an intuitive (its not at all uncommon for people to type themselves the opposite of what they really are because the inferior function, one some level, people recognize as being closer to the 'true' self).


Really good sum up. I'll just comment that it can be indeed hard to "type" people right, it took me quite a few months after my first MBTI test (that gave me ENTP, and so did about 10-20 other tests) to first realize that I may be S actually. I first had this intuition coming to me that I actually have something that may be attributed to S. That took me a few months to get this hunch (yes I believe this was an intuitive hunch). A few more months later, I finally figured it out consciously too. 

I put "type" in quotes because I don't really believe in types, I just focus on some aspects of the functions.

Interesting what you say about E's seeing the I moments as really meaningful and more salient. I don't perceive them in that way, introversion just feels rather draining after a while. Well actually not draining; what is draining would be too much analysing for the sake of analysis, but introversion itself is just something I don't prefer as much. It's not scary and it can be even nice (actually maybe it's even meaningful then) but it gives me an unpleasant feeling if I stay there for too long consciously. Would that line up with what jungian theory says?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Anything that feels 'not you' generally means that it is closer to your shadow side. So either one of your two lesser functions or an actual shadow complex at work. Obviously the more unconscious it is, the less you will recognize it. Its why people generally project their inferior function rather than own it, because again the dominant function (and type itself) are sort of delusions, convincing the person that it is only the superior function that matters and ignoring the influences of the other half of the equation. The person doesn't realize they are both Jeykll and Hyde. To call someone X-type (at least in Myers Briggs) is to focus only on Dr. Jekyll and ignore Hyde, but as we know, what happens if Hyde gets ignored too long? He rears up and wreaks havoc and the person goes "wow I didn't know I could do that," or "I was out of my head," and so forth. Your ego is too fragile to be able to defend against the entirety of the shadow on its own, so by becoming overly ego-centric we basically, by not accepting our shadow as also being "us" open ourselves up to be overwhelmed by it, because the functions only regulate conscious information generally, your ego has no mechanism for regulating unconscious material and thus you risk being flooded by it and not even being aware of what's happening and why.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Anything that feels 'not you' generally means that it is closer to your shadow side. So either one of your two lesser functions or an actual shadow complex at work. Obviously the more unconscious it is, the less you will recognize it. Its why people generally project their inferior function rather than own it, because again the dominant function (and type itself) are sort of delusions, convincing the person that it is only the superior function that matters and ignoring the influences of the other half of the equation. The person doesn't realize they are both Jeykll and Hyde. To call someone X-type (at least in Myers Briggs) is to focus only on Dr. Jekyll and ignore Hyde, but as we know, what happens if Hyde gets ignored too long? He rears up and wreaks havoc and the person goes "wow I didn't know I could do that," or "I was out of my head," and so forth. Your ego is too fragile to be able to defend against the entirety of the shadow on its own, so by becoming overly ego-centric we basically, by not accepting our shadow as also being "us" open ourselves up to be overwhelmed by it, because the functions only regulate conscious information generally, your ego has no mechanism for regulating unconscious material and thus you risk being flooded by it and not even being aware of what's happening and why.


Yeah, I suppose it's Ni, those cases. I'm not sure about Fe or just F in general, that feels more "like me" for a while but after some time it's going to turn into "not me" feeling. T in general (I would like to think that's Ti mostly) doesn't ever make me feel like "not me". I just kind of default to Se instead of Ti. So, is this like a continuum then, that is, shadow functions (N and F for me) are ones that you can have going on consciously for shorter times only without you getting "drained" and the functions that are less deeply repressed can go on for somewhat longer times? By drain now I don't mean losing real energy, just this feeling of uncomfortability, like it's been too much. 

Again on the Ni topic, I noticed I can deal with Ni very well if I stay a bit "removed" from it. That is, some abstract Ni things are really great, but I just don't take them as seriously as actually applying it on my environment. That would make me feel very uncomfortable. It is more like a general outlook on things, without me getting wrapped up and thinking that these things are as real as the concrete. That is, I don't try to reify these Ni concepts. If I was to try, that's when I'd get upset. I also don't believe in superstitions, that's stupid shit. I believe superstitions are just your unconscious giving you cues on how you actually feel about a certain matter. 

My question about that is, why do I need to stay "removed" from the Ni ideas like that? How is that to do with it being shadow? Are the dominant and the inferior generally hard to work together in tandem at a _conscious _level? I italicized that word because of course at an unconscious level Ni can work with Se pretty well, I've seen that many times.

Another question, why would the unconscious "want" to flood the conscious anyway? The way I see it is maybe it happens if your brain gets overworked about some problem it's trying to solve or adapt to. I would not call it "flooding" though, it would be the completely wrong term for it. Just simply the brain not being adept at using those areas (or networks, connections, whatever) for that long or that skilled as the ones it's used to. What do you think? Is it something else in your opinion?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

One thing I've always wondered is the following: how is the "tert." function ego dystonic if it supports the person's dominant introversion or extraversion? Wouldn't it (and the aux.) only be ego dystonic if they threaten to take over the dominant? That's just one thing about MBTI that never made any sense to me, since, according to Jung, the auxiliaries have no ego investment for their own sake (the "sake" being either interest in a judgement approach or a perception approach) - they're the slaves of the person's dominant approach to either a judgement perspective or a perception perspective. If they're ranked, it would be due to persona socialization. But I don't think the "auxiliaries" are nearly as simple as MBTI makes them out to be - frankly, I think they manifest through each other and are inseparable, since they can't safely manifest through the dom./inferior without disorienting the person from their natural judgement or perception inclinations.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Another question, why would the unconscious "want" to flood the conscious anyway? The way I see it is maybe it happens if your brain gets overworked about some problem it's trying to solve or adapt to. I would not call it "flooding" though, it would be the completely wrong term for it. Just simply the brain not being adept at using those areas (or networks, connections, whatever) for that long or that skilled as the ones it's used to. What do you think? Is it something else in your opinion?


Its like when I hit a trigger word for a complex, there would be a mess of associations attached to that description but only a few thoughts would surface to consciousness. Now imagine if that complex was a series of traumas from fighting in say Vietnam, and the trigger was a "gun shot" going off. It would be detrimental to the vet's health if a gun went off in a movie/TV causes him to re-experience the entirety of his combat experience from his complex flooding his consciousness without some type of filter / interface (ego functions). But at the same time, that same reactionary trigger may have saved his life several times during combat (survival mechanism).


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

LiquidLight said:


> This is why the process of actually knowing yours or anyone's actual type is painstaking. Because it can take years to truly figure out. Jung himself often spent years with clients before deciding on a type for them, because you have to really get past the person's personas, and masks and all of the convoluted things that people twist themselves into trying to present themselves a certain way (a lot of times trying to convince themselves they are something, perhaps to avoid some pain or embarrassment or whatever), You'll find a lot of people who hide behind "I'm an introvert" (even though everything they talk about is directed at the outer world) simply because they are socially inept and introvert is a convenient persona to adopt. As often you will find the man who disguises himself as a Thinking type because it is more socially acceptable or the Sensation type who, upon really dealing with the fuzzy world of intuitions fashions himself as an intuitive (its not at all uncommon for people to type themselves the opposite of what they really are because the inferior function, one some level, people recognize as being closer to the 'true' self).


I quoted the same paragraph as itsme45 because it's a great summing up of everything I've experienced within myself while trying to come to a type, and what I've observed in other people. Unless someone has had an upbringing and life that aligns with their native type, those twists and turns a person has come to in order to deal with the world can make typing via Jung and MBTI difficult if not impossible without psychological help. Thank you for taking time with your post, which verifies what I've started to understand about typing. I recently posted a link, which I can't find now, about a woman who early in life decided INTP was too vulnerable so took on characteristics of INTJ, which is how she always tested. After psychological help, she understood she's actually INTP but said she would never have to come it herself since INTJ was so ingrained. While typing others in real life, I've wondered if I've been picking up their adaptations to the world rather than their true type.

I've taken finding my type seriously, believing that finding the dominant, at the least, can help me find a life path that's more aligned with who I am and give me a direction to grow that won't inadvertently get me mired more deeply into who I'm not. I've read everything I can find on functions, yet after a couple years of studying and watching myself I'm no closer to a type than when I started. The definitions look distinct and clear, yet both Ne and Se fit me and there's enough in each definition that pushes me away from that function. Yesterday I watched the following videos between pneumoceptor and Mike...

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/97299-type-interaction-videos-33.html

...and realized again that I think exactly the way an ENFP thinks in many/most ways and especially with regard to everything being open to belief, no matter how strange, but lacking much of a future orientation and some of their the drive to follow through with making the world a better place. Both of those can be explained though looking at my life, so how do I know, for example, if my strong present as opposed to future orientation is native or acquired? And how does my T orientation toward people and F toward plants and animals fit with Jung/MBTI? And what about where I differ from ENFPs in my strong need for immersion in the physical, where I spend a lot of time at it and the high points of my life all revolve around such things as horseback riding, watching the sky, and backcountry skiing? What is most meaningful with regard to finding my type, the way I think about the world/my beliefs or my drives? That I need N's to talk to but S's to do with, and I need both equally? That Ti and Fi are much more comfortable than Te and Fe? So I think I'm one of those people who has become so convoluted that native type has been lost, or it could be I've just analyzed it to death and have lost all hope of sanity in the area. ;D But thanks for trying to help many times over, LiquidLight -- I appreciate it.

@itsme45, when it comes to I/E I need a high degree of stimulation through both idea talking and physical immersion with no ideas, and I can enjoy about an hour a day by myself but anything beyond that goes from kind of depressing to very stressful. I need someone to talk ideas through since my thoughts tend to be like a messed up ball of string that I can only unravel through talking. I know, one of those similes.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> One thing I've always wondered is the following: how is the "tert." function ego dystonic if it supports the person's dominant introversion or extraversion? Wouldn't it (and the aux.) only be ego dystonic if they threaten to take over the dominant? That's just one thing about MBTI that never made any sense to me, since, according to Jung, the auxiliaries have no ego investment for their own sake (the "sake" being either interest in a judgement approach or a perception approach) - they're the slaves of the person's dominant approach to either a judgement perspective or a perception perspective. If they're ranked, it would be due to persona socialization. But I don't think the "auxiliaries" are nearly as simple as MBTI makes them out to be - frankly, I think they manifest through each other and are inseparable, since they can't safely manifest through the dom./inferior without disorienting the person from their natural judgement or perception inclinations.


Well I dunno, didn't Jung say there was a transcendent function (allowing entry to inferior function)? Was that not the tertiary?

Btw I think it's dystonic simply because the matching attitude itself isn't enough for it to be not dystonic, why should it? -.- If I was to use Fe or just generally F tert too much *instead* of Se, that would be a pretty bad idea  Fe (or F) for me simply needs to follow along after Se + T. 

You still doubt that aux can be "before" tert in order? For me it's very clear that the order for me is Se > T(Ti/Te) > F(Fe > Fi), Ni. If you want I can explain more why I think so. Perhaps it's just a delusion of myself to think that I can "maintain" T longer than F?




nonnaci said:


> Its like when I hit a trigger word for a complex, there would be a mess of associations attached to that description but only a few thoughts would surface to consciousness. Now imagine if that complex was a series of traumas from fighting in say Vietnam, and the trigger was a "gun shot" going off. It would be detrimental to the vet's health if a gun went off in a movie/TV causes him to re-experience the entirety of his combat experience from his complex flooding his consciousness without some type of filter / interface (ego functions). But at the same time, that same reactionary trigger may have saved his life several times during combat (survival mechanism).


Fine but I don't see how this is causally related to there being an inferior function.




Karen said:


> (...) I've taken finding my type seriously, believing that finding the dominant, at the least, can help me find a life path that's more aligned with who I am and give me a direction to grow that won't inadvertently get me mired more deeply into who I'm not. I've read everything I can find on functions, yet after a couple years of studying and watching myself I'm no closer to a type than when I started. The definitions look distinct and clear, yet both Ne and Se fit me and there's enough in each definition that pushes me away from that function. (...) @_itsme45_, when it comes to I/E I need a high degree of stimulation through both idea talking and physical immersion with no ideas, and I can enjoy about an hour a day by myself but anything beyond that goes from kind of depressing to very stressful. I need someone to talk ideas through since my thoughts tend to be like a messed up ball of string that I can only unravel through talking. I know, one of those similes.


I think this MBTI thing can only be one of many possible vehicles to getting to know yourself more. I find, as you analyse these functions, you will observe and analyse yourself too.  Anyway... Do you really feel like you are not being yourself most of the time? You don't come off that way to me. 

Ha, high degree of stimulation to feel stimulated at all? How often do you stop to smell a simple rose?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Fine but I don't see how this is causally related to there being an inferior function.


More from Jung:


> Complexes interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance; they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of associations; they appear and disappear according to their own laws; they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings.["Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour," ibid., par. 253.]


i.e. they force themselves onto consciousness like any subjective datum and tells it to go process it (like a background process on a computer that suddenly decides to occupy a good chunk of the resources). Since parts of the endopsyche are presumably blocked or compromised, the datum isn't shoved back into the unconscious and so winds up sticking in the conscious. While the dominant function overrides the inferior by discounting the datum, this doesn't happen with the autonomous complex that keeps imposing itself from down under. From personal experience (and in hindsight right now), I had a phase of limerence where the entire thing could be summed up by a perpetual argument of dom Ti- inf Fe stuck in some awkward loop as the anima complex kept asserting herself.



> My question about that is, why do I need to stay "removed" from the Ni ideas like that? How is that to do with it being shadow? Are the dominant and the inferior generally hard to work together in tandem at a _conscious _level? I italicized that word because of course at an unconscious level Ni can work with Se pretty well, I've seen that many times.


Jung doesn't recommend a full repression of the inferior function:


> Although the inferior function may be conscious as a phenomenon its true significance nevertheless remains unrecognized. It behaves like many repressed or insufficiently appreciated contents, which are partly conscious and partly unconscious . . . . Thus in normal cases the inferior function remains conscious, at least in its effects; but in a neurosis it sinks wholly or in part into the unconscious. ["Definitions," CW 6, par. 764.]


i.e. too much one-sidedness = neurosis as the function is fully submerged below. However, directly bringing the inferior function out from the unconscious hinders or weakens the dominant function which presumably is where your greatest strengths lie.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> I think this MBTI thing can only be one of many possible vehicles to getting to know yourself more. I find, as you analyse these functions, you will observe and analyse yourself too.  Anyway... Do you really feel like you are not being yourself most of the time? You don't come off that way to me.


I've analyzed for a couple years both the functions and myself. I have two psychologist friends and they both think I'm aux Ti. But they don't know MBTI or Jung even as well as I do, and it's possible I've taken on T to deal more easily with the world, to push it away a bit. This could be something I'll never know without deeper psychological work. In real life, at least, I have a gift for Ti-type logic, and friends see that and extrapolate to aux Ti, but I don't know that it's necessarily from the Ti function since an ENFP or ESFP in different ways can be good at logic. I've been continuing to pursue functions and MBTI because even before I started studying the subject, I wasn't sure if I was more idea oriented or physically oriented. I was trying to decide whether to finish my major in botany, which would be incredible as a lifestyle but lacking enough ideas, or finish in philosophy or psychology, enough grappling with ideas to keep me happy but not a lifestyle I'm particularly interested in. Somewhere inside I guess I want the definitive answer as to who I am so I can wholeheartedly follow my path, but there doesn't seem to be a clear path to follow and I'd always hoped MBTI could help me discover it. It's difficult to find groups, too, since the N's are too "N" for me and the S's are too "S." So the answer to your last question is that I feel like I'm being myself, but "myself" is having trouble finding a fit in the world, probably because I'm trying to satisfy both S and N equally. All this searching didn't show up until I was thrown out of my usual life and into one that wasn't compatible, so the fact that I'm so seriously searching doesn't necessarily imply I'm NF on a quest for self and a life role.




itsme45 said:


> Ha, high degree of stimulation to feel stimulated at all? How often do you stop to smell a simple rose?


All the time. "Stop the car, I see a rose!" *jumps out of car and sniffs rose* "Wow, it smells incredible!" When people hear that I'm nature oriented, they often think it must be because of its soothing capabilities. But for me, nature is exciting and stimulating, a treasure hunt to find rare flowers, the excitement of seeing wild animals, incredible scenery, backcountry skiing and hiking, all of which has to be shared vocally with someone.  Nature is so great for quietly discovering who you are.  Then we get back to the car and discuss personality typing, and analyze people's behaviors and patterns and the problems of the world and how to logically fix it all.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> i.e. they force themselves onto consciousness like any subjective datum and tells it to go process it (like a background process on a computer that suddenly decides to occupy a good chunk of the resources). Since parts of the endopsyche are presumably blocked or compromised, the datum isn't shoved back into the unconscious and so winds up sticking in the conscious. While the dominant function overrides the inferior by discounting the datum, this doesn't happen with the autonomous complex that keeps imposing itself from down under. From personal experience (and in hindsight right now), I had a phase of limerence where the entire thing could be summed up by a perpetual argument of dom Ti- inf Fe stuck in some awkward loop as the anima complex kept asserting herself.


I just call all that emotional distress in trying to adapt to unfavourable environments =P Nothing to do with background processes of computers...... Well if we want to keep the analogy, I would put it like this, the CPU is getting bogged down with all the processes including both "background" and "foreground" ones (where the former is what is usually in the background and the latter usually in foreground), because there is a hard task to compute the solution for. You could include the input methods into this too, it'll get bogged down trying to process extra input (from environment) too.

Sorry I just don't like these mystical ideas of animated things fighting in the psyche.




> Jung doesn't recommend a full repression of the inferior function:
> 
> i.e. too much one-sidedness = neurosis as the function is fully submerged below. However, directly bringing the inferior function out from the unconscious hinders or weakens the dominant function which presumably is where your greatest strengths lie.


Yeah I suppose.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Karen said:


> (...) All this searching didn't show up until I was thrown out of my usual life and into one that wasn't compatible, so the fact that I'm so seriously searching doesn't necessarily imply I'm NF on a quest for self and a life role.


Yeah that makes sense. How do you think analysis of functions is going to help with that? I'm not questioning, I'm simply curious about your viewpoint.

Btw what kind of ideas do you lack for doing botany? I didn't understand that part.




> All the time. "Stop the car, I see a rose!!" *jumps out of car and sniffs rose* "Wow, it smells incredible!!" When people hear that I'm nature oriented, they often think it must be because of its soothing capabilities. But for me, nature is exciting and stimulating, a treasure hunt to find rare flowers, the excitement of seeing wild animals, incredible scenery, all of which has to be shared vocally with someone.  Nature is so great for quietly discovering who you are.  Then we get back to the car and discuss personality typing, and analyze people's behaviors and patterns and the problems of the world and how to logically fix it all.


Hehe sounds like fun lifestyle =P


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> I got this post only now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Your dominant Se is showing. :tongue::happy:


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

@LiquidLight, I've been gone all day, just returned and am catching up on posts. In your post #36, what does "AP" stand for? Or anyone? Googling hasn't helped.

Edit: Possibly Analytical Psychology.


----------



## StellarTwirl (Jul 1, 2012)

Karen said:


> @_LiquidLight_, I've been gone all day, just returned and am catching up on posts. In your post #36, what does "AP" stand for? *Or anyone?* Googling hasn't helped.


It means Analytical Psychology, unless I'm mistaken. :happy:


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

StellarTwirl said:


> It means Analytical Psychology, unless I'm mistaken. :happy:


I noticed itsme45 used it too. Since they both have a background in psychology, your guess is likely right.  Unless someone says otherwise, I'll use that definition. I was having difficulty understanding posts without knowing the meaning.


Brief answers to one of LiquidLights posts:



LiquidLight said:


> (...unlike say TypeC or Personality Nation where you pretty much only have hardcore type enthusiasts who have been kicked off of everywhere else).


Okay, this is funny. Is there a 12-step program for hardcore MBTI enthusiasts/offenders? I'm long past being ready. 




LiquidLight said:


> ...and even less have really jumped into serious literature on the subject from a variety of (non-online related) sources so what you end up with is an online culture that just self-propagates its own ideas.


And then you have people like me who have read 20 or more books that address functions, until nothing makes sense anymore. If I'd read Jung's Ne section and stopped there, confusion about my dominant wouldn't exist, and if I'd stopped after my official test, I'd be ENTP. But I like to delve deeply, or maybe broadly would be more accurate, and get opinions from dozens of authors and posters. BTW, taking into account everything you've said about MBTI/Jung, I think the closest I'll ever get to an answer is what I added to my signature line today.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

im with you on the having read too many books thing. Thats whi Ive just decided to stick with Jung right or wrong because the JCF/MBTi world is too inconsistent and self contradictory. You never know what to trust.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

I've pulled a few quotes from your post:



LiquidLight said:


> But these are not hard and fast associations because like I said earlier we can never sufficiently prove at what point someone is sufficiently Mexican to be a Mexican or someone is sufficiently American to be an American in a cultural context. We just have general tendencies that we look at.


I'm coming from a perspective of book reading more than reading posts on PerC. Every author has neatly placed everyone in a category with the only deviance being a few authors who say most people are a combination of types, for example SP/NT or SP/NF. All along I've wondered, are they crazy or am I? Where do they get the understanding that everyone fits neatly into their particular boxes and those boxes can always be found? Because this certainty is so widespread among the various authors, I've been waiting for the insight that would clearly explain why it took so long to find my box and what that box is. I call it a box, but in reality I've found personality typing to be freeing if the description fits, and have been hoping for that insight from MBTI/Jung.

If MBTI is separated from Jung and stands on its own, the letters could be taken away and the 16 types could have names and description continuums, somewhat like Enneagrams, so more focus could be on the outliers, such as myself and others on the forum. The letters are meaningless anyway, since the letters received from the test are just a starting point and the descriptions are ultimately what are used to type people. Even if the letters are kept but the idea is separated from Jung, the letters could be more clearly defined in a way that would better delineate thought patterns and behavior.

In spite of the many MBTI flaws, my husband and I have still been able to use it to understand thought and behavior patterns. Whether or not the person is truly the type they're projecting isn't the point, at least for others, as much as understanding where the person/persona is coming from and how to relate to them. Also, in spite of the fact that J and P are pointers and not functions, understanding that my husband is J and I'm P helped explain one of our constant misunderstandings. Now we can joke about the differences rather than have them be the cause of arguments.




LiquidLight said:


> So when you hear Jung or his progeny talk in these terms they're being deliberately on-the-nose so as to try and avoid confusion. Giving often extreme examples. Many times Von Franz points out that she is highlighting people who sit on the extreme almost neurotic end of things rather than normal people.


That's part of the problem with reading quotes on forums rather than going to the source, though I have searched for more complete online information. Not to say that authors shouldn't be quoted, since the information can be used to research more deeply. At least Von Franz has pointed out she uses extreme examples to clarify types, but I still stand behind my belief that there is a bias again S's in the way the descriptions are phrased.




LiquidLight said:


> This is why compared to what we are accustomed to with science Jung seems vague, but it is purposely vague as to allow for the complexity of human experience. You have to cast a net that is broad enough to both give people a frame of reference but not be constraining enough to create obvious contradictions as MBTI does.


I can understand the point, but "vague" has brought up its own set of problems. Possibly better to explain the look of types bleeding into each other than to be so vague as to needs hundreds of threads throughout many forums trying to explain functions.




LiquidLight said:


> Intuitions aren't a state. Like she said, they come in a flash, in a moment and then they are gone. That's why you have to suppress the real world of hard fact in order to let intuitions operate because if you were too focused on the factual physical sensory world, you might very well miss the insight or the flash.


That's interesting, because they are sometimes explained more as a state than brief instances. I still don't understand why the real world has to be suppressed constantly, rather than occasionally, and in fact how it can be suppressed without falling off a cliff or forgetting to go to work. Also not understood is that Si is the real world subjectively and Se the real world as is. These ideas are so nebulous that I'm not sure most people understand them enough to use for finding their type. Or maybe it's just me? They've been described so many ways by so many authors and posters that they blend together and don't make sense.




LiquidLight said:


> To continue his Matrix analogy, Ne would sense what Agent Smith's next move was going to be (in that world), while Ni would sense the existence of the Matrix itself.


So if I'm using patterns from the past in order to extrapolate future patterns or behavior, would that be the type of insight/knowing people are using with Ne? Or is it something even more nebulous, such as what we'd call psychic, knowing ahead of time based on nothing but an internal knowing?


Thanks for your posts -- interesting/informative.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> Yet I also have some issues with figuring out how to put the big picture together without first getting deep in details and in objective existing-out-there observations.


Last night my husband was trying to explain the details without first giving me the big picture and I practically had a nervous breakdown.  It's the first time I really understood that I need the big picture first, in order to understand the details, since otherwise the details hang in space with nowhere to fit. I wonder if the two ways of understanding info is connected to MBTI in any way?




itsme45 said:


> So when you pay attention to your body states do you easily feel fine distinctions of them? I do... but I think only after some experience... it's too unconscious otherwise. But it works fine, I eat when I need to, sleep when I need to, etc. Except if I'm really focused on materializing some idea.


I've had to learn to pay attention and now I can clearly describe and analyze what's going on, even frequently inside my body. It took a long time to get to that point. As to other body states, I notice lightness, heaviness, that type of thing. Did I answer the question, or where you trying to get at something else?




itsme45 said:


> How much did you relate to it?


Not at all. Does that mean I'm a Vulcan? (too much Star Trek tonight  )


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> That's interesting, because they are sometimes explained more as a state than brief instances. I still don't understand why the real world has to be suppressed constantly, rather than occasionally, and in fact how it can be suppressed without falling off a cliff or forgetting to go to work. Also not understood is that Si is the real world subjectively and Se the real world as is. These ideas are so nebulous that I'm not sure most people understand them enough to use for finding their type. Or maybe it's just me? They've been described so many ways by so many authors and posters that they blend together and don't make sense.


Yea Ne/Si are a little counterintuitive (no pun intended) because its actually Ne that is supposed to bring us the sense of objectivity because Si is subjective. However because Si is a sensation function it is always oriented to the physical world of the senses, but the emphasis is on the subjective experience. What you get out of the sense experience is what gets focused on with Si rather than what the components of the moment are in its own right. With Si something is never just 'cold' for instance. That would just be to accept the sense perception at face value, but it must always be cold+something subjective where the focus is less on cold and more on the subjective thing influenced by that cold. So even though Si deals with physical sensation, the focus for the individual is always back at the self (how that sensation resonates with you) and not on the physical sensation for its own right. Like I pointed out earlier if you are only focused on what something seems like to you, then you must have a function that gives you the sense that there might be another way of looking at things otherwise you would become enraptured by your own subjective perception of things never truly seeing that things could be another way (the problem of being a Si-dom). With Si, reality vis-a-vis the physical world is always subjective. Reality is always a function of how I see things with my own two eyes, rather than what is there objectively, thus Ne gives us the intuition that things may not actually be as you perceive them. 



> So if I'm using patterns from the past in order to extrapolate future patterns or behavior, would that be the type of insight/knowing people are using with Ne?


Can be either Ne or Ni. Depends on the thing you are intuiting about. If we are talking about predicting the future pattern of something in the outer world, like say how the stock market will perform or what the weather will be tomorrow that's probably more Ne (and of course intuition can intuit back into the past - we do this all the time like when we see someone that looks shady. We're either intuiting that the person will do something bad in the future or has done something in the past that warrants our suspicion, but in either case its still intuition because there often isn't much physical evidence to corroborate our hunch). If the intuition involved something like the reason the Western World prefers capitalism or Christianity, then now you're intuiting about something that's largely philosophical and can't really be qualified in the outer world. You're sort of digging back into your own mental capacities to come to a conclusion. You're in essence intuiting the 'state of mind' of the western world, which of course is something that is outwardly nebulous. Sort of like when Von Franz said that the children of Israel were 'asleep' she's intuiting that the state of mind of this group of people was not focused on important matters, but again you could never really quantify this objectively (which is why Ni in a poor form often takes the form of conspiracy theorizing. A primitive way of saying "here's what's really going on behind the scenes," but of course "behind the scenes" doesn't really exist quantitatively in the real world, its just a subjective notion about things). You could imagine a Ni-type intuiting that there must be some sort of nebulous force out there that is controlling the whole world (the Matrix) which in its full expression might be prophetic or visionary, and in its poor form might make such a person look like a hysterical conspiracy theorizer. This also helps explain why Ni types are often dismissed as con-artists or hacks since the things they are often intuiting about (especially when it takes a religious or paranormal form) can't ever truly be proven to exist.

There's an architect Patrick Schumacher, probably INTJ, who writes about the 'epochs of architectural style' and how the new appropriate style of architecture for the 21st century is what he has termed parametricism (basically organic computer modelled designs). True to form he is dismissed widely by the establishment who roll their eyes and dismiss him as a purveyor of faddishness, where when you listen to him and watch his lectures, I think its apparent that Schumacher actually believes his own philosophy about things even if no one else can quite pick up on it (that's typical of introverted functions). The problem with intuitives, even Extraverted Intuitives is that they're never seen as visionary until they're long dead and proven right. In a Sensation/Judgment oriented society there is no places for such 'foolishness.' 

To me the difference between Ne and NI would be summed up by say comparing Schumacher and all his talk about the 'epochs' of style versus Steve Jobs who had the intuition that if you combined and a computer and a walkman you could come up with a product people would be interested in. You can see how much more, real-world, Jobs was in comparison. Jobs wasn't off talking about the ontological state of the nature of man vs machine or some other esoteric thing like a lot of Ni-types are apt to do (you get a lot of these types in academia), but rather seeing potentialities in the actual physical world. I would count Walt Disney in that vein as well, having the sixth sense that people would be compelled if you made a life-like robot called an animatronic. I would probably put Charles and Ray Eames in the Ne category as well, but Le Corbusier in the Ni category with his notion that the use of curves in design represents aesthetic paralysis that doesn't properly advance modern civilization (this focus seems very Ni - and wacky Ni at that and I think one could make a real case for Le Corbusier having a Se preference). 


As far as not being more clear about blended types. I think that Jung had the good sense (intuition if you will) to know how people were going to take his theory of Psychological Types as he basically warns against running off and turning it into a parlour game (which of course is exactly what everyone did). So I think having that clairvoyance, you might as well be sort of excessively on-the-nose with your descriptions rather than muddy the waters up so that people at least understand the basic framework. People ran off and re-interpreted Psychological Types to find their desired ends anyway (like Myers and Socionics) but at least because Jung spells things out in a very almost cartoonishly archetypal way you can draw similarities and differences between the theories.

In a number of places he and others talk about real people being blends of types. Like the Sensation+Thinking type being the ultimate empiricist, for example (Se+Te in his theory not Se+Ti). But again because type is not the central focus of his theory, its really wasn't that important for him to expound on this sort of stuff. Because Myers made type the central focus of her theory, she sort of had to freelance a little bit to fill in the blanks, though the original MBTI is closer to Jung than the new Grant-Brownsword model of type dynamics which is what we all know.

If we look at this from a Jungian perspective everyone has a conscious personality and an unconscious personality or shadow personality if you will. So if were to adopt a nomenclature we would say that an Extraverted Sensation type is ES+F or T (where the two top functions are paired and both extraverted) and this person has a IN shadow. So we might call an ESTP an ES(T)/IN(F). Originally since the shadow is expressed via the inferior function, the tertiary was actually the aux of the Inferior so this person's shadow might be Ni+Fi. It's also argued that the two middle functions do not have to be differentiated into attitudes so it could just be T and F in the two middle functions not necessarily always Ti/Fe or Te/Fi and that the attitudes of these two middle functions were not concrete which again is why the Jungians often basically stop with calling people Feeling+Intuitives or Sensation+Thinking types rather than to go as far as MBTI does. INFP or ESTP could just be one of many different combinations of the Extraverted Sensation type or the Introverted Feeling type. 

You might have to start with many more than 16 types as you could have Se+Fe, Se+Te, Se+F, Se+T, Se+Fi and Se+Ti which is MBTI, and so on. I also think this helps begin to explain why so many people have a hard time finding their type, because they may not rigidly fit, say a Se+Fi or Se+Ti paradigm, despite preferring both Sensation and say Feeling. You often see ENFPs who seem to have a Fe-preference for example, which MBTI doesn't allow, but in AP would probably be common (because of the rigidity imposed you then have to go into other things like Crows Nest Functions a la Lenore Thomson or Shadow Functions a la Beebe to work around these restrictions the modern MBTI model imposes to explain people who seem not to fit or are contradictory.)


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

@Karen I think @Bumblyjack gave as good of a Ne dom description as is possible. If you want a more concrete example of how Ne works (albeit perhaps and likely mixed with other functions, there is no way to completely "purify" a function in an example) I'll try. 

I observe and read into what I'm observing. As an example, I work with children, so I watch them and make a note of their personalities, tendencies and motivations. If a situation arises (a problem), I can "intuitively" guess at the nature of the problem from all sides. So, when I talk to them, I make the effort to reach them based on what I"ve observed about them and others to make a bridge between mindsets so that everyone is validated in their perspective with boundaries and grow from that awareness.

As to AP. I've worked generally in the field if psychology (kids with various issues) over several years, and various schools of thought fall in and out of favor. It doesn't matter how good you are with theory when it comes to real life. The key is to read people and understand them and theorists don't generally do that as well.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> As to AP. I've worked generally in the field if psychology (kids with various issues) over several years, and various schools of thought fall in and out of favor. It doesn't matter how good you are with theory when it comes to real life. The key is to read people and understand them and theorists don't generally do that as well.


I agree. Though AP is not especially academic or theoretical. Certainly nothing like some of the more research based forms of Psychology. Most people who practice AP or Depth Psychology or are themselves analysts. It would be somewhat rare to find a Jungian in a major research based institution, most of them are actually practitioners (there's actually quite a bit you have to go through from an educational standpoint in order to be considered a 'Jungian analyst' most of which is time spent in actual analysis of real people not in theory. It's actually one of the reasons there is that rift between the clinical community the MBTI, because MBTI is strictly theoretical. There's no clinical analysis (and in most cases the proctor giving you the test may not be all that well versed in clinical techniques anyway). So it can't be an either or (either I'll use MBTI or seek clinical analysis) as they are not on the same plane. I think for most practicing clinicians and psychiatrists MBTI is, like other metrics like BIG 5, at best a tool in the tool box of the analyst to help provide some context about a client, but cannot be the end in and of itself. All this talk about Ne/Ni, Thinker/Feeler is interesting and makes for stimulating chat, but when dealing with real people you have to come down off the theoretical mountaintop and meet people where they're at (which again is why in AP, type and functions are not a central focus. They are today and were always intended to be a tool, or rules of thumb to help in the analysis process).


----------



## Anonynony (Jun 24, 2012)

like @_Karen_, I like to know the big picture; everything is so much easier when you have an idea of what something is!

p.s. this was to show a lot of people do this, but I ended up sounding stupid! :tongue:


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TaylorS said:


> Your dominant Se is showing. :tongue::happy:


I won't argue that. 




LiquidLight said:


> im with you on the having read too many books thing. Thats whi Ive just decided to stick with Jung right or wrong because the JCF/MBTi world is too inconsistent and self contradictory. You never know what to trust.


You trust your own judgment.

I don't see Jung's books more "trustable" as any other book, why should I? Something is perhaps more trustable if it provides actual evidence from properly conducted experiments (where properly means it's repetable by anyone else). Otherwise, not really...




Karen said:


> Where do they get the understanding that everyone fits neatly into their particular boxes and those boxes can always be found? Because this certainty is so widespread among the various authors, I've been waiting for the insight that would clearly explain why it took so long to find my box and what that box is. I call it a box, but in reality I've found personality typing to be freeing if the description fits, and have been hoping for that insight from MBTI/Jung.


Certainty is due to cognitive errors, biases in subjective observations. Like, they will remember stuff more that supports their theory more than stuff that goes against it. Or they'll try to explain latter stuff in some way. In either case, falsifiability is lost.

IMO, it's freeing because it's nice to be able to put some things into words. But only, if your own self-perception really matches the description. Except of course if you're lying to yourself about some things or deny some things or just simply not noticing them, so if a description doesn't fit, you can still check if maybe parts of are actually right. And then that can be a freeing feeling too if this way you notice new things about yourself. Well that's my perspective on the matter as to why typology can be a useful thing to some degree. That is the non-theoretical part of it really because you don't really need to use theory principles here. But the theory itself isn't very useful. A theory would be best used for making predictions in real life and if that doesn't work, then forget it.




> If MBTI is separated from Jung and stands on its own, the letters could be taken away and the 16 types could have names and description continuums, somewhat like Enneagrams, so more focus could be on the outliers, such as myself and others on the forum. The letters are meaningless anyway, since the letters received from the test are just a starting point and the descriptions are ultimately what are used to type people. Even if the letters are kept but the idea is separated from Jung, the letters could be more clearly defined in a way that would better delineate thought patterns and behavior.


The type descriptions shouldn't actually be used to type people. The goal shouldn't even be typing really. Of course, as said above, using descriptions (types or functions etc etc) can be helpful for getting to know yourself more. I didn't know enneagram was a continuum like that... well I did read that claim somewhere once. But the cores of enneagram types isn't really about a continuum at all. You either have the basic drive, basic fear, fixation, etc. etc., in an influential way or not. This is what the theory claims afaik. Of course that statement may be wrong, maybe there are people who can be close to 50/50 mix here. I don't know, but certainly a possibility.




> In spite of the many MBTI flaws, my husband and I have still been able to use it to understand thought and behavior patterns. Whether or not the person is truly the type they're projecting isn't the point, at least for others, as much as understanding where the person/persona is coming from and how to relate to them. Also, in spite of the fact that J and P are pointers and not functions, understanding that my husband is J and I'm P helped explain one of our constant misunderstandings. Now we can joke about the differences rather than have them be the cause of arguments.


Yes as said, putting things into words to make them more consciously accessible and understandable can help a lot. (I suppose brain processes things better that way)




> At least Von Franz has pointed out she uses extreme examples to clarify types, but I still stand behind my belief that there is a bias again S's in the way the descriptions are phrased.


I agree. That was part of why I wrote that long rant about how my S/N is like. I'm nothing like a stereotypical Se dom. Or Ne dom or anything for that matter. As I said, the best way I could resolve this issue was making an alternative viewpoint of these theories, about how they actually made up function definitions and how it shouldn't be done that way.




> I can understand the point, but "vague" has brought up its own set of problems. Possibly better to explain the look of types bleeding into each other than to be so vague as to needs hundreds of threads throughout many forums trying to explain functions.


I actually like this idea. But for me it is functions bleeding into each other. Again I'm a good example for that...




> That's interesting, because they are sometimes explained more as a state than brief instances. I still don't understand why the real world has to be suppressed constantly, rather than occasionally, and in fact how it can be suppressed without falling off a cliff or forgetting to go to work.


It's not suppressed in that crazy way =) Take me for example, I scan my environment very quickly on a subconscious level, but just because it's done subconsciously it doesn't mean it won't work. It's actually done that way for increased efficiency, I believe. It's just quicker processing.

A good concrete example of that would be how I read easy fiction books. I will automatically skip parts of paragraphs on a completely subconscious level because the details in them are not important for following the story.

I actually think that the "suppression of sensation" in this way has nothing to do with intuition, this is just implicit automatic processing of information. I read a lot of books as a kid and I thus had time to practice efficiency in reading thus ending up with the above method. So, IMO, a cognitive framework for looking at certain things that jung tried to explain by these ideas of repressing sensation seems to work much better. 




> Also not understood is that Si is the real world subjectively and Se the real world as is. These ideas are so nebulous that I'm not sure most people understand them enough to use for finding their type. Or maybe it's just me? They've been described so many ways by so many authors and posters that they blend together and don't make sense.


It's not that nebulous, just the way he put it. It's just that people using a lot of Si like to pay attention how they themselves relate to things. Nothing mystical or even novel in that. I'll come back to that in a minute later in this post.




> So if I'm using patterns from the past in order to extrapolate future patterns or behavior, would that be the type of insight/knowing people are using with Ne? Or is it something even more nebulous, such as what we'd call psychic, knowing ahead of time based on nothing but an internal knowing?


The internal knowing most likely comes from earlier input of you observing things in the world. As I said, a lot of our perception processing is done subconsciously, or even fully unconsciously, at a very low level in the brain. Consider how the light comes in through the eye, the retina, the optic nerve, then certain areas in the occipital lobe (and some other low level processing areas even before it gets there) identify the input into lines, shapes, colours, while all that is being synced to other areas in other lobes to provide a bit higher level overview to make this process easier, then after that you'll finally have the picture of your environment, and then only then it is that it may become conscious. You will never ever be conscious of how the neurons in the occipital lobe manage to identify the lines and shapes and why should you be? How I see this is, it's the same with processing information to make patterns like that. That's why I provided the above example to make a very close analogy with it.




Karen said:


> Last night my husband was trying to explain the details without first giving me the big picture and I practically had a nervous breakdown.  It's the first time I really understood that I need the big picture first, in order to understand the details, since otherwise the details hang in space with nowhere to fit. I wonder if the two ways of understanding info is connected to MBTI in any way?


Ha, then we are different there. I don't give a hoot about the big picture before I saw the details. If I'm to study for an exam, the chapters in the book usually have an abstract at the start of the chapter or a summary at the end of the chapter. I utilize neither. I'll just dive into the details and build the big picture for myself after I got all of the details in. Call it compulsive orienting on details if you want, it does sometimes feel that way.

Anyway what you said could be related in several ways to MBTI - thus, your question is pointless, but I'll mention some of these to show what I mean: as example, you could say dom Ne likes to see big picture first but you could also say that dom Se needs the big picture because it can't be built by Se  So at this point, you're left with nothing usable. This is a good example of how the theory isn't falsifiable.




> I've had to learn to pay attention and now I can clearly describe and analyze what's going on, even frequently inside my body. It took a long time to get to that point. As to other body states, I notice lightness, heaviness, that type of thing. Did I answer the question, or where you trying to get at something else?


For me that is interesting. As a kid I never had a problem noticing and taking care of body states. Not that I ever cared about them much but it was just done naturally whenever needed. (Usually only negative states were/are noticed by me, then I take care of them and I'm back to whatever I was doing.) 
Then I got into some abstract things, I got somewhat removed from things I was doing as a kid (MBTI-wise, less Se) and I think that's when I kind of forgot about the body states too. I've been relearning them in the last couple of years, and interestingly enough that started when I got into sports after all those years of being more theoretical. They finally got back to being natural, so now I suppose I'm kind of back to how I was as a kid with the body stuff. I don't analyze them anymore, temporarily I did (while getting back). But I'm back to being able to notice fine distinctions if I pay enough attention. Like levels of lightness, heaviness (your examples), whatever.  




> Not at all. Does that mean I'm a Vulcan? (too much Star Trek tonight  )


Lol.




LiquidLight said:


> With Si something is never just 'cold' for instance. That would just be to accept the sense perception at face value, but it must always be cold+something subjective where the focus is less on cold and more on the subjective thing influenced by that cold. So even though Si deals with physical sensation, the focus for the individual is always back at the self (how that sensation resonates with you) and not on the physical sensation for its own right.


I like that description of Si. I can understand it very well if I think of how I sense cold, e.g. if drinking cold water. My focus is on it being cold. So that would be Se, if I understand right. After reading some things about Si, I noticed that I actually have a subconscious sensation too that's subjective, it's there just as much as the sensation of the coldness itself, I just don't have my conscious focus on that subjective feeling, it's in the "background". I actually hate the idea of paying attention to it. 




> Can be either Ne or Ni. Depends on the thing you are intuiting about. If we are talking about predicting the future pattern of something in the outer world, like say how the stock market will perform or what the weather will be tomorrow that's probably more Ne (and of course intuition can intuit back into the past - we do this all the time like when we see someone that looks shady. We're either intuiting that the person will do something bad in the future or has done something in the past that warrants our suspicion, but in either case its still intuition because there often isn't much physical evidence to corroborate our hunch). If the intuition involved something like the reason the Western World prefers capitalism or Christianity, then now you're intuiting about something that's largely philosophical and can't really be qualified in the outer world. You're sort of digging back into your own mental capacities to come to a conclusion. You're in essence intuiting the 'state of mind' of the western world, which of course is something that is outwardly nebulous. Sort of like when Von Franz said that the children of Israel were 'asleep' she's intuiting that the state of mind of this group of people was not focused on important matters, but again you could never really quantify this objectively.


That again is a pretty nice explanation comparing Ne abstractness with Ni abstractness, thanks. I mean, I did always understand how Ni was defined as being an abstract thing not out there in the world. An example of that would be how I said the psyche is just a concept in your head. So those psyche theories are a lot to do with Ni. ;P

However, with Ne... I'm sometimes not sure if I got my understanding of that definition right and this helped. Of course then it gets complicated because some people like to attribute those future predictions to Ni.  So this is where I always say that it's not the right approach to make such generic categories as these functions are because too many things need to be included without checking for any actually existing causal link between them.




> The problem with intuitives, even Extraverted Intuitives is that they're never seen as visionary until they're long dead and proven right. In a Sensation/Judgment oriented society there is no places for such 'foolishness.'


And then sometimes they are proven wrong. Actually I would say more often wrong than right, and even the right can change into wrong later, as we improve on our understanding of the world.




> To me the difference between Ne and NI would be summed up by say comparing Schumacher and all his talk about the 'epochs' of style versus Steve Jobs who had the intuition that if you combined and a computer and a walkman you could come up with a product people would be interested in. You can see how much more, real-world, Jobs was in comparison. Jobs wasn't off talking about the ontological state of the nature of man vs machine or some other esoteric thing like a lot of Ni-types are apt to do (you get a lot of these types in academia), but rather seeing potentialities in the actual physical world. I would count Walt Disney in that vein as well, having the sixth sense that people would be compelled if you made a life-like robot called an animatronic. I would probably put Charles and Ray Eames in the Ne category as well, but Le Corbusier in the Ni category with his notion that the use of curves in design represents aesthetic paralysis that doesn't properly advance modern civilization (this focus seems very Ni - and wacky Ni at that and I think one could make a real case for Le Corbusier having a Se preference).


This is just bias about N vs S... you are using concrete examples. E.g. How do you know Steve Jobs wasn't really Se actually? How do you know his reasoning process was done via Ne? I would actually easily argue for Se in his case, as this idea of a combination of computer and a walkman is not something that you need much intuition for you to work it out. I get such ideas myself. I actually never understood all the hype about Steve Jobs anyway.  How do you even know he didn't use someone else's work to come up with this idea? Happened before.

Also how do you know someone with wacky Ni is not just someone who just doesn't have e.g. a high IQ? Why try to explain everything via functions and jungian principles of dominant vs inferior function placement?




> As far as not being more clear about blended types. I think that Jung had the good sense (intuition if you will) to know how people were going to take his theory of Psychological Types as he basically warns against running off and turning it into a parlour game (which of course is exactly what everyone did). So I think having that clairvoyance, you might as well be sort of excessively on-the-nose with your descriptions rather than muddy the waters up so that people at least understand the basic framework. People ran off and re-interpreted Psychological Types to find their desired ends anyway (like Myers and Socionics) but at least because Jung spells things out in a very almost cartoonishly archetypal way you can draw similarities and differences between the theories.


I did wonder before why people claim they interpreted Jung while they actually just took the ideas and added their own ideas into the mix, even changing the original ideas in the process? These were pretty muddy waters even for Jung himself I would say. You can see his hesitation at places where he's being purposefully vague. I think it's a possibility that he himself wasn't convinced about how much was there to these ideas. I believe the thing he saw actually exists but it's not interpreted in the right way, in the right framework. Not that there is a "right" one as there is always one that is better than the previous one.




> In a number of places he and others talk about real people being blends of types. Like the Sensation+Thinking type being the ultimate empiricist, for example (Se+Te in his theory not Se+Ti). But again because type is not the central focus of his theory, its really wasn't that important for him to expound on this sort of stuff. Because Myers made type the central focus of her theory, she sort of had to freelance a little bit to fill in the blanks, though the original MBTI is closer to Jung than the new Grant-Brownsword model of type dynamics which is what we all know.


Yes, type wasn't the central focus for good reasons. 

I read somewhere that Myers did not have any experience with psychology before making up the MBTI theory. That in my eyes does reduce the authority of her on these matters to be honest.




> ...also argued that the two middle functions do not have to be differentiated into attitudes so it could just be T and F in the two middle functions not necessarily always Ti/Fe or Te/Fi and that the attitudes of these two middle functions were not concrete which again is why the Jungians often basically stop with calling people Feeling+Intuitives or Sensation+Thinking types rather than to go as far as MBTI does.


Why do you think they have to stop there? Because the framework is not quite right. So the fewer actual conclusions made based on it, the fewer errors.




> ...to work around these restrictions the modern MBTI model imposes to explain people who seem not to fit or are contradictory.)


Not only MBTI has contradictory things like that but Jung's original stuff too. Of course he made somewhat fewer unproven assumptions so there is less likelihood for errors, but... still there.

Really, as a sum-up of my stance of all this: anyone here with doubts about MBTI or Jung's functions, would greatly benefit from reading about the methodology of scientific research as that's humanity's most refined way of thinking so far.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

FigureSkater said:


> like @_Karen_, I like to know the big picture; everything is so much easier when you have an idea of what something is!



True of every normal person.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> OMG, that last paragraph on Ni reminds me of a New Age astrologer kook on another message board I frequent.


LOL, I know those types IRL. My Ni is fo sho dominant (Se drains the shit out of me - I tend to have big issues around it) - in fact, it's so dominant that I've convinced myself on so many occasions that I can look into a person's eyes and figure out their type...Seriously, LOL! People would think I'm INSANE...but I can't help but just believe I'm seeing these things! It's so "real" to me! It's not always an immediate recognition though, but I swear I'm noticing trends that are more than coincidence, creepy as such may sound, LOL.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> LOL, I know those types IRL. My Ni is fo sho dominant (Se drains the shit out of me - I tend to have big issues around it) - in fact, it's so dominant that I've convinced myself on so many occasions that I can look into a person's eyes and figure out their type...Seriously, LOL! People would think I'm INSANE...but I can't help but just believe I'm seeing these things! It's so "real" to me! It's not always an immediate recognition though, but I swear I'm noticing trends that are more than coincidence, creepy as such may sound, LOL.


What is draining about Se? (Sorry I know maybe off topic here but if you can say a few quick sentences about it...?)

Now my relevant argument: Just because you see trends, it doesn't mean your explanation for them is the right one.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

When I start a thread I like to be a good host but on Sat, Sun, Mon, when my husband has off work, we're gone much of the day so it usually takes 24 hours to get back to people's comments/questions to me. Is this Fe? For the rest of my life will I wonder what function I'm using?  Thanks for everyone's posts, and I'll catch up tonight.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Yea Ne/Si are a little counterintuitive (no pun intended) because its actually Ne that is supposed to bring us the sense of objectivity because Si is subjective. However because Si is a sensation function it is always oriented to the physical world of the senses, but the emphasis is on the subjective experience. What you get out of the sense experience is what gets focused on with Si rather than what the components of the moment are in its own right. With Si something is never just 'cold' for instance. That would just be to accept the sense perception at face value, but it must always be cold+something subjective where the focus is less on cold and more on the subjective thing influenced by that cold. So even though Si deals with physical sensation, the focus for the individual is always back at the self (how that sensation resonates with you) and not on the physical sensation for its own right. Like I pointed out earlier if you are only focused on what something seems like to you, then you must have a function that gives you the sense that there might be another way of looking at things otherwise you would become enraptured by your own subjective perception of things never truly seeing that things could be another way (the problem of being a Si-dom). With Si, reality vis-a-vis the physical world is always subjective. Reality is always a function of how I see things with my own two eyes, rather than what is there objectively, thus Ne gives us the intuition that things may not actually be as you perceive them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A good example of Ni at work is the German historian Oswald Spengler and his book "The Decline Of The West".

The Decline of the West - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> This is just bias about N vs S... you are using concrete examples. E.g. How do you know Steve Jobs wasn't really Se actually? How do you know his reasoning process was done via Ne? I would actually easily argue for Se in his case, as this idea of a combination of computer and a walkman is not something that you need much intuition for you to work it out.


I actually wrote my statements about Steve Jobs on purpose because of a feeling (an intuition if you will) that you would fire back with this response and I think it hammers home the difference between a Sensation perspective and an Intuitive one. I claim Jobs for an EN type without really having any concrete knowledge to back it up. Its just a hunch. That's intuition at its core. Where the person oriented to Sensation (and or Extraverted Thinking) immediately jumps up in disbelief and says "how do you know? Where's the proof? How do we know that you're not just making stuff up?" That's quintessential Sensation+Thinking. "Show me the evidence! Show me the proof! Don't BS me!" Sensation wanting things to relate to the physical world of the five senses and experience and extraversion wanting to be as objective as possible. 

With people who prefer Intuition there is no proof and often little evidence. This is why we say Intuitives reject Sensation (the actual physical empirical world) otherwise you'd having something of a bit of dissonance here. The intuitive says, "I dont care about the evidence," I know this to be true in my gut or in my heart. In contrast 'truth' in a Sensation perspective must always be able to be validated, proven or disproven. A lot of times this really shows up with people who use their intuitions in a poor manner like expecting the worst to happen in a situation or misinterpreting someone's motivations (she must be cheating on me). When Intuition is used poorly you can really see how it flies in the face often of actual evidence (or uses evidence as a slave to its own ends). 

The Sensation type who always wants to concretize everything, on the other hand, has intuition as a slave to his sensation. Then its "because I have observed x it must mean y." But of course this isn't really robust intuition, its sensation first and primarily and then drawing intuitions from that. But those intuitions can only exist in the paradigm of the sense perception not of their own accord (sort of like the Feeling of a Thinking type is always subject to dominant Thinking. If you ask the person how they feel about something, they might say "I dunno let me think about it," which is to put Feeling evaluations in a more conceptual thinking context rather than accept them as they are). Sensation types do this with their intuitions, which is why, for example with Se-doms you get people who, as Von Franz pointed out, can become obsessed with superstitions and placing symbolism into physical objects (sensation) that the objects don't have. It's not the age of the glove or the height of the socks that give the batter his batting average (thats superstition bordering on magic). 

But because the Sensation cannot accept symbolism and metaphysical ideas for their own sake, they must always be represented through the physical world, thus the bat becomes 'my lucky bat,' or the crucifix which, in and of itself, is just _symbolic_ of belief, becomes the thing that people think wards off 'bad omens' or 'bad luck' from them. But again the focus isn't on the symbolic its still on the object. 

Just go to conspiracy theory websites and it becomes plainly clear. It's mostly stuff where there's often ridiculous connections between what someone has observed like "the government is building new train tracks in Montana" therefore this means "Obama is going to put us all in concentration camps." You can see how the intuition (we're all going to modern day concentration camps) is 1) hysterical and 2) founded in the observation -- evidence, if you will. This is the problem with having Intuition not being allowed to function of its own volition. Dominant intuitives, may be wrong, but often aren't (not relative to the amount of time they engage their intuitions, if they were wrong all the time they'd be psychologically out of sorts because the world clearly wouldn't line up with their intuitive perceptions). For the dominant intuitive, Intuitive episodes form a perspective, a way of looking at things (that is then judged by the other two functions and _hopefully_ measured against the real world via their sensation function), but for the Sensation type intuitive episodes always remain episodes. 'Moments off clarity' or insight as it were but they never become a full-blown perspective. 

But when Intuition is always under the servitude of Sensation (like in a Si or Se dom) then you run the risk of making hunches about things that are solely based on observations, and the problem is, no one person has observed enough of the real world to make accurate intuitions based on observations. The intuitions of this order (concrete as Jung called them) always will relate back to the person's actual experiences and since the person has only experienced a limited representation of the world (his own), they cannot see the bigger picture. 

True intuition then must ignore the actual experiences of physical experience so that it might 'see' a bigger picture that cannot be measured against the person's own personal experiences. This is why a Ni-type might be able to intuit about the state of mankind, as it were, even though there is no way he has experienced enough on his own to be able to make this claim empirically. The man might 'see' the existence of the Matrix or 'the Force' without ever having seen it personally. It's because his intuitions aren't linked to his own personal experiences and observations (in the case of Ni they sort of come from an unconscious or symbolic place, perhaps the ability to read 'the collective unconscious' or an awareness of genetic imprinting or archetypal patterns that can't be quantified with anything in the physical world).

This also underscores why it is so difficult, much more so than people imagine, for people to sort of cross over and develop their inferior function if we are really over-relying on our superior function. You can imagine a Sensation+Thinking type so oriented to evidence and "show me the proof," struggling mightily with truly giving himself over to an Intuitive+Feeling disposition (two things that to a Se+Te type would seem really nebulous and weird, probably bordering on fantasy or craziness). The pull is always going to be to want to go back to the more comfortable, familiar empiricism. The "I'll believe it when I see it," approach rather than just going off an instinct, guess or vague notion. It also demonstrates after talking to people in conversation that many people are not as Intuitive as they think they are. Many times these people are Sensation types when you begin to uncover the nature of their intuitions. It's not at all uncommon to see a Se-dom, especially once he really discovers his Intuition to think he's an intuitive as Von Franz points out. That he's some sage of the age but of course, when you dig deeper you find this 'sagacity' often finds its place from observation directly. 

I think sensation types might have a hard time understanding how you cannot have intuitions related to experience, to them everything must always come from the physical world. The idea that you could have a notion about something that comes from a place other than the real world would, to them, probably seem silly. You can often pretty much tell the Intuitive from the Sensation type in real life pretty quickly, because they would probably annoy each other with one being accused of not having his feet on the ground and the other being accused of not having any imagination. 

As a film director my struggle as someone who prefers intuition is, when working with actors, to get them to actually perform the role rather than to just understand it. When you're reading a screenplay intuition is great because it gives you a sense of subtext underlying the screenplay that may not be evident in the writing, and often you might catch stuff the screenwriter missed or have a good sense of how the scene will play to an audience. In the dramatic world we are always asking "what does the character want?" and "what does the character have to go through to get it?" These questions are often not answered directly in the screenplay but rather have to be inferred or intuited by the director who then has to explain this character to the actor on the set, especially if the actor has a different 'read' of the character. 

The problem is that movies are not intellectual intuitive exercises of subtext (like high art) and the characters have to be 'doing something.' We are after all photographing them in an environment, not just talking about them. Knowing the character is 'disillusioned' is great for understanding the subtext of the scene, but the audience has to see him 'doing something,' since there is no real physical representation of 'disillusionment.' The challenge for me is to be able to take subtext and convert it into physicality, which for me is very difficult. You have to turn "you're frustrated" into "lunge at him." On the flip side I've worked with a number of Sensation types who are marvelous with visuals and action, design, explosions, visual effects, fight scenes, staging, choreography and the like, but often produce work that is soulless and just spectacle for its own sake, and I think this is what Von Franz and Jung were sort of getting at when they talk of Sensation types in this manner. 

It's not these types have no soul of course just that they are oriented more toward the physical real world than the subtextual, read-between-the-lines world. It's always interesting being in conversations with these types because the subtext to them is always tied to some physical action of the story or the character. It's always "because Bruce Wayne's parents died, or because Bain beat him down he wants revenge," rather than seeking an exploration of revenge and anger itself irrespective of physical context (I'm not claiming Nolan as any given type just using Batman as an example. In fact the Batman trilogy is all about subtext, where say The Transformers trilogy is all about action+action=reaction -- Bay isn't interested in a character exploration or soliloquizing about where we are as a people in this day and age like Nolan, just that there are some pissed off robots who want to blow shit up).


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> With people who prefer Intuition there is no proof and often little evidence. This is why we say Intuitives reject Sensation (the actual physical empirical world) otherwise you'd having something of a bit of dissonance here. The intuitive says, "I dont care about the evidence," I know this to be true in my gut or in my heart. In contrast 'truth' in a Sensation perspective must always be able to be validated, proven or disproven. A lot of times this really shows up with people who use their intuitions in a poor manner like expecting the worst to happen in a situation or misinterpreting someone's motivations (she must be cheating on me). When Intuition is used poorly you can really see how it flies in the face often of actual evidence (or uses evidence as a slave to its own ends).


I agree with this, and I would add that in the case of extraverted intuition, it's more of a rejection of what seems obvious and looking at the object from a different angle to find the one that is more accurate or better to implement.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> What is draining about Se? (Sorry I know maybe off topic here but if you can say a few quick sentences about it...?)
> 
> Now my relevant argument: Just because you see trends, it doesn't mean your explanation for them is the right one.


Paying attention to a lot of detail at once and recalling a ton of data at once tends to make me anal, especially when I try to be consistent with my observations and the connections between them if they don't have any underlying significance to me.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I actually wrote my statements about Steve Jobs on purpose because of a feeling (an intuition if you will) that you would fire back with this response and I think it hammers home the difference between a Sensation perspective and an Intuitive one. (...)


Thing is, I responded this way because I truly don't believe that you can tell types that easily. I find it an incredibly difficult process, typing other people (heck, even typing myself), because the differences are often only in thinking processes. The correlation between these mental processes and concrete behaviour is too weak for my liking. So I'm very skeptical about typing based on a few concrete traits, I'm sorry but I simply don't trust that crap. (I mean, you used concrete traits in your reasoning.)

Anyhow, your explanation about N vs S was pretty cool, but I just still don't identify with either S or N that great. The only real proof for me being Se and not Ne is perhaps that as a kid I didn't have much intuition... though I always wished to have intuition, I kept trying to look for something that wasn't there but I just didn't get anything out of it. Then one fuckin' day it all clicked together, so to speak. I love such heureka moments. I believe those moments are "Ni" giving me a solution. And the solution it gives is nothing to do with stupid paranoia. I like to think I'm the least paranoid person in the world =)))

Btw I don't believe that N gets the ideas from no real data. They just don't focus on the data itself that much. There is nothing mystical about this. This applies to both Ni and Ne.



> The idea that you could have a notion about something that comes from a place other than the real world would, to them, probably seem silly.


That is because it is silly! Where else would it come from? Are you able to argue this for me? I am seriously curious about that.

Interesting about the screenplay example. I think it's also a learned thing for me to be able to write in a way that's more "physical". But maybe I was more capable of it when I was a kid, I will have to look up my old writings. I would be lost if I was to do "visuals and action, design, explosions, visual effects, fight scenes, staging, choreography and the like". :'(

So take away from this whatever you want, I still think I'm no stereotypical Se, or anything. 




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Paying attention to a lot of detail at once and recalling a ton of data at once tends to make me anal, especially when I try to be consistent with my observations and the connections between them if they don't have any underlying significance to me.


Heh, I cannot pay attention to a lot of detail at once myself, I'll process them very sequentially. I am totally anal about details, I feel so asperger-ish at times with my narrow-ish focus. =P I'm addicted to details though... so I enjoy this... so I wouldn't call it draining.

I don't really look for any underlying significance consciously though. I guess I'm consistent with my observations without any problem though


----------



## Bumblyjack (Nov 18, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Thing is, I responded this way because I truly don't believe that you can tell types that easily. I find it an incredibly difficult process, typing other people (heck, even typing myself), because the differences are often only in thinking processes. The correlation between these mental processes and concrete behaviour is too weak for my liking. So I'm very skeptical about typing based on a few concrete traits, I'm sorry but I simply don't trust that crap. (I mean, you used concrete traits in your reasoning.)
> 
> Anyhow, your explanation about N vs S was pretty cool, but I just still don't identify with either S or N that great. The only real proof for me being Se and not Ne is perhaps that as a kid I didn't have much intuition... though I always wished to have intuition, I kept trying to look for something that wasn't there but I just didn't get anything out of it. Then one fuckin' day it all clicked together, so to speak. I love such heureka moments. I believe those moments are "Ni" giving me a solution. And the solution it gives is nothing to do with stupid paranoia. I like to think I'm the least paranoid person in the world =)))
> 
> ...


This post sounds like you were trying to give the perfect example for "The Sensation type who always wants to concretize everything" that @LiquidLight described.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

saffron said:


> @Karen I think @Bumblyjack gave as good of a Ne dom description as is possible. If you want a more concrete example of how Ne works (albeit perhaps and likely mixed with other functions, there is no way to completely "purify" a function in an example) I'll try.
> 
> I observe and read into what I'm observing. As an example, I work with children, so I watch them and make a note of their personalities, tendencies and motivations. If a situation arises (a problem), I can "intuitively" guess at the nature of the problem from all sides. So, when I talk to them, I make the effort to reach them based on what I"ve observed about them and others to make a bridge between mindsets so that everyone is validated in their perspective with boundaries and grow from that awareness.
> 
> As to AP. I've worked generally in the field if psychology (kids with various issues) over several years, and various schools of thought fall in and out of favor. It doesn't matter how good you are with theory when it comes to real life. The key is to read people and understand them and theorists don't generally do that as well.


It's difficult to know if what I do is similar to an Ne or entirely different. These functions seem so subtle, yet maybe they aren't and saying I'm SeNi would explain part of the reason they seem subtle. Here's what I do in order to understand people. I listen to what they're saying and see what's really going on, just from learning about people over the years. I observe the pattern they fit into and see if it's similar to something they've said/done before or if it seems like a pattern I've seen elsewhere. I might have an ah ha moment when I understand where it fits, but it all seems logical to me, comparing patterns and seeing where they'll likely lead. I read a lot of books, talk to people, observe what's going on and how it ends up, and put everything together to help people break out of their games or stuckness. I don't get tons of ideas and ideas don't seem to frequently drift down from the unknown, yet I do have insights fairly easily and always look at what is really going on rather than what appears to be happening. I'm not sure if this is Ne or some other function(s).




FigureSkater said:


> like @Karen, I like to know the big picture; everything is so much easier when you have an idea of what something is!


That triggered a memory of a conversation I had with someone years ago about our learning patterns. While others are learning step by step, we're trying to grasp all the connections at once so it all fits together as a whole. This causes our learning curve to be flat for quite a long time while we're overwhelmed with information, but when it clicks it shoots up beyond others' curves who don't care about everything encircling what they specifically need to know. Then to make it more difficult, I seem to get more meanings out of a simple sentence than almost anyone, where others are starting in on a project and I'm scratching my head wondering what it all means and why I'm the only one who doesn't know the secret.

Ne? Ni? No function?




itsme45 said:


> True of every normal person.


Where are these normal people to whom you are referring? I've been with relatives all day and have seen nary a one.  So N's are the ones who look at the big picture. No wait, so do S's, and they major in philosophy too. S's focus on what is. No wait, so do N's, and they devote their lives to sports. N's look underneath what someone is doing. So do S's, and they major in psychology. Sometimes I don't think there's one definitive characteristic that separates S's from N's. Yeah, I know, what matters is the lens through which someone sees the world, etc. etc.  But if we let go of characteristics and behavior, then we need the ability to look into someone's mind.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Bumblyjack said:


> This post sounds like you were trying to give the perfect example for "The Sensation type who always wants to concretize everything" that @_LiquidLight_ described.


You are right, I love reifying things. 




Karen said:


> It's difficult to know if what I do is similar to an Ne or entirely different. These functions seem so subtle, yet maybe they aren't and saying I'm SeNi would explain part of the reason they seem subtle. Here's what I do in order to understand people. I listen to what they're saying and see what's really going on, just from learning about people over the years. I observe the pattern they fit into and see if it's similar to something they've said/done before or if it seems like a pattern I've seen elsewhere. I might have an ah ha moment when I understand where it fits, but it all seems logical to me, comparing patterns and seeing where they'll likely lead. I read a lot of books, talk to people, observe what's going on and how it ends up, and put everything together to help people break out of their games or stuckness. I don't get tons of ideas and ideas don't seem to frequently drift down from the unknown, yet I do have insights fairly easily and always look at what is really going on rather than what appears to be happening. I'm not sure if this is Ne or some other function(s).


I'm the exact same way. So...

OK, just one difference... do you REALLY *always* look at what is really going on under the surface? Because I find I don't do that. I'd like to, subconsciously, but consciously I don't do it. I enjoy just watching happenings as they are, not thinking about anything else. Theorizing is nice but it can overload me after some time if I don't have a concrete goal with it.

On second thought, I actually keep looking constantly for the "what is really going on" thing if I'm dealing with things that I'm trying to understand. Just not with people... People I prefer to just take on a case by case basis.




> That triggered a memory of a conversation I had with someone years ago about our learning patterns. While others are learning step by step, we're trying to grasp all the connections at once so it all fits together as a whole. This causes our learning curve to be flat for quite a long time while we're overwhelmed with information, but when it clicks it shoots up beyond others' curves who don't care about everything encircling what they specifically need to know. Then to make it more difficult, I seem to get more meanings out of a simple sentence than almost anyone, where others are starting in on a project and I'm scratching my head wondering what it all means and why I'm the only one who doesn't know the secret.


I learn step by step but the steps kind of get forgotten quickly.. then one day I'll have a heureka moment and I have it all together finally. So yes a flat curve first then a quick jump up really high. =) It's not a delusion either as it actually works in practice and others ask for help too.

Same for the sentence interpretation thing, except that I don't think of any actual possible meanings, I just feel like the sentence could be interpreted in several ways so I ask for clarification. Do you actually consciously generate the meanings? That would be brainstorming.




> Where are these normal people to whom you are referring? I've been with relatives all day and have seen nary a one.  So N's are the ones who look at the big picture. No wait, so do S's, and they major in philosophy too. S's focus on what is. No wait, so do N's, and they devote their lives to sports. N's look underneath what someone is doing. So do S's, and they major in psychology. Sometimes I don't think there's one definitive characteristic that separates S's from N's. Yeah, I know, it's the lens you're supposed to look at, etc. etc.


I just meant most people are better off, feeling better, if they also have the big picture... S and N people alike.

Yea, I major in psychology and almost decided to major in philosophy a while ago. I decided against it because there were too many "history of philosophy" classes  But I believe it would have been a bad decision anyway... Same for trying to major in mathematics. -.-

Those lens are internal, so if they even exist, hard to see from the outside.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> So take away from this whatever you want, I still think I'm no stereotypical Se, or anything.


Or maybe you're not a dominant Sensation type, or maybe you just don't fit the pattern or whatever. There's been a number of studies, most notably the Reynierse and Hawker study that basically disproved MBTI type dynamics and many of the 'rules' of type. (I don't think they disprove Jung though, since his are more rules-of-thumb about people than MBTI's categories whereas this study is about quantitatively evaluating MBTI's claims). It's at https://www.capt.org/JPT/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf and throws water on much of what we have been taught regarding MBTI. But from a quantitative standpoint, it may not be that these categories are as well defined as people think (as they often were either unable to reproduce the results of many type tests, or found people who seem to function in ways that were contradictory to type dynamics). Interesting read.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

LiquidLight said:


> Yea Ne/Si are a little counterintuitive (no pun intended) because its actually Ne that is supposed to bring us the sense of objectivity because Si is subjective. However because Si is a sensation function it is always oriented to the physical world of the senses, but the emphasis is on the subjective experience. What you get out of the sense experience is what gets focused on with Si rather than what the components of the moment are in its own right. With Si something is never just 'cold' for instance. That would just be to accept the sense perception at face value, but it must always be cold+something subjective where the focus is less on cold and more on the subjective thing influenced by that cold. So even though Si deals with physical sensation, the focus for the individual is always back at the self (how that sensation resonates with you) and not on the physical sensation for its own right. Like I pointed out earlier if you are only focused on what something seems like to you, then you must have a function that gives you the sense that there might be another way of looking at things otherwise you would become enraptured by your own subjective perception of things never truly seeing that things could be another way (the problem of being a Si-dom). With Si, reality vis-a-vis the physical world is always subjective. Reality is always a function of how I see things with my own two eyes, rather than what is there objectively, thus Ne gives us the intuition that things may not actually be as you perceive them.


So in other words, assuming for a moment that I'm NeSi, I might see the woods as being beautiful and almost magical with flowers, scenery and light shining between the trees and be focused on every aspect of what I see, yet not take into account an Se perspective that woods are what they are, which includes every physical aspect. In order for me to get beyond the beautiful/magical part, I'd need to use Ne to get the idea that all isn't necessarily what it seems, that there could be bears and cougars as well as beauty and I can't act as if I'm in a subjective fairy tale. The Se would potentially be more connected to what's actually there, rather than being subjectively there in what's inwardly important, and so might be more coordinated and even more safe. Is this correct, or am I misunderstanding?




LiquidLight said:


> Can be either Ne or Ni. Depends on the thing you are intuiting about. If we are talking about predicting the future pattern of something in the outer world, like say how the stock market will perform or what the weather will be tomorrow that's probably more Ne (and of course intuition can intuit back into the past - we do this all the time like when we see someone that looks shady. We're either intuiting that the person will do something bad in the future or has done something in the past that warrants our suspicion, but in either case its still intuition because there often isn't much physical evidence to corroborate our hunch). If the intuition involved something like the reason the Western World prefers capitalism or Christianity, then now you're intuiting about something that's largely philosophical and can't really be qualified in the outer world. You're sort of digging back into your own mental capacities to come to a conclusion. You're in essence intuiting the 'state of mind' of the western world, which of course is something that is outwardly nebulous. Sort of like when Von Franz said that the children of Israel were 'asleep' she's intuiting that the state of mind of this group of people was not focused on important matters, but again you could never really quantify this objectively (which is why Ni in a poor form often takes the form of conspiracy theorizing. A primitive way of saying "here's what's really going on behind the scenes," but of course "behind the scenes" doesn't really exist quantitatively in the real world, its just a subjective notion about things). You could imagine a Ni-type intuiting that there must be some sort of nebulous force out there that is controlling the whole world (the Matrix) which in its full expression might be prophetic or visionary, and in its poor form might make such a person look like a hysterical conspiracy theorizer. This also helps explain why Ni types are often dismissed as con-artists or hacks since the things they are often intuiting about (especially when it takes a religious or paranormal form) can't ever truly be proven to exist.


Regarding conspiracy theorists, I'm one also, but along the lines of being interested, watching to see which come true, and sorting out how and where the ideas fit with my world view as a whole. Though I'm open minded and have posted with alternative people on forums for years, I've had to leave a few friends behind who became overly fanatical about conspiracies to where they seemed to have taken leave of all common sense and insisted I do the same. I've watched people get into the grip of their N inferior in real life to the point where they "solve" the problem by changing their lives around.

When you brought up a few weeks back that I might be NeSi, I resisted because I equated Si with being attached to traditions and the past, which I'm not. The past, whether my personal timeline or that of the world, pretty much bores me except for lessons to be learned. Now I'm taking a different look at NeSi. This is somewhat my typical mindset when I pull in Si, if I'm looking at this correctly. It's along the lines of, why do people repeat patterns that have shown to not be workable from hunter/gatherer days to the present? I've read Clan of the Cave Bear  with the pattern of, for example, putting superstitions/myths over objective logic and having a hierarchical society such that when neurotics/psychotics take control, no one feels they have the right or power to remove the person. Isn't it time to start working inwardly on a change of consciousness, such as with serious prayer/meditation (and I have many ideas from reading dozens of books on the subject, but the ideas are from reading and not my own creation), and outwardly on coming up with different ideas to branch off into more workable/sane directions, such as a panel of philosophers and mystics to recommend courses of action best for society? So, NeSi thinking? Or other function(s)? Or doesn't indicate a function?




LiquidLight said:


> There's an architect Patrick Schumacher, probably INTJ, who writes about the 'epochs of architectural style' and how the new appropriate style of architecture for the 21st century is what he has termed parametricism (basically organic computer modelled designs). True to form he is dismissed widely by the establishment who roll their eyes and dismiss him as a purveyor of faddishness, where when you listen to him and watch his lectures, I think its apparent that Schumacher actually believes his own philosophy about things even if no one else can quite pick up on it (that's typical of introverted functions). The problem with intuitives, even Extraverted Intuitives is that they're never seen as visionary until they're long dead and proven right. In a Sensation/Judgment oriented society there is no places for such 'foolishness.'


The more weird and not understandable something is, typically the more interested I am, since I seek change and novelty. Which still brings up the question I've had and that likely doesn't have an answer, and that is how much interest in the abstract, without a lot of personal creativity and not seeming to fit the pattern of mind that many Ne's who have posted have discussed, would put me in the Ne rather than Se category? Would convoluted sentences imply Ne? 

Thanks for info about Jungian perspective on types -- I hadn't come across it before. I had some insights today that put me into Fe rather than Fi, a strong Fe from early training, so for now I'm putting the typical Ti/Fe type dynamic in my signature line, though I agree with you that people can manifest type dynamics that don't fit the pattern. I've posted before on PerC and other forums that I tend to be a little "nicer" and more thoughtful on the Internet than in real life, partly because I'm choosing to talk to people here rather than being somewhat forced into people's company I'm not particularly interested in, which maybe explains why people here tend to think I'm Fi. At least that's my latest theory, lol.

Edit: @LiquidLight, even though it almost sounds like I'm responding to your post #58, I hadn't read that post until after making this post.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> The Se would potentially be more connected to what's actually there, rather than being subjectively there in what's inwardly important


Se would_ only_ be connected to what's actually there because its an extraverted function. Extraversion deals with objectivity. Now, you may be concerned with more than is there because of something else, like a memory or emotion or whatever, but the function itself only deals with the raw input of the five senses and what is a more comfortable way of processing this data - subjectively or objectively. What is it tangibly. You quickly see why things fall apart when you try to apply too much power to the functions (like traditionalism or conservatism as is commonly ascribed to Si) because in reality these attitudes and dispositions are informed by very complex processes. Se or Si is just the way your ego "you" accomplishes what it wants relative to sensory input. 

It is sort of like people who erroneously say that Fe makes them like people more. No you like people of your own accord, as a function of the makeup of your ego, persona and other complexes, upbringing, etc. If your ego wants to like people, Fe is just a way of evaluating people in ways that fit this goal. It's literally a function, like a cog in the wheel. If I want to dislike people, well my ego can use Fe in service of this too. The functions just direct your thought processes either toward the objective world or the subjective world. Another example is when they say their morals come from Fe. No your morals come from your moral complex (your own personal ideas about what is moral or amoral which is influenced by upbringing, beliefs and a host of other things). If you want to be a moral person, you can use Feeling toward this end, or not. People often use Thinking to justify morality (like a lot of police officers or military types who devalue Feeling in favor of thinking about what's right or wrong conceptually - but we can't say these people are not moral because they don't prefer Feeling as the go-to process). 

I think what happens is so much of the MBTI interpretation of functions has turned virally into "these are tools," or "all of my thought processes and behaviors can be reduced to functions." At best you could think of functions in the vein of perspectives that arise because of habitual flows of cognitive energy in a given direction, but many of the things people apply to functions are just silly. Just because you drive fast doesn't mean you use Se. It just means you drive at unsafe speeds, or devalue speeding laws or whatever. But you could use either Se or Si while doing this (or any function). 

When we say the Intuitive is focused on the read-between-the-lines world, as it were, we are saying that this person's thought-processes are habitually directed here not at the physical real world. So when their ego wants to accomplish something, the default mechanism it will use to process this will be one of intuition as opposed to say Thinking. Actions and behaviors can arise as a result but not always (again why we can't always tie something like impulsivity or conscientiousness to functions -- these at best would be effects of functions+ego desires assuming the impetus for these things comes from the conscious self).

If I want to one day be a huge movie director and win Oscars and accolades, that's not because of Fe. That's because of my own self-concept which is based in a lot of different ideas and experiences that have shaped me. But I can use Fe to help out with this goal (chances are I'd use intuition though to help me get there). But you are not your functions. The functions are in service of you (your ego - the conscious 'you'). When you want something or desire it is the functions your ego will employ if this notion comes from a conscious place (if the desire comes from somewhere else like the unconscious in say the case of a complex or the anima/animus, then the functions and ego really have little say here.) Again this is why functions aren't that big of a piece of the picture in AP and why if you were under analysis they might never even bring type up.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> Btw I don't believe that N gets the ideas from no real data. They just don't focus on the data itself that much. There is nothing mystical about this. This applies to both Ni and Ne.


Of everything you wrote to me, most of which I agree with and all of which was interesting, this is what I'm responding to at the moment, lol. If I took LiquidLight's post #58 and nothing from anyone else about how my brain is supposed to work, I'd say I'm Ne because my beliefs range so far from that of the Se's I've known. So far this is just another data point that I'm exploring.

From what you said above, does that mean everything that's in writing is considered data? As in, if someone writes a book about having out of body experiences, is that considered a type of data that N's extrapolate from or is it fantasy and non-data? This isn't meant to be confrontational, I'm trying to sort this out.  For example, Robert A. Monroe wrote three books, the first one called "Journeys Out of the Body." The two subsequent books got weirder and weirder until they seemed to have no basis in reality at all, yet I gave them credence because I'd read others books that discussed similar experiences, plus I've had many of my own weird experiences. I mean, these books are about ultimate weirdness that is entirely unworldly. On the other hand, Robert Monroe started the Monroe Institute which such people as Elisabeth Kübler-Ross visited, experienced and wrote about in positive terms.

So what would it mean for me as a potential Se that I've read many similar books, take the subject seriously, have practiced some of the techniques and have had insights and inner changes based on them? My beliefs encompass pretty much everything as a possibility, and I would have said long ago I'm Ne but people have consistently explained their Ne thought processes as different than mine, more creative.

What's your opinion with regard to this in the Ne and Se sense?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Or maybe you're not a dominant Sensation type, or maybe you just don't fit the pattern or whatever. There's been a number of studies, most notably the Reynierse and Hawker study that basically disproved MBTI type dynamics and many of the 'rules' of type. (I don't think they disprove Jung though, since his are more rules-of-thumb about people than MBTI's categories whereas this study is about quantitatively evaluating MBTI's claims). It's at https://www.capt.org/JPT/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf and throws water on much of what we have been taught regarding MBTI. But from a quantitative standpoint, it may not be that these categories are as well defined as people think (as they often were either unable to reproduce the results of many type tests, or found people who seem to function in ways that were contradictory to type dynamics). Interesting read.


I'm Se as fas as the theories go, but anyhow...

_"The author asserts that type dynamics is a conceptually tangled construct with little empirical support, is the source of many problems, and should be discarded." _I think I've read that PDF before and I wholeheartedly agree about being skeptical about the topic. You are correct though that the devil is in the details, that is the function definitions are quite an issue here. Dario Nardi is on to something though with his EEG but I wouldn't know what it is. 

You forgot to answer me on what you meant N's don't base their hunches on data from the world but instead from somewhere else. Please explain.




Karen said:


> Regarding conspiracy theorists, I'm one also, but along the lines of being interested, watching to see which come true, and sorting out how and where the ideas fit with my world view as a whole. Though I'm open minded and have posted with alternative people on forums for years, I've had to leave a few friends behind who became overly fanatical about conspiracies to where they seemed to have taken leave of all common sense and insisted I do the same. I've watched people get into the grip of their N inferior in real life to the point where they "solve" the problem by changing their lives around.


Neat, so you don't fit the dom Se / inferior Ni pattern either  The difference between us is that I steer far from this bullshit. It annoys and upsets me too much. (Apologies for calling it bullshit, I don't mean to insult you, just my opinion)




> and I have many ideas from reading dozens of books on the subject, but the ideas are from reading and not my own creation), and outwardly on coming up with different ideas to branch off into more workable/sane directions, such as a panel of philosophers and mystics to recommend courses of action best for society? So, NeSi thinking? Or other function(s)? Or doesn't indicate a function?


Neat stuff... I take issue with only one part. "Mystics". What? What do you even mean by that?

Well the other part where I take a bit of issue with the idea is that I would be wary of allowing only a few people on a panel to direct the course for the whole society based on who knows what kind of ideas. If it's just about giving ideas that's OK.




> The more weird and not understandable something is, typically the more interested I am, since I seek change and novelty. Which still brings up the question I've had and that likely doesn't have an answer, and that is how much interest in the abstract, without a lot of personal creativity and not seeming to fit the pattern of mind that many Ne's who have posted have discussed, would put me in the Ne rather than Se category? Would convoluted sentences imply Ne?


I can also spit out really convoluted sentences and I thoroughly enjoy doing that as an intellectual challenge. I would say it's Ti for me. I also have a load of interest in the abstract.




Karen said:


> Of everything you wrote to me, most of which I agree with and all of which was interesting, this is what I'm responding to at the moment, lol. If I took LiquidLight's post #58 and nothing from anyone else about how my brain is supposed to work, I'd say I'm Ne because my beliefs range so far from that of the Se's I've known. So far this is just another data point that I'm exploring.


Yeah, um... they still sound Ni beliefs to me... but who am I to categorize lol... I'm only talking about this in an "as if" sense, assuming the theory framework for a second.




> From what you said above, does that mean everything that's in writing is considered data?


When I read a book it's concrete data for me by default. 

(This does not mean I'm going to believe everything without using my own judgment.)




> As in, if someone writes a book about having out of body experiences, is that considered a type of data that N's extrapolate from or is it fantasy and non-data?


That could be an Se experiencing whatever, could be Ne, could be Ni, whatever. 




> This isn't meant to be confrontational, I'm trying to sort this out.  For example, Robert A. Monroe wrote three books, the first one called "Journeys Out of the Body." The two subsequent books got weirder and weirder until they seemed to have no basis in reality at all, yet I gave them credence because I'd read others books that discussed similar experiences, plus I've had many of my own weird experiences.


I read some books like that once, it was about afterlife, I dropped it immediately when it steered too far from the abstract into the concrete. I hate mixing the concrete with the abstract. 




> So what would it mean for me as a potential Se that I've read many similar books, take the subject seriously, have practiced some of the techniques and have had insights and inner changes based on them? My beliefs encompass pretty much everything as a possibility, and I would have said long ago I'm Ne but people have consistently explained their Ne thought processes as different than mine, more creative.
> 
> What's your opinion with regard to this in the Ne and Se sense?


I still think it was your experiences a long time ago where you got a lot of Ni influence. I really can't say more on this. You are open minded like a Ne, but so am I, and it's just a concrete trait anyway, etc. etc.... Very telling to me is when you say you don't mind dropping all the ideas for physical experience. That's Se preference over anything N.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Thanks for answering.  My Si relatives wouldn't go near the things I've talked about so it's interesting that you've read about them. I don't mind mixing physical and concrete, in fact I usually wonder how they can be connected and sometimes work at it a bit.

By "mystic" I mean people who have spent a lifetime delving deeply into the spiritual via meditation, shamanic practices or something of the sort, to the point where they are able to have a meta perspective of the world, above any personal physical agendas and into what's best for society and the planet as a whole. I also meant to say that the panel would need to be rotating. Even so-called spiritual masters have become corrupted by power, but then I don't think a true master would care enough about what this world has to offer to be caught up in it.

I did get a huge amount of Ni-type experience but even before then, in my early 20s, I was open to areas outside the physical. Since then, if I'm Se, much of my energy goes into what I'd call Ni-related subjects, tempered by Ti, and I wonder if that's possible?

My convoluted sentences are caused by exasperation over not being able to quickly set them up properly, and hoping people can sort out what I'm saying.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

@LiquidLight, I still don't entirely understand the concept of Si, but I do understand what you're talking about. The fact that I use Fe is there whether I'm going through a stage of being frustrated with people or liking to connect, it's just something I use rather than pushing me to feel a certain way.


For everyone, I found out today that I need to help pack up an entire houseful of items and move a relative, so I'm going to be tired and won't have as much time to post. This thread has been really helpful, beyond what I was expecting, and I appreciate the posts.  I'll still be reading and can make short posts, if this thread continues on.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

> Thanks for answering.  My Si relatives wouldn't go near the things I've talked about so it's interesting that you've read about them. I don't mind mixing physical and concrete, in fact I usually wonder how they can be connected and sometimes work at it a bit.


I like to reify the abstract and when it's not possible I prefer to keep it abstract. When someone tries to reify it INCORRECTLY is when I get very upset.




> By "mystic" I mean people who have spent a lifetime delving deeply into the spiritual via meditation, shamanic practices or something of the sort, to the point where they are able to have a meta perspective of the world, above any personal physical agendas and into what's best for society and the planet as a whole. I also meant to say that the panel would need to be rotating. Even so-called spiritual masters have become corrupted by power, but then I don't think a true master would care enough about what this world has to offer to be caught up in it.


Okay... I would still have the ideas checked by some practical people too.




> I did get a huge amount of Ni-type experience but even before then, in my early 20s, I was open to areas outside the physical. Since then, if I'm Se, I'd say half my energy goes into Ni, tempered by Ti, and I wonder if that's possible?


Sure why not? 




> My convoluted sentences are caused by exasperation over not being able to quickly set them up properly, and hoping people can sort out what I'm saying.


I got into convoluted sentences at the age of 18. First it felt funny, like I was reaching much deeper to form my sentences, instead of using simple templates as I'd always done before that. Then I got used to it.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

in short
this is Ne


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Pete The Lich said:


> in short
> this is Ne


The randomness of you interjecting this in this thread sure seems like dominant Ne + a whole host of other things anyhow, lol.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Or maybe you're not a dominant Sensation type, or maybe you just don't fit the pattern or whatever. There's been a number of studies, most notably the Reynierse and Hawker study that basically disproved MBTI type dynamics and many of the 'rules' of type. (I don't think they disprove Jung though, since his are more rules-of-thumb about people than MBTI's categories whereas this study is about quantitatively evaluating MBTI's claims). It's at https://www.capt.org/JPT/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf and throws water on much of what we have been taught regarding MBTI. But from a quantitative standpoint, it may not be that these categories are as well defined as people think (as they often were either unable to reproduce the results of many type tests, or found people who seem to function in ways that were contradictory to type dynamics). Interesting read.


Hmm...I can believe it. I mean, where's the law of type dynamics even exist in Jung to begin with, beyond dominant/inferior? Frankly, I think there's a tendency for people to ascribe too much negativity to the inferior function, which I think comes from the MBTI making it out to be insignificant + Jung focusing on it in an almost pathological manner (which was his general goal, I think), like it really has that much influence over a person's functioning in life relative to say, a person's decisions and choices in life (going back to what you said about the functions being very insignificant relative to the rest of a person's more conscious make-up, anyhow, since after all, how many people really know they have "cognitive functions" to begin with before discovering this stuff. I think perspective tends to be the biggest issue people have with conceptualizing this stuff.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

@itsme45 I do think that Ne-doms tend to be very open minded. I find Se types to be generally open minded as well. I have a "hunch" that being a dominant intuitive just means that you are slightly more aware and interested in "unconscious" or "semi-conscious" messages you may be receiving so your view of what is going on is colored by layers of information with perhaps differing perspectives. That may make you more or less accurate or effective depending on so many factors. And it may not be exclusive to type, but more typical of a Ne-dom.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Double post.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well Jung's focus on the inferior function is the result of his focus on the ego and ego-consciousness relative to the shadow and the unconscious. The inferior function would represent a bridge of sorts between the two. Ego is synonymous with consciousness, but not synonymous with 'self.' Thus the inferior function becomes the fulcrum point in a way between the ego and the shadow which is why as an element of the psyche it is so important (much moreso than the dominant function in many ways which just expresses essentially habitual patterns of thought but really says little to the underlying character of a person). There's a lot of focus in MBTI and otherwise on the dominant function (enough to where Jung named his types after it) because we sort of only interact with each other and in the world on a conscious-level, so in a superficial way this is appropriate. But this over-focus on the dominant masks the deeper and more complex individual underneath. The only way you could really get a hint in the conscious sphere of the character and the machinations of the Self and the shadow would be through the inferior function and thus the emphasis.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Hmm...I can believe it. I mean, where's the law of type dynamics even exist in Jung to begin with, beyond dominant/inferior? Frankly, I think there's a tendency for people to ascribe too much negativity to the inferior function, which I think comes from the MBTI making it out to be insignificant + Jung focusing on it in an almost pathological manner (which was his general goal, I think), like it really has that much influence over a person's functioning in life relative to say, a person's decisions and choices in life (going back to what you said about the functions being very insignificant relative to the rest of a person's more conscious make-up, anyhow, since after all, how many people really know they have "cognitive functions" to begin with before discovering this stuff. I think perspective tends to be the biggest issue people have with conceptualizing this stuff.


I see the cognitive functions as containers where the content is what matters. The function itself is just the container. So yeah... it is important to understand what you can or should even try to explain with these concepts and what you can't. In my opinion, not a whole lot that can't be explained by other cognitive psychology concepts and theories as good or better. It can help with getting to know yourself more if you don't focus too much on the speculative part of the theory, including all the rules beyond the idea that some functions are more preferred than others. Trying to find more specific principles is a moving target without objective tools (like Nardi's EEG stuff). I find it really important to point this out explicitly.




saffron said:


> @_itsme45_ I do think that Ne-doms tend to be very open minded. I find Se types to be generally open minded as well. I have a "hunch" that being a dominant intuitive just means that you are slightly more aware and interested in "unconscious" or "semi-conscious" messages you may be receiving so your view of what is going on is colored by layers of information with perhaps differing perspectives. That may make you more or less accurate or effective depending on so many factors. And it may not be exclusive to type, but more typical of a Ne-dom.


I'm pretty aware of these subconscious things, it's just that this is something I've developed over time by introspecting here and there and noticing happenings. I suspect this was done from a Se perspective. My intuition in general is like this: it's always focused on whatever actually exists out there in the world, that is, the topics of my intuitive process are always such topics, however I cannot access my intuition without introverting. When I look outside I have no intuition at all (or not consciously, not at all). I suppose that's yet another way of saying this is Se/Ni rather than dominant Ne.

Part of it could also be Ti, btw. And I noticed that with Ti, I can deal with stuff that doesn't actually exist out there. I mean, I can analyse that sort of stuff without starting to feel discomfort, I suppose Ti helps me judge these things properly or something. Anyway this is also something abstract, the Ti process and I'm sure it adds to me being open to such things.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> The randomness of you interjecting this in this thread sure seems like dominant Ne + a whole host of other things anyhow, lol.


GO Ne + Ti!

also


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> I see the cognitive functions as containers where the content is what matters. The function itself is just the container. So yeah... it is important to understand what you can or should even try to explain with these concepts and what you can't. In my opinion, not a whole lot that can't be explained by other cognitive psychology concepts and theories as good or better. It can help with getting to know yourself more if you don't focus too much on the speculative part of the theory, including all the rules beyond the idea that some functions are more preferred than others. Trying to find more specific principles is a moving target without objective tools (like Nardi's EEG stuff). I find it really important to point this out explicitly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yea the point about Nardi is a pretty good one because while he seems to be finding empirical support for these ideas, the ideas themselves (especially vis-a-vis MBTI) are nebulously defined. It's like finding a neurological pattern to try and prove 'religious salvation.' 

Jung's theory makes a lot more sense in relationship to the bigger picture of how he defined the ego: Analyst Mario Jacoby I think sums it up well:


> The ego is thus the necessary condition for something becoming conscious. But at the same time the ego-complex is a content of consciousness. This implies that I can make myself a content and thus an object of my self-reflective awareness. Jung's definition has two sides, corresponding roughly to an objective and subjective way of perceiving. Each of these needs to be distinguished from the other. Subjectively, I experience myself as the continuous center of conscious will action and intention, and as the receiver of impressions. These intentions are usually directed at other person or things of the outer world, that is at objects. It is from objects, as well, that I receive impressions. But I can objectify myself such that I become a content of my own consciousness - what in most cases we would call a "Self-Image," or "Self-Representation."
> 
> It seems to me that we can only speak of consciousness in a Jungian sense as linked to the ego-complex once the stage of the verbal sense of self has been established, enabling one to make one's self the object of one's own observation and judgment. In this case, what we mean by 'consciousness' is the capacity for reflection based on the opposites of subject and object. Without knowledge of the opposites, conscious differentiations with its comparisons and contrasts would not possible.


So bingo. Now we see that the functions work in service of this basic necessity of ego. The ability to differentiate between subject and object. Ego itself cannot exist without this ability. The only way you can have a sense of "I am" is if you have a sense of "I am not" (subject vs object). 

The functions then are the mechanisms the ego uses to direct psychic energy toward this goal. Thus he identified four basic orientations: Sensation, Thinking, Feeling and Intuition that must be constellated in order for the person to have an ego-awareness (or sense of self). Sensation to give us a read of the physical world, Thinking to give us a sense of the conceptual world, Intuition to give us a sense of the symbolic and Feeling to evaluate and rationalize our emotions. Type then becomes the ego's preferred approach (essentially based on the path of least resistance to our influences of our formative experiences). The collision, as Jung put it, between conscious and unconscious forces. 

He continues,


> This brings us back to the myth of Paradise [speaking in relationship to the Biblical story of Adam and Eve], in which the original instance of shame is the result of the awareness of opposites. Growth of consciousness means 'loss of paradise.' In other words shame in its fullest sense first appears with the verbal sense of self because only then can one see one's own person [because of the ability to observe and to judge both subjectively and objectively], from "the outside" or can one's subjective sense of self relate to the image one carries of oneself. Or in Jung's words, only then does a self-image form as a content of the ego-complex. As mentioned before, children who are just beginning to speak refer to themselves in the third person, in the same way that their significant others speak of them. "Jackie," or "Tony" is nice, bad, etc. Its as if they were looking at themselves from the outside, seeing and judging themselves with the eyes of significant others. This capacity is rooted in pre-verbal experiences of 'self' with others, memory traces of earlier interactive patterns which have now become partially accessible to verbal expression and to the kind of consciousness whose center Jung called The Ego. However it takes a while for this verbalizable representation of self to fuse with the subjective sense of self and become integrated as a feeling of 'identity...
> 
> ..."The Ego," wrote Jung in 1955, "is ostensibly the thing we know the most about, is in fact a highly complex affair full of unfathomable obscurities." The basis of ego-centered consciousness - the root of consciousness as it were - reaches down into the unconscious where this a core that arranges and organizes the process of self-development, which Jung called "The Self." The Self is the very source of our creative energies, one might even say that it creates the human being and directs its development.


So the thing that is pulling the strings is really the self. It is the center of who we are, the represents the sum total of our potential as individual human beings. In a religious context you could say the self is who God has pre-ordained or predestined you to be. The Hindus might describe Self as_ Atman_. 









This diagram makes it painfully apparent that the ego is not the center of the self, it just thinks it is because it is the conscious expression of the self. Worse yet some people think their persona, the mask they wear, is who they are. We would call such people very unaware of who they are, basically believing a false-image (largely ascribed by other people) rather than having any real self-awareness. This is the person who thinks they are Pastor Joe or Officer John, when really these are just roles they play. This is the problem with MBTI and especially Kiersey descriptions. They are metrics of personas not of individuals. There is no way you could argue that either an MBTI INTP or a Kiersey whatever represents the sum total of human potential (and Jung is explicitly not making that claim, where MBTI basically does). For example here is MBTI's interpretation of the psyche, which is seemingly modified to fit their observations.

I've posted this a number of times before, but notice how here they have made functions the center of everything. 









Now relative to everything we just read about the purpose of the ego (to allow someone to be self-aware) and the functions (to facilitate the cognitive processes necessary for the establishment of subjective and objective), this MBTI model makes no sense. The assumption of the above model is that ego is a part of consciousness, but not consciousness itself which sort of flies in the face of what we just read from Jung who basically says consciousness and self-identity are the same thing. Without it we are just reacting to objective stimuli (much like babies do, or even animals, who have no real sense of _I_, only a sense of what is happening in the objective world). They are conscious in the sense of being awake or aware of the world, but there is no subjective experience. MBTI seems to be saying that subjective and objective are not preconditions of consciousness (I assume instead are seen as a biological predisposition or something). This seems weird to me because how can you be aware of subject and object, but that not be a factor necessarily of consciousness? The implication here would have to be that we are born with our egos, yet the graph clearly shows the functions not being explicitly a part of the ego. If ego is truly (in most theories from Jung to Freud and even the modern day) "I am," then subjective vs. objective must be a necessary condition. It's like MBTI is saying you somehow understand subject and object first (the functions) and from this regulating of cognitive energy (I'm guessing here) somehow the ego-consciousness develops? I'm just lost interpreting this its a paradox. 

Jung makes sense. Ego is self-awareness and in order to be self-aware we need thought processes that help us delineate us from 'not us.' It's like MBTI is saying the thought processes are more central and from that our self-awareness arises (and apparently behavioral patterns as well like J/P). Maybe I'm just misreading this model of theirs, but it just sort of feels like they're adapting Jung's basic ideas in a way that makes their theory work. 

Jacoby concludes


> Three theses proposed by [psychologist] Daniel Stern seem to be of particular relevance to these basic Jungian tenets:
> 
> • The domain of the emergent self in the first phase of infancy is the foundational experience of all human creative possibilities.
> • Stern wrote of 'the core self': Somehow the infant registers the objective experience as the subjective experience. What principle of organization makes it possible for the 'somehow' to take place?
> ...


To jung the complexes represent a dissociation or splintering. The ego is a dissociation, albiet necessary, dissociation from the unified self that the self must then influence, via the shadow, to steer the person toward his potential because we, after all, are conscious beings. A nebulous unconscious self within us must have an conscious expression so that we might exist as self-functioning individuals (thus the necessity of the ego). The problem is we cannot become ego-centric, that is where our ego begins to function as if it is the self, and not just part of the self. When such episodes occur the Self is there to 'bring us back home' via the shadow (feelings of longing, depression, feelings of being incomplete, that you aren't living for yourself, or up to your potential, etc). These things are qualitative yet are hard to deny at the same time. We may not know consciously what our true potential is but we cannot deny its existence. All of us on some level has an idea of our capabilities and probably on some level feel compelled to further those ends. But when life (conscious experience) gets in the way, our Self is there to help pull os the right track, and thus is why the inferior function, the ego's only real way of consciously recognizing the influences of the unconscious is so important because it is the doorway between the two spheres. 

This is a more academic discussion than I'd hoped to get into on this thread, but one that I think is essential when arguing about functions, because if one doesn't understand the purpose of how Jung (and actually many others like him) conceptualize the ego, the conscious expression of our selves, and the need to be able to process our conscious existence (functions) then we can start blaming or attributing things to functions that are erroneous (like saying functions make you creative). The functions might, as Lynne Levesque wrote about in her book _Breakthrough Creativity_, orient your creative expression in a specific way. Perhaps a Sensation type might express his creativity through sensation-oriented things but it is not the sensation or intuition function itself that makes you creative. Your imagination, your fantasy is not necessarily a function of your functions because Jung would argue fantasy is one of the places that is influenced by unconscious, much like dreams - a way of expressing who you truly are on the inside that doesn't have to be mitigated or referenced against the real world. In the same way, Si does not make a person 'traditional.' Traditional is the result of your ideas about the world. Si is just a subjective (self-referencing) perception of sensory experience. 

So to answer your question from before, Ni then is the ability to have notions or impressions about the contents of the unconscious both collective (relating to human existence) and personal (relating to your own existence) from which symbolism and archetypal patterns are derived, and where human psychological and existential predisposition can be uncovered. (This is why Kant and Nietzsche are claimed as intuitives).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Yea the point about Nardi is a pretty good one because while he seems to be finding empirical support for these ideas, the ideas themselves (especially vis-a-vis MBTI) are nebulously defined. It's like finding a neurological pattern to try and prove 'religious salvation.'


Na, you misread me there. All I said was that without objective tools (e.g. Nardi's EEG stuff) it is a moving target. So I actually said Nardi's stuff is better than all the theoretical speculation. I don't see why you made an analogy about proving religious salvation. It does not work like that. If he notices and identifies brain activity patterns, that does not mean the function concept exists to be proven. All we can prove is the patterns and how these patterns function in terms of a cognitive or neurocognitive framework. The concepts are just a way for us to think. Don't try to mix the abstract and the concrete in the wrong way (that analogy about religious salvation was a good example of how it can be done the wrong way).


Yes it does make sense that there is a self that's more all-encompassing than the ego, let alone the persona. Heck, it even sounds interesting that the self could have a spiritual meaning. I believe I feel this self when I'm feeling certain things that could be spiritual. My only problem here is that the theory assumes we just need these general functions to have a sense of ego. (Unless I misunderstand.) To counter that, here's an example; There is a brain area responsible for feeling physical boundaries between us and the environment. I would say that area is more responsible for the ego than functions - I'm not saying this is the only thing responsible for it, but this is just an example to show you how another approach can be more useful than these generic function concepts.


I never thought of the MBTI as it attempting to define the entire person. I don't think the MBTI ever claimed this as the goal, did it? You are right though, that MBTI overemphasizes the importance of functions and muddles up cause-and-effect. (Though I suspect Jung himself may have got into that mistake here and there.) Now, I did get lost at one place. You say the ego should be consciousness itself and self-identity as well. Now I'm not sure if I misread that but I had the impression that consciousness and the self are linked as well. Also self and self-identity should be linked too... not just the ego and self-identity... no?


As for the subjective and objective approaches vs consciousness. I believe we have a different consciousness when we are being objective than when we are being subjective. I suppose this is what MBTI means? I do not understand the idea of them being preconditions to consciousness. Can you please explain this more as to why it seems to be a paradox to you?




> Jung makes sense. Ego is self-awareness and in order to be self-aware we need thought processes that help us delineate us from 'not us.'


This just sounds the same to me as MBTI. You first understand the delineation via understanding that there is subjective and objective and then you will get an ego consciousness. The biological predisposition thing I suppose just means that you prefer one of the attitudes more, you still have both though.




> So to answer your question from before, Ni then is the ability to have notions or impressions about the contents of the unconscious both collective (relating to human existence) and personal (relating to your own existence) from which symbolism and archetypal patterns are derived, and where human psychological and existential predisposition can be uncovered. (This is why Kant and Nietzsche are claimed as intuitives).


Fine but how is this the same as your previous claim that Ni (or Ne) gets the hunches from somewhere outside the world? Explain please.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

MBTI most definitely distorts the role of the functions, let alone, makes specious, if not outright invalid claims about what the functions encompass (e.g. Si and traditionalism, which really have nothing to do with each other - believe me, my parents are Si dominants and aren't big on tradition - as for routine and familiarity on the other hand, different concept, different story). People are absolutely not their functions (the way people aren't their organs, lol), even though MBTI makes functions into a person's persona, which is completely unrealistic and rooted in stereotypes/archetypes only. The way I have Jung figured out is the following: The dominant function is the dominant because it's the only one that is used toward rationalizing the person's psychology - in other words, when the ego is "threatened" by something, no matter how innocuous, the way the ego deals with this is through the dominant (and as a result, the inferior works with the aspects of the problem that the person would rather not negatively rationalize through the dominant, which wants to put a positive spin on rationalizing the issue with the desired goal in mind). The auxiliaries really have just about nothing to do with a person, other than they work to help the dominant. So since a person is their psychology, then they are to a great extent, their dominant function and inferior, but these don't really lock them in though - they function at the command of the ego. The functions occur as reaction tendencies (those that define the personality occur through the dominant/inferior) that can be seen in how people reason. The auxes work under the supervision of the dominant, while the inferior attempts this, but often doesn't succeed, since it is the other side of the judgement or perception spectrum from the dominant, so you're just heading into new territory by overusing it as a well controlled slave to the dominant, since it opposes the nature of the dominant (the auxes don't, since they are either perception or judgement - one that the dominant isn't). Sure it can work, but in it's own right as a free entity from the confines of the dominant's expectations, it's quite foreign and runs counter to what a person's dominant stands for to them.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Also, here's another issue I've noticed with the MBTI type labels:

They simply don't codify types accurately with reference to their own types. For instance, from the INTP label, you basically get the wrong interpretation of their cognitive processes by reading the label out like "introverted intuitive (NOOO, they're not even remotely Ni types), thinking perceivers" which essentially translates to the introversion of INFJs (Ni-Ti) if you assume that the dominant function is indicated by beginning of the code and the other introverted function reflects the type of T you get from the type. So in their own system, INTPs are INFJs, ENFJs are ENTPs, etc.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Couple of definitions out there to clarify what I messed up earlier about ego and ego-consciousness that @_itsme45_ caught.

*Ego: *the conscious self; the "I"; the central, experience-filtering _complex_ of consciousness (in contrast to the _Self_, the central _complex_ of the collective _unconscious_)--and the most stable _complex_ because it's grounded in the body sensations. A relatively permanent personification. The most individual part of the person. The ego divides into the _ectopsyche_ and the _endopsyche_. It's an object in consciousness as well as a requirement for it. Its two main constituents are bodily sensations and memory.

The ego's chief job is discrimination of the opposites (which is why the _unconscious_ produces compensatory symbols of wholeness). Its necessarily narrow focus causes repression, which thrusts into unconsciousness what isn't compatible with self-image. It tends to identify with the dominant _function_.


For Jung, the ego arose gradually out of unconsciousness--both in the infant and the species--and returns to it every night. (Group consciousness is the primitive form of ego consciousness. It goes on living in our family-consciousness.) The ego separates us from nature and replaces instinctive deciding, valuing, etc. It's a differentiated aspect of the collective _unconscious_ (compare Freud's ego, derived from id). The ego, then, is a kind of _projection_ or fiction devised by the _unconscious_. Without an ego, a perceiving subject, nothing is perceived.

*Endopsyche: the ego layer to which the four functions direct information. Except for some memory recall, it's not under conscious control and is divided into memory, the subjective components of the functions, the emotions and affects, and the invasions, in order of conscious control. Below the endopsyche lies the personal and collective layers of the unconscious.

*Now all that being said, I think Yukawa over at Personality Nation has an exposition on the ego sums it up nicely in layman's terms:


> The Ego Complex is the complex to which all conscious contents are related. It is where we say "I" or "me" and operates as the master of conscious decision making in the human psyche and also serves as our unique sense of individual identity (In other words, the concept of individualism is not an Introverted concept. It's an Ego-centric concept.). It forms the center or focal point of human consciousness and the primary point where all willful personal act and choices are made. All psychic contents that have a relation to the ego are made conscious, creating what Jung calls "the conscious sphere" of the psyche. In other words, the conscious sphere is where all psychic contents are known, seen, and capable of being manipulated by the Ego.
> 
> Jung believed that, theoretically, that the Ego is capable of unlimited extension of its conscious influence, but in reality, he understood that its reaches are only as far as what the human psyche understands and knows. In other words, the Ego is limited by the unknown. There are two types of unknown, the outside world and the inner world. The outside world is an unexplored territory that the psyche finds understanding through the five senses. The inner world is called "the unconscious sphere", which are accessible immediately through the Shadow.
> 
> ...


So given this it would seem that MBTI wants to walk-the-line here not denouncing that the ego is the center point of consciousness, but not claiming its executive authority either. The functions exist as an independent variable of the psyche (regulated by I don't know what if its not the ego, I guess biology?). This would have to be the case if J/P closure-seeking/non-closure seeking is linked directly to functions as it is in Myers-Briggs. Jung would argue J/P dispositions to be the will of the ego (or the effect of another complex like the persona). Myers is arguing the opposite that it is j/P first, meaning the ego does not have executive authority, but rather the person is under the authority of the functions. That fits their theory fine, but makes for dubious psychology (how exactly would you clinically treat such a person?) They are sort of dancing around Jung's model in a way that you can't quite discredit but isn't authentic either. 

For example as Yukawa points out


> He made it clear that Ego and Consciousness are two completely separate things to make sure that consciousness and Ego's decision making are not the same thing.





> *Even then, it's subject to having to use the data that the unconscious provides it, which is often highly influenced by the most recent stimulus an individual has experienced.
> 
> This also follows that Jung believed the Ego is partially influenced both by external experiences and inner perceptions or unconscious contents that were once experienced externally or had been conscious at some point.*


So in a way you can sort of make the functions the vehicle that sits between the conscious and the unconscious. That decision are made first by the functions and then processed in the conscious world by the ego. That seems consistent with what MBTI's precepts are, but it is really inconsistent with how Jung imagined the ego, and for no real reason. (It's not really as if there was some scientific breakthrough that came along that shattered Jung's construct. They just simply had their own interpretation and ran with it). 

Finally he concludes,


> I'm definitely sure a lot of modern science has long gained better understandings with the better tools we have nowadays. In a sense, I think Jung and even Freud did quite an amazing job on hypothesizing the human psyche as well as they did, despite the limited technology they had. I definitely want to make a point that Jung didn't really certify that a lot of what he said is fact (he doesn't like establishing thing as solid understanding without real empirical proof, contrary to what many believe, but a best possible understanding given the limitations of human beings and technology during the 1920s.





> It reminds me of the story of the guy who measured the circumference of the Earth with only casting shadows, a messenger, and some money. The guy was off, but his margin of error was incredibly small when we redid the measures with satellites and stuff. With that, Jung misses on certain things, but I'm pretty sure he knows that it was likely to happen


Now obviously this is the read of someone over at another type forum, but I think it does a better job than I did of breaking things down and pointing out the differences between what we commonly believe about how people work (ie the functions control everything) versus the approach of the analytical community.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> MBTI most definitely distorts the role of the functions, let alone, makes specious, if not outright invalid claims about what the functions encompass (e.g. Si and traditionalism, which really have nothing to do with each other - believe me, my parents are Si dominants and aren't big on tradition - as for routine and familiarity on the other hand, different concept, different story). People are absolutely not their functions (the way people aren't their organs, lol), even though MBTI makes functions into a person's persona, which is completely unrealistic and rooted in stereotypes/archetypes only. The way I have Jung figured out is the following: The dominant function is the dominant because it's the only one that is used toward rationalizing the person's psychology - in other words, when the ego is "threatened" by something, no matter how innocuous, the way the ego deals with this is through the dominant (and as a result, the inferior works with the aspects of the problem that the person would rather not negatively rationalize through the dominant, which wants to put a positive spin on rationalizing the issue with the desired goal in mind). The auxiliaries really have just about nothing to do with a person, other than they work to help the dominant. So since a person is their psychology, then they are to a great extent, their dominant function and inferior, but these don't really lock them in though - they function at the command of the ego. The functions occur as reaction tendencies (those that define the personality occur through the dominant/inferior) that can be seen in how people reason. The auxes work under the supervision of the dominant, while the inferior attempts this, but often doesn't succeed, since it is the other side of the judgement or perception spectrum from the dominant, so you're just heading into new territory by overusing it as a well controlled slave to the dominant, since it opposes the nature of the dominant (the auxes don't, since they are either perception or judgement - one that the dominant isn't). Sure it can work, but in it's own right as a free entity from the confines of the dominant's expectations, it's quite foreign and runs counter to what a person's dominant stands for to them.


Yeah I agree with a lot of this and I like your organ analogy =)

The one thing where I still don't agree is that the auxiliary function can't be differentiated. Jung himself explicitly stated that it CAN. I can look up a quote for you on that if you wish. He even mentiones it in Se description, saying that such Se's will be less "simple" people, meh. ;P And I believe my aux Ti is differentiated. I think this may stem from several things in my life 1) I was born with a lot of the skills that are required to use Ti on a biological level (I love mathematics!) 2) I had early influence as a kid with a lot of Ti stuff coming from others (people, books) even before I went to school 3) I had life circumstances where I got into Fe issues and as a response I went into isolation, allowing me to develop Ti further. (Even some Ni, maybe.) (I resolved those issues since then though... so that's good.)

So overall both my dominant and auxiliary affect the way I behave. I sometimes get accused of being Ti dom, then at other times I get accused of having weak Ti (because I'm all set on gathering new information all the time and some Ti doms hate that ) and so on.......

Hm, as for Ni running counter to Se. In my case... True, true, it's usually just a "slave" to Se, but sometimes I love those Ni heureka moments. I actually love them very much. Very very rarely I have moments where I also feel like it's free from being the "slave" of the dominant. I kind of feel very spiritual at those moments in a very abstract way. But they are really rare.

Oh well, take away whatever you want from this data.

Overall, I would advise you to not try and accept these speculative principles as the truth. Just because someone (Jung or not, I don't care) built a theory, it doesn't mean you can reason to new things from assuming a few unproven principles.




LiquidLight said:


> Couple of definitions out there to clarify what I messed up earlier about ego and ego-consciousness that @_itsme45_ caught.


Ah, thanks.



> So given this it would seem that MBTI wants to walk-the-line here not denouncing that the ego is the center point of consciousness, but not claiming its executive authority either. The functions exist as an independent variable of the psyche (regulated by I don't know what if its not the ego, I guess biology?). This would have to be the case if J/P closure-seeking/non-closure seeking is linked directly to functions as it is in Myers-Briggs. Jung would argue J/P dispositions to be the will of the ego (or the effect of another complex like the persona). Myers is arguing the opposite that it is j/P first, meaning the ego does not have executive authority, but rather the person is under the authority of the functions. That fits their theory fine, but makes for dubious psychology (how exactly would you clinically treat such a person?) They are sort of dancing around Jung's model in a way that you can't quite discredit but isn't authentic either.


Do you think the ego is not rooted in the world, that is, not determined by biology? I see no contradiction here. But yes I agree that the person is not under the authority of the functions, as they are just thinking processes... I don't however see why even if we accept this assumption would prevent anyone from clinically treating a person?



> So in a way you can sort of make the functions the vehicle that sits between the conscious and the unconscious. That decision are made first by the functions and then processed in the conscious world by the ego. That seems consistent with what MBTI's precepts are, but it is really inconsistent with how Jung imagined the ego, and for no real reason. (It's not really as if there was some scientific breakthrough that came along that shattered Jung's construct. They just simply had their own interpretation and ran with it).


I don't know the reason as to why they did not think of taking the model as is. Maybe it means something, maybe not. But speaking of scientific breakthrough, I believe that cognitive psychology allows for some improvement over Jung's model. 

Also, you forgot to answer my question on the idea of Intuition not basing hunches on data out there. Are you intentionally evading this or just an accident? If the former, just let me know and I'll stop nagging you about it.  

Btw, mention of PerN reminds me that I once asked why simulatedworld got banned from here  So, why? A quick sumup? Just a disagreement over theory?


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

> So to answer your question from before, Ni then is the ability to have notions or impressions about the contents of the unconscious both collective (relating to human existence) and personal (relating to your own existence) from which symbolism and archetypal patterns are derived, and where human psychological and existential predisposition can be uncovered. (This is why Kant and Nietzsche are claimed as intuitives).


Why is that Ni? Couldn't other types do the same? And can all Ni types do this? Because I don't find that evidenced in my experience with all supposed Ni users. Are they not real Ni users if they don't have this ability?

I wrote a philosophy paper at 1:00 am in the morning and the comments read, "You've obviously been reading Kant..." which I hadn't at all. And I relate to that description in a humble, sometimes, way. Does that mean that I'm a Ni user, a differentiated Ni user or just delusional? 

I would agree that the inferior _might_ become the bridge between the ego/self conscious/unconscious, but you may have to have a mental break as Jung did for this to potentially occur. You could try meditation as an alternative which, in my experience, weakens the ego to allow the "self" at least moments of profundity or transcendence.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> So overall both my dominant and auxiliary affect the way I behave. I sometimes get accused of being Ti dom, then at other times I get accused of having weak Ti (because I'm all set on gathering new information all the time and some Ti doms hate that ) and so on.......


I tend to over-rely on Pe at times for a feeling of freedom from constraints and is part of the reason I've sometimes seen myself as aux Fi. The opposite is also true, SeTi and NeTi users sometimes underuse their dom to the point where it seems I'm talking to/reading Ti dom, which has also pushed me into PeFi in order to explain the differences.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

saffron said:


> Why is that Ni? Couldn't other types do the same? And can all Ni types do this? Because I don't find that evidenced in my experience with all supposed Ni users. Are they not real Ni users if they don't have this ability?
> 
> I wrote a philosophy paper at 1:00 am in the morning and the comments read, "You've obviously been reading Kant..." which I hadn't at all. And I relate to that description in a humble, sometimes, way. Does that mean that I'm a Ni user, a differentiated Ni user or just delusional?


Meh I wouldn't worry too much about a few little concrete traits. The way I sometimes see the functions in my mind is, they're all made up of many small concrete cases of data correlated to each other where each correlation has its own unique strength. They can even be put on a 2D or 3D "scale", the functions, and there I can see them melting into each other at boundaries. Of course all this is only if I zoom in enough.




Karen said:


> I tend to over-rely on Pe at times for a feeling of freedom from constraints and is part of the reason I've sometimes seen myself as aux Fi. The opposite is also true, SeTi and NeTi users sometimes underuse their dom to the point where it seems I'm talking to/reading Ti dom, which has also pushed me into PeFi in order to explain the differences.


Yeah I pointed this possibility out to you before about how you could see yourself as aux Fi =)

Really, these function preferences are tendencies in your whole life and the tendencies can change to some (undefined) extent.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah I pointed this possibility out to you before about how you could see yourself as aux Fi =)


I seem to understand almost everyone else's personality better than my own. 




itsme45 said:


> Really, these function preferences are tendencies in your whole life and the tendencies can change to some (undefined) extent.


Using functions at different strengths, S's working in abstract fields, N's working with the physical, and so on... It's a wonder anyone figures out their type.


If anyone tries to PM me, I'll be turning off PMing in the next day or two since I'll be on vacation.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

^^ has anyone watched Monthy Python movies? 

<.< watch and ye shall understand whut Ne izzzz.










:mellow: now bringeth me a shrubberry! Ni! *slaps 2 halves of a coconut together* . On you way now...


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Karen said:


> I seem to understand almost everyone else's personality better than my own.
> 
> Using functions at different strengths, S's working in abstract fields, N's working with the physical, and so on... It's a wonder anyone figures out their type.


Two great sum-ups here!


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

@Rim, there's hardly anything funnier than Monty Python episodes and movies. 




itsme45 said:


> Two great sum-ups here!


I should have added that everyone understands Jung and MBTI a little differently. As I said somewhere, sometimes it seems the more I study, the least I understand, though recently the threads on functions have been helping. I grabbed the following a little out of context in order to clear up what Si means.

From @LiquidLight: "In the same way, Si does not make a person 'traditional.' Traditional is the result of your ideas about the world. Si is just a subjective (self-referencing) perception of sensory experience."

From @JungyesMBTIno: "...Si and traditionalism, which really have nothing to do with each other - believe me, my parents are Si dominants and aren't big on tradition - as for routine and familiarity on the other hand, different concept, different story..."

Why has Si been connected to traditionalism, routines and familiarity when all it means is subjective perception of sensory experience? Is there something within the latter that predictably manifests as the former, or has MBTI created something that has absolutely no basis in reality? In other words, is Si entirely disconnected from tradition, routine and familiarity and any function can manifest in that way, or is Si the function that people use to manifest those characteristics because of some inherent aspect of the function?


----------



## zenity (Nov 6, 2011)

Karen said:


> Why has Si been connected to traditionalism, routines and familiarity when all it means is subjective perception of sensory experience? Is there something within the latter that predictably manifests as the former, or has MBTI created something that has absolutely no basis in reality? In other words, is Si entirely disconnected from tradition, routine and familiarity and any function can manifest in that way, or is Si the function that people use to manifest those characteristics because of some inherent aspect of the function?


Well, it's not entirely disconnected from tradition, but rather enjoys a complex relationship with it. Ne, when rejected from the ego and viewed in a negative and adversarial light as it sometimes is with Si dominants, can result in a fear of the emergent possibilities in the world around you, which can in turn cause you to embrace the known, including tradition and the familiar, as a defense mechanism.

With regards specifically to tradition, though, it's Fe dominants that more readily orientate themselves to it. As Jung says in psychological types: 



> In precisely the same way as extraverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extraverted feeling has also to undergo a certain process of differentiation, before it is finally denuded of every subjective trimming. The _valuations _resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or at least chime in with certain traditional and generally known standards of value. This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre, to concerts, or to Church, and what is more, with correctly adjusted positive feelings.


But again, complex concepts like tradition aren't really attributable to functions so much as an individual's psychology and experiences. Certain behaviours may be correlated more with particular types, but it's the individual's psychological makeup that will determine how they manifest and whether they appear at all.


----------



## zenity (Nov 6, 2011)

Ooops, double post


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Thanks, @zenity. Until recently I hadn't give much thought to the inferior being a major determinant of behavior. It seems the MBTI organization would understand that and is taking the shortcut of attributing characteristics to Si that aren't typically manifested through that function alone. 




> This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre, to concerts, or to Church, and what is more, with correctly adjusted positive feelings.


Reminds me of an ENFJ relative who is the most traditional person I know. She belongs to a religious cult, has taken on all their values, and I've watched her "adjust positive feelings" so she can continue on with her belief system and membership.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Si has a different definition in every major version of the theory (original one and spin-offs), maybe because it seems kind of a paradoxon, that Sensation can be Introverted. I mean, what things are there to concretely sense that are not in the world... I still like the definition best that says Si is just the subjective experience/component of sensations of actual things. IIRC LiquidLight explained that well here or was it the other Ne thread.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

I just read Si in Psychologic Types and this time around I have a better, though not complete, understanding. I still don't have a good feel for how it would manifest within the mind, what kind of thoughts would go along with an Si lens. This is what Jung said:



> Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons.


Does this sound like the reality for a dom Si? If so, what is an "archaic reality," and I wonder how the thoughts/feelings of the idea of "benevolent deities" and "malevolent demons" plays out?

Edit: And how would someone who spends a lot of time dealing with the physical know whether or not they're seeing the world as it is?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Karen said:


> I just read Si in Psychologic Types and this time around I have a better, though not complete, understanding. I still don't have a good feel for how it would manifest within the mind, what kind of thoughts would go along with an Si lens. (...)
> 
> Does this sound like the reality for a dom Si? If so, what is an "archaic reality," and I wonder how the thoughts/feelings of the idea of "benevolent deities" and "malevolent demons" plays out?
> 
> Edit: And how would someone who spends a lot of time dealing with the physical know whether or not they're seeing the world as it is?


That quote just sounds pathologic... I could never really interpret it.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

I thought maybe it had to do with the possibility of fairies hiding under forest leaves that we were joking about. At least I was hoping. 

Since I heard about MBTI and realized people see the world so differently at a fundamental personality level, I've been curious as to how the functions operate, from abstract explanations to the level of how people actually think, which is why I've been asking these questions.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Karen said:


> I just read Si in Psychologic Types and this time around I have a better, though not complete, understanding. I still don't have a good feel for how it would manifest within the mind, what kind of thoughts would go along with an Si lens. This is what Jung said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry been working lately so can't comment too much, and I've got a lot to catch up on this thread, but archaic in Jung-speak basically means a primitive form of consciousness where there is no separation between subject and object. Sort of what we were talking about in the earliest stages of life where the individual can't see himself as 'himself.' Whenever Jung uses terms like archaic or primordial he's referring to a very almost raw, undeveloped (really untouched by conscious experience) disposition. So, for example, when he speaks of Si-doms having 'primitive' intuitions he's saying they are not of a higher, more refined order, but rather base-level almost of an instinctual level. When you read PT you'll notice that Jung always gives a exposition of the developed function as it should generally operate in consciousness, but then always gives an exposition of the undeveloped (primitive) counteraction that accompanies (so developed, refined, conscious Si has a primitive, archaic Ne in Introverted Sensation types). 

He's being sort of flippant when he talks about Si-doms seeing hobgoblins and demons around every corner, but what he's trying to say is that if you have a perception-is-reality disposition and your negative intuitions about the outside world combine with this to get the best of you, there's a chance you will fall victim to always expecting the worst things to occur right around the bend. Where a dominant Ne type is always sniffing out possibilities around every corner, the inferior Ne type suspects malevolence in the possibilities around every corner. It's still Ne but this inferior Ne takes on something of a nefarious character. (the trick for the Si-dom is to learn that their intuitions are not necessarily always bad, just that, because their focus is on the more concrete physical world, they are perceived that way and probably there is an over-focus on when bad things happen. Si doms have to learn, like a dominant intuitive, to take the bad with the good, to be able to judge their intuitions as much as they can, rather than always be the unwitting victim of them). 

Again we should caution that it's not that Si-doms have no sense of objectivity (they after all have extraverted functions like everyone else). It's just that with Si (and all introverted functions) the focus is on the effect of the stimulus and the way it resonates with the person, not the stimulus itself. We are still dealing with the physical world with Si (five senses) so we can correctly say they are still more 'concrete' as it were, its just that their focus is on what their own response to those sensations (just like a Ti type responds more to how what a concept means to them rather than taking the objective concept on its own). With Extraversion, libido (neutral cognitive energy) moves toward the object, with Introversion the focus is on the effect of the object on them (and by extension that ability that Jacoby was talking about to make yourself the object of perception and judgment). It's a matter of focus.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

Karen said:


> Does this sound like the reality for a dom Si? If so, what is an "archaic reality," and I wonder how the thoughts/feelings of the idea of "benevolent deities" and "malevolent demons" plays out?
> 
> Edit: And how would someone who spends a lot of time dealing with the physical know whether or not they're seeing the world as it is?


Thank you for asking all the questions I'm far too lazy to ask myself. 



itsme45 said:


> That quote just sounds pathologic... I could never really interpret it.


That portion of Jung's description always made me think of animistic religions. Or the quote by Thales: "All things are full of gods."


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> the trick for the Si-dom is to learn that their intuitions are not necessarily always bad, just that, because their focus is on the more concrete physical world, they are perceived that way and probably there is an over-focus on when bad things happen. Si doms have to learn, like a dominant intuitive, to take the bad with the good, to be able to judge their intuitions as much as they can, rather than always be the unwitting victim of them.


So wait, if my hunches are usually not about negative things but I just don't trust them when they are too weak for my taste (usually this is the case), then that goes against the theory doesn't it? I mean, if Si dom has this negative relationship to inferior Ne, then Se dom would too, to inferior Ni. I should be having negative Ni hunches and I should be taking them very seriously. Why isn't this true in my case? According to theory, would it have to be true by default or only when very stressed out?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Assuming that you recognize Ni as negative. People don't have a negative relationship with their inferior function always just an inconsistent relationship (because it pulls you toward your shadow). Some people live their shadows so to speak (their persona is essentially the negative aspects of themselves). I think I heard someone say the inferior function makes someone either appear to themselves as a hero or a fool (hence, for example, the Se dom who thinks they are saving the world by imparting some wisdom about the world, via their Ni, when in reality that wisdom is sort of inconsequential in the bigger picture). For example, I have a friend who I think is a Se-dom, and she has a tendency to think she's being insightful by posting things like 


> • Being single doesn't mean u know nothing about love. Sometimes, its wiser to be alone than with the wrong person. Period.
> 
> • Oh, you sent me an event invite on Facebook? We’ve never met and you live 2,400 miles away, of course I’ll go!
> ​• That awkward moment when your waiter asks if your done with your plate and there's nothing at all left on it....what did you think I wanted to eat my plate?
> ...


You can see in these is a certain wisdom about things but one heavily based on observation. It's almost like the stuff you read on "texts from last night.com" An intuition about the underlying way the world works if you will, but its a kind of fool's wisdom. Things that to other people are sort of plainly obvious. One might think this is the wisdom of a child, which is why Jung describes inferior Ni as 'primitive.' It's not a self-sufficient insight, but rather one that's over-simplistic. Mind you this is a grown and intelligent woman, not a child. But where I think people who are stronger intuitives (and perhaps some Thinking types) sort of yawn at this kind of stuff, I'm not sure she sees just how simplistic this stuff is. That's still a negative relationship with Ni. The person comes off as something of a caricature of the stereotypical Ni 'seer' or 'foreteller.' (In contrast, when not appealing to their intuitions, the Ni-dom comes off as a pathetic version of a Se-dom). 

Now a really good example of this would be to me, in a more robust sense, someone like Glenn Beck, who strikes me as an ESFP. Again its very much the "because I have observed x it must mean y" kind of thing going on, and very much this "i'm wise and here's what's really going on when we pull the curtain back," kinda thing. But again, the things that he's intuiting about are often just kind of wacky -- or plainly obvious and can be related to other causalities. It's insight about the world, but its borderline pathetic insight unlike the Nietzsche, Swedenborg, Jesus, Isaac Newton, Confucius, advancing humanity forward type of Ni which stands in contrast (I might count Edgar Casey and Nostradamus as Introverted Intuitives, but of the type so removed from their Se as to become completely detached from reality). It's always fun for me to watch ESPN and listen to people like Michael Irvin or Keyshawn Johnson (both strike me as ESFP) give their 'insights' about some situation. Everyone else on the set is just rolling their eyes, when you can tell these guys actually believe what they are saying. 

This would be somewhat how someone could have a negative relationship with Ni, but because its not generally directed at the outer world (that guy is probably going to screw me over) but rather back at your own inner world people may not necessarily recognize it as performing poorly or negatively. It's more likely you would find such a person just outwardly antagonistic to the idea of 'intuition' or reading between the lines, preferring to just focus on the data at hand. Deion Sanders might argue his, often silly points, from the standpoint of experience and observation, not realizing that their is an underlying intuition at work as well. 

I have more to write about Ni, because I want to answer @itsme45's original question but I gotta get more time to sit down and write it, been crazy busy lately.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> (...) I have more to write about Ni, because I want to answer @_itsme45_'s original question but I gotta get more time to sit down and write it, been crazy busy lately.


Well this didn't help. =) I mean, it's interesting and makes sense, thanks. But those examples are exactly the things that bore me to death when I see/hear them. To me they just feel too plain obvious. 

(Also that USA example, I would question it, I would ask why they think so and what this exactly means for them. I would actually ask in the first example too, why they think it's wiser etc. etc. I mean, I understand what they probably mean by it but I'd like to hear in-depth about their thinking. And then the waiter example and the last example, it doesn't even sound like an insight, that's just some funny moments.)

Jeeze, a few days ago someone told me they know why I chat so much. With this all-knowing look. I said "ok tell me why" (with great interest). They say "because you like chatting". I'm then like "WHAT?" I could have killed the person there and then. 

But would this be just because I kind of have a high stimulation threshold, that is, I may have just seen enough of these simple things in the past so I got bored and moved on... I'm a very curious person by default and always have been.

However as a kid I was immersed in this sort of simple S stuff, never thinking beyond (yet constantly wanting to think beyond, just never anything came out of it!! What's that?) but then I changed a lot in my way of thinking when I turned 18 or so. I kind of put together a lot of things. I guess that's when the threshold went up...?

Now at least the part about Se's "being outwardly antagonistic to the idea of 'intuition' or reading between the lines, preferring to just focus on the data at hand" is very true of me. I just want to focus on the data, I do not want to consciously search for any meaning beyond the concrete data itself, if the data means something then the heureka moment will come to me in due time. No sooner, no later, no need to try and make the process speed up. 

Also, I don't care much about data on subjects that are not out-there-in-the-world, not concrete, provable, measurable etc. I mean, this personality theory was the exception and only due to other factors (such as trying to get to know myself, etc.). Naturally I gravitate towards more low-level sciences than this, certain aspects of cognitive psychology being the highest possible level where I can still be doing something with my way of thinking, as long as I can do the proper kinds of experiments.

Note I can deal with more abstract subjects than that, but I kind of don't take them seriously by default because I cannot reify them in the proper way. If I can't do that then I lose interest after a while, my tolerance level is pretty low for such subjects.

What I can take away so far is only this generic trend of being antagonistic to such "mystical" ideas and focusing on the data itself is what would strongly support the idea of me being Se > Ni (and S > N in general), but the concrete examples don't really... I'm not trying to say I'm this extremely unique person, but the concrete stereotypical crap just doesn't seem to apply due to the changes at age 18. So, going by simply behaviour and ability and interest to think about the abstract, I can often seem ENTP.

Another question, if I really don't like to overthink the meaningfulness of the heureka moments (like in your Se dom examples) but I do really enjoy them for a short while, how is that different from Ni doms? Do Ni doms even have salient heureka moments or because Ni is always conscious it's manifestation of giving you big picture ideas is different?

Thanks for spending time with this, I look forward to that answer too.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> Well this didn't help. =) I mean, it's interesting and makes sense, thanks. But those examples are exactly the things that bore me to death when I see/hear them. To me they just feel too plain obvious.


Your IQ is likely higher.  And if you are Se, your choice of major has likely demanded more in-depth Ni. 

@LiquidLight, your last two posts allowed me to finally have the insights about introverted functions I'd been lacking. Thanks for taking time to write while you've been busy.

I'm taking off on vacation and may or may not have easy access to a computer, and am closing down PMs. I'll catch up with this thread when I return, somewhere between 1 and 3 weeks. @LiquidLight, I'd asked you a question about Si in PM, so you can delete without reading if you want.

Thanks everyone who contributed to this thread and helped with an understanding of functions.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> (In contrast, when not appealing to their intuitions, the Ni-dom comes off as a pathetic version of a Se-dom).


I forgot to ask, do you know a few examples of Ni-dom acting as "pathetic version of Se-dom"?




Karen said:


> Your IQ is likely higher.  And if you are Se, your choice of major has likely demanded more in-depth Ni.


Well it happened before I actually decided to major in psych. So that's more like the consequence only... =)


----------



## Larxene (Nov 24, 2011)

*Both Intuition functions like to create/derive new ideas*. There is no difference between them here.

The fundamental difference is *expression*. 

*Ni *bearers have *do not have the need to reveal their data* (we call them premises in logic) that led them to their conclusions. They often *present their conclusions concisely* after *careful, deep research* (Ni-Te are concise; not sure about Ni-Fe). *Ni bearers dislike half-baked data/premises*; they want these information to be as completely researched as possible.

* Ne *bearers are impulsive; we *have the need to share all the premises we can conceive of at the moment we conceive them*. We *don't mind half-baked ideas* as long as they are unexplored. Even when we have made our conclusions, *when we present our argument, we tend to share virtually all the premises we used to arrive at the conclusion; we are not concise, but pedantic*.


----------



## Larxene (Nov 24, 2011)

One of the differences that I have observed between an INTP and an INTJ is this; assuming that there are no urgent matters at hand of which the information needs to be applied on, an INTP is often satisfied with exploring all the premises as they are, whereas an INTJ would ask for a conclusion.

INTP: Do you know? A is B. C often does D. E has a direct correlation with F.
INTJ: So?
INTP: Uh...nothing. I just thought it's an interesting idea/fact.
INTJ: ...


NOTE: I'm simply trying to highlight the difference between Ne and Te here.


I have a hypothesis as to one of the possible differences between Ni and Ti:

Ti: Is this really true/false?
Ni: Is this really possible/impossible?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Larxene said:


> One of the differences that I have observed between an INTP and an INTJ is this; assuming that there are no urgent matters at hand of which the information needs to be applied on, an INTP is often satisfied with exploring all the premises as they are, whereas an INTJ would ask for a conclusion.
> 
> INTP: Do you know? A is B. C often does D. E has a direct correlation with F.
> INTJ: So?
> ...


Interesting... I prefer to share ideas when I feel like they're conclusive. That doesn't mean things can't change later. But when I personally feel an idea is still half-baked, I don't like to share it as much. In general I prefer having conclusions. Those conclusions would be about determining if a possibility (N) is correct or not (T). I noticed also that if I think something is possible and then I somehow manage to conjure up a second possibility (I usually don't, I usually just have this "wondering" mindset without generating possibilities), an alternative to the first one, I will INSTANTLY lose interest. I may go back to the topic later if I feel like I can say more about it to myself, removing the unnecessary alternative. So yeah I suppose that's Ni > Ne for me. It seems like I have a really low tolerance for Ne's scatteredness. 

I wonder how Karen is with this, but of course I don't know if she's off to the holiday yet... I guess in a week or whenever she returns 




Larxene said:


> *Both Intuition functions like to create/derive new ideas*. There is no difference between them here.
> 
> The fundamental difference is *expression*.
> 
> ...


As for sharing premises... I think they need to be shared if they are necessary to understand the conclusion logically. If not, then not.  It depends on the person too, if they ask, I'm glad to explain all of it and it's not going to be concise at all when I try to explain. But too many unexplored ideas that require conscious effort of me to explore them, I will just leave them, I don't care. I just wait for the lovely heureka moment instead so then I can see all of it at once without speculating. Yeah I think I'm not going to consider Ne for myself ever again =)


----------



## Larxene (Nov 24, 2011)

@_itsme45_:

_"That doesn't mean things can't change later."_

I did not mean that one is compelled to make unchangeable conclusions. I mean that Te/Fe is compelled to make conclusions on the spot. This is balanced by Ni's need to obtain sufficient premises. That is why both I and E functions need to develop together: too much E and you become too impulsive; too much I and you will have difficulties adapting to the current circumstances. 
_

"In general I prefer having conclusions. Those conclusions would be about determining if a possibility (N) is correct or not (T)."_

Well, anyone with a Thinking preference would have the desire to make conclusions (I don't know about Feelers). The real question is, when and how do you seek the answers?

For someone with NeTi or TiNe, there is the desire to *explore every possibility one can think of at that moment simultaneously*; such a person would love to have the supernatural ability of creating Doppelgangers to assimiliate disparate information all at the same time. Having Ti means that *eventually, the person would try to make conclusions based on everything he has 'experienced'* (information he read about, personal experiments he performed, people he talked to, etc), but only eventually; the *Ti bearer has a less pronounced sense of urgency than the Te bearer*, often making decisions only when absolutely necessary.

If we do a research on when students hand in their work, TPs will be more likely to hand in their work at the last minute compared to TJs.

For you, with Ti-aux and Ni-inf, you would also have less of a need to make a decision/conclusion on the spot (Ti), but you would probably be more focused on examining very few possibilities carefully, before going to the next possibility (Ni). The latter characteristic is the trademark of Introverted functions; they 'exclude' most lines of inquiry to focus on a few, and by doing so achieve more depth than the Extroverted functions.


_"I noticed also that if I think something is possible and then I somehow manage to conjure up a second possibility, an alternative to the first one, I will INSTANTLY lose interest. I may go back to the topic later if I feel like I can say more about it to myself, removing the unnecessary alternative."_

Again, what you observed is the 'excluding' quality of Introverted functions. Ti works similarly; *when there are too many decisions/conclusions that have to be made simultaneously, Ti shuts down. Otherwise, it focuses only on one decision and ignores the rest.* (On the other hand, Te would have no problems making decisions simultaneously.)

Also, once the Ti bearer has reached a conclusion, he immediately loses interest in the topic at hand. That is, he isn't interested in thinking about the argument anymore for that time being. This can be pretty dangerous if immediate action is required.


_"It seems like I have a really low tolerance for Ne's scatteredness."_

Not new. An INTJ friend of mine hates it too. On the other hand, I relish in it. Extraverted Perception functions make one's external life richer. Ne is my only refuge when I'm too lost in negative thought patterns. (For you, it would be Se.) The only time it lets me down is when I need to explain things in sequential order spontaneously (that is, I haven't properly processed the argument with Ti); it is extremely scattered and people will often have difficulties understanding what I'm trying to say.


_"I think they need to be shared if they are necessary to understand the conclusion logically. If not, then not."_

I think I did not make myself clear when I said that Ni does not have the need to reveal the data. By that I mean that the *specific data* that led to the premises being true and therefore leads to the conclusion being true. We support our conclusion with premises. Some of these premises are evidently true, some need justification. For the latter, subpremises need to be provided. These are the data I am referring to.

NiTe bearers often (but not always) provide the premises and the conclusion, but is unlikely to provide the subpremises. The usual attitude is "if you need more information, just ask me." The NeTi bearers often present the subpremises, and either the premises or the conclusion, but often not both (due to Ti, we privatize our conclusions). That is why the arguments of NiTe bearers seem sequential and simple, while the arguments of NeTi bearers often seem convoluted and complex.

Of course, this is what occurs when being asked to present the argument spontaneously. Given enough time to think carefully about the issue, both the NiTe and NeTi are likely to present the subpremises, premises and conclusion. The differences will then be less pronounced, but it'll probably still be there.


_"It depends on the person too, if they ask, I'm glad to explain all of it and it's not going to be concise at all when I try to explain."_

As above, "If you need more information, just ask me".


_"But too many unexplored ideas that require conscious effort of me to explore them, I will just leave them, I don't care._"

This could be due to Ti or inferior Ni.


_"...lovely heureka moment..."_

*eureka


A parting thought: Ne is the reason why my post is so much longer than the average poster. Sometimes I try to shorten my post but to no avail. Ne makes one compulsive to share as much related information as possible, which makes us INTPs look pedantic.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Larxene said:


> _"That doesn't mean things can't change later."_
> 
> I did not mean that one is compelled to make unchangeable conclusions.


Oh, I was only describing my thought processes, I didn't really try to say anything about what you originally meant.




> _"In general I prefer having conclusions. Those conclusions would be about determining if a possibility (N) is correct or not (T)."_
> 
> Well, anyone with a Thinking preference would have the desire to make conclusions (I don't know about Feelers). The real question is, when and how do you seek the answers?


I was trying to see if that's also due to Ni preference over Ne preference because Ne seems to be the more open ended, more scattered version of intuition.




> For someone with NeTi or TiNe, there is the desire to *explore every possibility one can think of at that moment simultaneously*; such a person would love to have the supernatural ability of creating Doppelgangers to assimiliate disparate information all at the same time. Having Ti means that *eventually, the person would try to make conclusions based on everything he has 'experienced'* (information he read about, personal experiments he performed, people he talked to, etc), but only eventually; the *Ti bearer has a less pronounced sense of urgency than the Te bearer*, often making decisions only when absolutely necessary.


Hmm, what I do if I think of more than one possibility is that I try to explore each one in order. I need closure on all of them. Yes, eventually I do like to make conclusions based on everything. But most of the time it isn't possible right away. I guess I'm not compulsive on it either.




> If we do a research on when students hand in their work, TPs will be more likely to hand in their work at the last minute compared to TJs.


Well, no question of me being TP here 




> For you, with Ti-aux and Ni-inf, you would also have less of a need to make a decision/conclusion on the spot (Ti), but you would probably be more focused on examining very few possibilities carefully, before going to the next possibility (Ni). The latter characteristic is the trademark of Introverted functions; they 'exclude' most lines of inquiry to focus on a few, and by doing so achieve more depth than the Extroverted functions.


Yeah I first just explore. But later when I feel like I have enough info, then in some cases I want to make the conclusion on the spot (when the whatever question comes up) but as soon as I see that I don't have enough info yet to do so, I'll put away the whole question (for a possible later check if I get more info for it).

I can have a new possibility idea while already examining one, but not too many because I want closure on all of them and anyway I'm not big on brainstorming. So yeah with the possibility thingies, I do like to go deeper.




> _"I noticed also that if I think something is possible and then I somehow manage to conjure up a second possibility, an alternative to the first one, I will INSTANTLY lose interest. I may go back to the topic later if I feel like I can say more about it to myself, removing the unnecessary alternative."_
> 
> Again, what you observed is the 'excluding' quality of Introverted functions. Ti works similarly; *when there are too many decisions/conclusions that have to be made simultaneously, Ti shuts down. Otherwise, it focuses only on one decision and ignores the rest.* (On the other hand, Te would have no problems making decisions simultaneously.)
> 
> Also, once the Ti bearer has reached a conclusion, he immediately loses interest in the topic at hand. That is, he isn't interested in thinking about the argument anymore for that time being. This can be pretty dangerous if immediate action is required.


The interest loss is related to amount of possibilities. If I find an alternative then to me the meaning of that is that I can no longer perceive how the thing may most likely be so I won't look at it longer. It of course also means I can't make a conclusion either, sure. 

Not sure what you meant by Ti vs immediate action. Do you really mean that an IxTP is just going to sit and try to understand things about a task and when that's done, it's all done, even though there is still the task that needs to be done?

Btw I'm not sure what you meant by Te making several decisions simultaneously. Do you mean another one quickly after the first one (as close to real multitasking as possible but not truly simultaneous, obviously). I don't have a problem with that if the task at hand requires it, but that's not the same kind of mental task as simply wondering about something to try and understand it.




> _"It seems like I have a really low tolerance for Ne's scatteredness."_
> 
> Not new. An INTJ friend of mine hates it too. On the other hand, I relish in it. Extraverted Perception functions make one's external life richer. Ne is my only refuge when I'm too lost in negative thought patterns. (For you, it would be Se.) The only time it lets me down is when I need to explain things in sequential order spontaneously (that is, I haven't properly processed the argument with Ti); it is extremely scattered and people will often have difficulties understanding what I'm trying to say.


Yeah, btw, by Ne's scatteredness I meant the brainstorming of course. I don't mind variety in things physically around me.

Hmm.. If I need to explain something spontaneously, I give myself a few seconds to get my thoughts together. Doesn't that help in your case?

As for negative thought patterns, I don't usually think negatively, but I found that sometimes I can get stuck on a bad possibility, then if I generate a second one I will lose interest hah hah.  Doesn't matter which one of the two is more likely, because I had no sense of feeling the correct (=low) likelihood of the first one anyway in those cases (I usually have a good sense of likelihoods but this ability of mine can be affected when I get worried or something). So I don't know what that is, am I using Ne there? Again as I said I'm not big on brainstorming but sometimes I do this brainstorming for the explicit goal of getting off some stupid idea.




> _"I think they need to be shared if they are necessary to understand the conclusion logically. If not, then not."_
> 
> I think I did not make myself clear when I said that Ni does not have the need to reveal the data. By that I mean that the *specific data* that led to the premises being true and therefore leads to the conclusion being true. We support our conclusion with premises. Some of these premises are evidently true, some need justification. For the latter, subpremises need to be provided. These are the data I am referring to.


That's what I meant too. If I don't share them it would be because I didn't realize that the other person would be unlikely to understand without them. Why would I hold anything back if I think they are necessary for the listener to understand? Makes no sense to me...




> NiTe bearers often (but not always) provide the premises and the conclusion, but is unlikely to provide the subpremises. The usual attitude is "if you need more information, just ask me."


But if they know the listener will probably not understand, why would they do this? Is it just in case the other person isn't that interested anyway? 




> _"But too many unexplored ideas that require conscious effort of me to explore them, I will just leave them, I don't care._"
> This could be due to Ti or inferior Ni.


Yeah, I don't know which one.




> _"...lovely heureka moment..."_
> 
> *eureka


I didn't ask for a spell check. 

Btw I know how to spell it, I just sometimes make this mistake because in my native language there is a "h" for that word.




> A parting thought: Ne is the reason why my post is so much longer than the average poster. Sometimes I try to shorten my post but to no avail. Ne makes one compulsive to share as much related information as possible, which makes us INTPs look pedantic.


Er, your post didn't seem particularly long to me  (length wasn't tiring at all) I can make much longer ones  I'm not sure it's Ne that does it, maybe just Pe in general (or unrelated to functions), though I can filter some of the stuff out if I see it was going to too long otherwise.


----------



## Larxene (Nov 24, 2011)

_"I was trying to see if that's also due to Ni preference over Ne preference because Ne seems to be the more open ended, more scattered version of intuition."_

Your use of the word 'conclusion' has a different meaning than mine. You mean determining whether a possibility is likely or not. The 'conclusion' made by Judging function has a different meaning. A conclusion formed by Judging functions dictates the implication(s) of the possibilities.

To answer your thought, no, Ne also has the desire to _discover_ the probability of the possibility. The difference is, again, in the 'expression' of the function: Ni unleashes a thin and deep drill down the hole, Ne casts a wide and shallow net.


_"I can have a new possibility idea while already examining one, but not too many because I want closure on all of them and anyway I'm not big on brainstorming."_

I mean that you'd _choose to focus_ on a select few at that moment, even if you came up with many possibilities. "You're not big on brainstorming" as in you can't find many possibilities at once or you prefer not to think about too many possibilities at once?

Careful with the word 'closure' XD, in MBTI terms it usually refers to making conclusions using T/F. Of course, I know what you mean here. It is the similar to Ti (and I'm not completely sure whether you're really using Ni or Ti here, since both share this property): When a few arguments are presented and I find even one premise or sub-argument to be dubious or unclear, I would think about it to the exclusion of everything else. My mental catchphrase here is usually "Is this true? Why?"


_"The interest loss is related to amount of possibilities. If I find an alternative then to me the meaning of that is that I can no longer perceive how the thing may most likely be so I won't look at it longer. It of course also means I can't make a conclusion either, sure."_

I see: if you can't tell which possibility is more likely, you won't look further without absorbing additional information, correct? I suppose that's true for me too, except that I don't whether it's N at play or T at play here. It could be T's way of saying, "well, since I can't really use this to conclude anything, why bother to look any further?"


_"Not sure what you meant by Ti vs immediate action. Do you really mean that an IxTP is just going to sit and try to understand things about a task and when that's done, it's all done, even though there is still the task that needs to be done?"_

There's also the testing stage where I test out whether things will work or not. Once I've found what works and there's nothing left to explore, I tend to lose interest in the task and will dread completing it (and will usually procrastinate). That's why Ti-doms should really be given 'challenging' work; that way they can keep exploring and get things done (as a side-effect of that exploration).

I don't mind if you call me irresponsible for that, because it seems apt.

_
"Btw I'm not sure what you meant by Te making several decisions simultaneously."_

It seems simultaneous from the point of view of a Ti-dom who takes much longer to make impromptu decisions. But technically, it isn't simultaneous. For the record, my friend (INTJ) can make decisions about (at least) four times faster than me.


_"I don't have a problem with that if the task at hand requires it, but that's not the same kind of mental task as simply wondering about something to try and understand it."_

Yeah, well, the thing about IXTPs is that (at least) some of us tend to muse over the simplest things, which makes it hard to make immediate decisions. 

_
"I don't mind variety in things physically around me."_

It was a tangential remark about how despite being scattered in nature, it is the very thing that makes me come alive.


_"Hmm.. If I need to explain something spontaneously, I give myself a few seconds to get my thoughts together. Doesn't that help in your case?"_

It helps, but with Ne's impulsivity, it's sometimes hard for me to pull myself back from creating a verbal diarrhoea of possibilities. Secondly, if the topic is complex I would take quite awhile to sequentialize my...speech. By the time I'm done sequentializing them, the excitement brewed by Ne often would have subsided, causing me to lose interest in sharing it.

_
"So I don't know what that is, am I using Ne there? Again as I said I'm not big on brainstorming but sometimes I do this brainstorming for the explicit goal of getting off some stupid idea."_

I'd probably muse over the negative idea to determine its likelihood, which is often a recipe for disaster. What I'd do is find something else to distract me with, something with things to discover (like fantasy).


_"Why would I hold anything back if I think they are necessary for the listener to understand?"_

I intuitively knew the discussion would arrive at this point sooner or later . My only answer is that what is necessary to the Ni bearer can be quite different from what is necessary to the Ne bearer. I can't elaborate anymore on this, because it would require specific examples which I do not currently possess. Suffice to say that the Ne bearer likes to prove something by including information from as many widely disparate fields/subjects as possible, whereas the NiTe is more inclined to prove with as little effort as possible.

Again, take note that I'm making conclusions about the Ni bearer based on an INTJ, so YMMV.

_
"But if they know the listener will probably not understand, why would they do this? Is it just in case the other person isn't that interested anyway?"_

Yes. A considerable number of people do not have the desire to go through the details of the premises' proof, so the NiTe bearer tends to give only the gist of the argument (which means, excluding most of the premises of the subconclusions). But the NeTi bearer is different; driven intensely by the desire for truth and certainty, he is high skeptical of such arguments and often have the desire to dig deeper. He will examine every twists and turns, and even if there's a hint of uncertainty, he will bite on it to unravel the unknown within.

...Okay, I might be over-dramatic here. But that's the gist of how I work. Even when there's a satisfactory argument, if there are some things that are not covered, I will try to cover them. It's a pain sometimes.

_
"I didn't ask for a spell check...in my native language there is a "h" for that word."_

It's my pet peeve . You a Greek?


_"Er, your post didn't seem particularly long to me  ... I'm not sure it's Ne that does it, maybe just Pe in general..."_

I made use of my Ti to keep things as relevant and concise as possible. Might have employed some Te too. If we were discussing this in person the discussion would probably be much longer. 

An unhinged Ne bearer often likes to go in all directions to explore the issue randomly, often without answering the question at the end of the exploration. For that reason, I had to learn to temper my Ne so that it doesn't flood people with random ideas all the time, by using Ti in the manner aforementioned.


----------



## Larxene (Nov 24, 2011)

[Accidentally double-posted.]


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Larxene said:


> _"I was trying to see if that's also due to Ni preference over Ne preference because Ne seems to be the more open ended, more scattered version of intuition."_
> 
> Your use of the word 'conclusion' has a different meaning than mine. You mean determining whether a possibility is likely or not. The 'conclusion' made by Judging function has a different meaning. A conclusion formed by Judging functions dictates the implication(s) of the possibilities.


Well by conclusion I mean determining if the possibility is correct, that is, it has a point to it, fits in a system, should be materialized etc... yes it has a lot to do with likelihood but I usually directly perceive that just by "looking" without explicitly analysing to conclude anything. That doesn't mean my guess at that can't be off at times 




> To answer your thought, no, Ne also has the desire to _discover_ the probability of the possibility. The difference is, again, in the 'expression' of the function: Ni unleashes a thin and deep drill down the hole, Ne casts a wide and shallow net.


How does Ne discover the probability of it by casting that net? I really just look and know whether it's worth looking further into it or not - then the looking further can involve Ti too... but then sometimes I just look to "see" the thing better. This can be even explicitly visual imagination. Okay, so I understand what you said about Ni here drilling down the hole but not the Ne casting a net. Have you got a good example about that?




> _"I can have a new possibility idea while already examining one, but not too many because I want closure on all of them and anyway I'm not big on brainstorming."_
> 
> I mean that you'd _choose to focus_ on a select few at that moment, even if you came up with many possibilities. "You're not big on brainstorming" as in you can't find many possibilities at once or you prefer not to think about too many possibilities at once?


When I said I'm not big on brainstorming, I meant I can't find many possibilities at once. I don't even really want to try... It's like my brain sets up a block against that sort of thinking style. But then there are times when I think of 2-3 almost at once and then I definitely just want to focus on them and preferably not find another until I'm done with that. This is also what I mean by liking closure.




> Careful with the word 'closure' XD, in MBTI terms it usually refers to making conclusions using T/F. Of course, I know what you mean here. It is the similar to Ti (and I'm not completely sure whether you're really using Ni or Ti here, since both share this property): When a few arguments are presented and I find even one premise or sub-argument to be dubious or unclear, I would think about it to the exclusion of everything else. My mental catchphrase here is usually "Is this true? Why?"


I'm not sure if it is Ti or Ni there for me, it now seems Ti because what I'm mostly focused on is discarding the "shit" ideas... and then fleshing out the rest, maybe that part is no longer just Ti then.




> _"The interest loss is related to amount of possibilities. If I find an alternative then to me the meaning of that is that I can no longer perceive how the thing may most likely be so I won't look at it longer. It of course also means I can't make a conclusion either, sure."_
> 
> I see: if you can't tell which possibility is more likely, you won't look further without absorbing additional information, correct? I suppose that's true for me too, except that I don't whether it's N at play or T at play here. It could be T's way of saying, "well, since I can't really use this to conclude anything, why bother to look any further?"


Yeah could be T for me. Or just weak-ish N freaking out. 




> _"Not sure what you meant by Ti vs immediate action. Do you really mean that an IxTP is just going to sit and try to understand things about a task and when that's done, it's all done, even though there is still the task that needs to be done?"_
> 
> There's also the testing stage where I test out whether things will work or not. Once I've found what works and there's nothing left to explore, I tend to lose interest in the task and will dread completing it (and will usually procrastinate). That's why Ti-doms should really be given 'challenging' work; that way they can keep exploring and get things done (as a side-effect of that exploration).
> 
> I don't mind if you call me irresponsible for that, because it seems apt.


Interesting... I definitely like challenges and the Ti-kind of exploring is done on the side while working to get things done.  I have a hard time keeping the Ti up for a long time without actually wanting to get something done. I just don't feel satisfied if I stop at the theoretical analysis. So yeah, aux Ti, not dom Ti... 

No worries I'm pretty irresponsible myself  just in a different way, that is, the way I choose my tasks/jobs based on my own interest. Less good at things imposed on me by someone else...




> _"I don't mind variety in things physically around me."_
> 
> It was a tangential remark about how despite being scattered in nature, it is the very thing that makes me come alive.


Interesting, you have a good imagination then.  I find I'm not satisfied with just imagination, I need to actually be doing the ideas/things. But then that's why I'm not INTP 




> _"Hmm.. If I need to explain something spontaneously, I give myself a few seconds to get my thoughts together. Doesn't that help in your case?"_
> 
> It helps, but with Ne's impulsivity, it's sometimes hard for me to pull myself back from creating a verbal diarrhoea of possibilities. Secondly, if the topic is complex I would take quite awhile to sequentialize my...speech. By the time I'm done sequentializing them, the excitement brewed by Ne often would have subsided, causing me to lose interest in sharing it.


Sounds like PITA. ;P Hm, yet another confirmation I can't have a Ne preference.




> _"So I don't know what that is, am I using Ne there? Again as I said I'm not big on brainstorming but sometimes I do this brainstorming for the explicit goal of getting off some stupid idea."_
> 
> I'd probably muse over the negative idea to determine its likelihood, which is often a recipe for disaster. What I'd do is find something else to distract me with, something with things to discover (like fantasy).


For me the musing over doesn't help in changing the initial perception of its probability if I already screwed it up - I think this screw-up may really only happen in a bad way if I'm anxious due to something. Don't know if Intuitives also get affected by anxiety states. Do you know anything about that? Distraction with other things also doesn't work well... only this trick I mentioned. 




> _"But if they know the listener will probably not understand, why would they do this? Is it just in case the other person isn't that interested anyway?"_
> 
> Yes. A considerable number of people do not have the desire to go through the details of the premises' proof, so the NiTe bearer tends to give only the gist of the argument (which means, excluding most of the premises of the subconclusions). But the NeTi bearer is different; driven intensely by the desire for truth and certainty, he is high skeptical of such arguments and often have the desire to dig deeper. He will examine every twists and turns, and even if there's a hint of uncertainty, he will bite on it to unravel the unknown within.
> 
> ...Okay, I might be over-dramatic here. But that's the gist of how I work. Even when there's a satisfactory argument, if there are some things that are not covered, I will try to cover them. It's a pain sometimes.


Hm, that could be just Ti, because I'm this exact same way if I care about something enough.




> _"I didn't ask for a spell check...in my native language there is a "h" for that word."_
> 
> It's my pet peeve . You a Greek?


It's my pet peeve too because of this salient interference present in my mind between the two different spellings... I usually get it right so it's annoying I f*cked up this time.  Not a Greek btw. But I don't live too far from that country.




> An unhinged Ne bearer often likes to go in all directions to explore the issue randomly, often without answering the question at the end of the exploration. For that reason, I had to learn to temper my Ne so that it doesn't flood people with random ideas all the time, by using Ti in the manner aforementioned.


Argh, again another example that shows I'm so not Ne. I want to answer at the end. Hmm you sure you're not ENTP? ;P


----------



## Larxene (Nov 24, 2011)

@_itsme45_:

*
"...it has a point to it, fits in a system, should be materialized etc..."*

That seems to be how Ni works to me in terms of evaluating possibilities; it has a complex, multi-faceted feel to it. My Ne mostly relies on instinct to determine whether it's likely, not much analysis occurs. When analysis does occur it is usually due to my Ti.


*"How does Ne discover the probability of it by casting that net?...Have you got a good example about that?"
*
I have told you that in an argument we have a conclusion, premises and subpremises. With Ne, I try to find as many subpremises as possible to prove the required premise. It is incredibly instinctual and random; if, for example, I am trying to proof something about human behavior, I will try to incorporate multiple psychological approaches: physiological, social, cognitive, behavioral, analytical (i.e. Jungian) etc. I also tend to be multi-disciplinary. I might include insights from sociology, mathematics, philosophy etc. Ideas that I have been thinking about might get connected with the current argument, no matter how remote.

I think Ni can do this too to some extent, but the difference is that (I think) Ne much more instinctual/impulsive and random than Ni in coming up with the ideas. This is related to the fact that we have two systems in our body: automatic and reflective. 

The automatic system governs our instincts, emotions, heartbeat, etc and works autonomously; we can say that our personal unconscious is what controls that system.

On the other hand, the reflective system (which is mainly used by the neo-cortex, the cognitive thinking brain) can only function in relation to the demands of our conscious mind. 

It is a fact that our instincts and emotions function faster than our conscious thoughts. Some people postulate that the unconsciousness is more capable than our conscious mind in processing information. If we can accept the idea that we are only using 10-20% of our mind's capacity, then we can speculate that that 10-20% is being used by the conscious mind, and the rest is used by our unconsciousness. If this is true, then it should come to no surprise as to why our instincts and emotions operate faster than our conscious thoughts.

(...I hope you can follow my explanation; my Ne has gone overdrive again as my Ti is taking some downtime.)

So if the automatic system is faster than the reflective system (which is true, from what I've read), then Ne will be more effective if it employs more of the automatic system due to its goal of wanting to explore as many ideas as possible spontaneously.

Another key feature of Ne's idea generation (which is really a consequent of its goal) is that its consideration of each individual possibility tends to be shallow, when not complemented by the introverted judging function. It would simply state "A is possible" or at best, "A is possible, because B". On the other hand, a well-formed idea (people call this a 'concept', I believe) would be like "A is possible, because B, C, D. B is true because E. C and D are true because F. Experimental data shows that ...which is consistent with F."

This feature is missing in Ni. Ni is more likely to look deeper and form a well-formed idea. You yourself described it, "...it has a point to it, fits in a system, should be materialized etc..."


*"I don't even really want to try... It's like my brain sets up a block against that sort of thinking style."*
*
The Excluding Quality of Introverted Functions.*


*"...I have a hard time keeping the Ti up for a long time without actually wanting to get something done. I just don't feel satisfied if I stop at the theoretical analysis... Less good at things imposed on me by someone else..."*

That's because you are an ES-type and an SP. ES types are the most externally oriented types, naturally thriving on taking actions and achieving results. On an interesting note, Jung originially considered the Sensing function to be inherently externally-oriented; to him, if you are a Sensor, then you must also be an Extravert. Thus, we can postulate that Se is the most externally oriented perception function.

The second reason, because you're an SP. From what little I've read about you guys, all SPs have an intense need for the freedom to follow their own impulses. Following the structures 'imposed' by others violates this need.


*"...I find I'm not satisfied with just imagination, I need to actually be doing the ideas/things..."*

See the above explanation.

*
"Interesting, you have a good imagination then."*

It's not the usual, visually vivid kind though. 


*"Sounds like PITA."*

What's PITA?


*"...Don't know if Intuitives also get affected by anxiety states. Do you know anything about that?..."*

Not sure what you mean by anxiety states. But if you mean the usual anxiety, I think most people have the capacity to become anxious. When that happens, my Ne tends to shut down, and I usually get stuck in a Ti-Si kind of information feedback loop. The Dom-Tert loop if I remember correctly?

In that state, I need to engage my Ne to bring me back to life. I <3 you, Ne. 


*"Hm, that could be just Ti, because I'm this exact same way if I care about something enough."*

Yes, I was actually trying to highlight the difference between how Te and Ti works. Continuing from my example, because I desire to know the truth deeply, I used to get pretty egocentric and assume that other people would desire the same. Turns out I was wrong most of the time. In retrospect, since Ti-doms aren't that common, this is to be expected.


*"...Hmm you sure you're not ENTP?"*

I thread a fine line between extroversion and introversion, though I'm more often introverted. Thing is, I don't often have the desire to 'go out and have fun' like many Es do. My brand of fun consist of exploration that is independent of the world I inhabit. I can stay home for months and not become bored. I don't have the desire to engage with many friends at the same time; it is frustrating and tiring to keep track. ENTPs probably don't mind hanging around many friends most of the time; for me that's a Death Wish.

My portrait of Hell would be a live concert with 100,000 people around me.

There's also another possible explanation for my over-active Ne; when I was young there wasn't much opportunity to develop my Ti sufficiently; not many people to reason with, not many books to evaluate, most important life decisions made for me. On the hand, Ne is so easy to develop because I live in a pretty lenient household. People are pretty nice and would not outwardly reject my half-baked ideas.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Hey, I wanted to reply to this right away as I found it very interesting but then it got past my attention. 

So anyway it is interesting how you contrasted your definition of Ne and Ni.

The other main question for me here is the difference between Ni and Ti.




Larxene said:


> "...it has a point to it, fits in a system, should be materialized etc..."
> That seems to be how Ni works to me in terms of evaluating possibilities; it has a complex, multi-faceted feel to it. My Ne mostly relies on instinct to determine whether it's likely, not much analysis occurs. When analysis does occur it is usually due to my Ti.


You said what I talked about here was Ni but I always thought this was Ti. What makes this different from Ti?
Now if I understood you right you also said Ni is more consciously analytical to look deeper than Ne? (When contrasting the autonomic and reflective systems in your post.) I guess it could make sense that Ni is more analytical in a sense than Ne but is this (=as in my quote above) kind of conscious analysis judging things by certain guidelines not more Ti? The way I always understood Ni was that it just looks at something in a specific way, some perspective, this can be changed too. This isn't really analysis, it's just how something abstract appears to you at a moment, at some angle or perspective or in some other way. Or not?

I'm also thinking it could be Ni when I ponder something and I then suddenly get a mental image of how the thing is. It's just a visual analogy really, because this is usually internal or abstract things that can't be seen from the outside of an object, but it grasps the essence of the idea by showing me a picture of an equivalent scene. It's not like this happens often though... only when I have a deep understanding already anyway. Also, not every sudden "eureka" insight comes with a mental image for me, most of them actually don't. Also this may not even be accompanying such an unexpected "eureka" moment, it may be the result of me actually consciously trying to grasp the thing in that moment.

I have another kind of mental imagery that also doesn't come up often but if it does, it's an abstract image showing connections in a logical system. I feel like it beautifully simplifies the system to the essentials of it yet including the less obvious (but still essential) logical connections too. By abstract image I mean it's just shapes, colours, whatever, it's not a concrete visual analogy like the above "Ni" one is. This one I attribute more to Ti... not sure though? When it comes up it's always the result of conscious logical analysis. At that point I feel like I have the proper overview of something complex  (I do have the same feeling with the visual analogy too)




> Another key feature of Ne's idea generation (which is really a consequent of its goal) is that its consideration of each individual possibility tends to be shallow, when not complemented by the introverted judging function. It would simply state "A is possible" or at best, "A is possible, because B". On the other hand, a well-formed idea (people call this a 'concept', I believe) would be like "A is possible, because B, C, D. B is true because E. C and D are true because F. Experimental data shows that ...which is consistent with F."
> This feature is missing in Ni. Ni is more likely to look deeper and form a well-formed idea. You yourself described it, "...it has a point to it, fits in a system, should be materialized etc..."


Umm, when I look at a possibility I usually determine instinctually and thus very fast the probability of it. Hm, actually the thing about it having a point or fitting into a system etc. that analysis is often also done a pretty instinctual way. Depends...




> That's because you are an ES-type and an SP. ES types are the most externally oriented types, naturally thriving on taking actions and achieving results. On an interesting note, Jung originially considered the Sensing function to be inherently externally-oriented; to him, if you are a Sensor, then you must also be an Extravert. Thus, we can postulate that Se is the most externally oriented perception function.
> The second reason, because you're an SP. From what little I've read about you guys, all SPs have an intense need for the freedom to follow their own impulses. Following the structures 'imposed' by others violates this need.


Haha yeah I do feel very externally oriented when I'm not analysing something. I feel like I'm one with the external world. And yeah... the world is not something imposed on me, it's me going out and interacting.
Oh and... that Si thing always sounded so paradoxical to me  Maybe there is a reason why it's defined in so many ways in different systems 




> What's PITA?


PITA = pain in the ass 




> "...Don't know if Intuitives also get affected by anxiety states. Do you know anything about that?..."
> Not sure what you mean by anxiety states. But if you mean the usual anxiety, I think most people have the capacity to become anxious. When that happens, my Ne tends to shut down, and I usually get stuck in a Ti-Si kind of information feedback loop. The Dom-Tert loop if I remember correctly?
> In that state, I need to engage my Ne to bring me back to life. I <3 you, Ne.


Anxiety states: yes I just meant anxiety but what I meant is whether this affects possibility finding for Intuitive types. According to theory Sensing types when anxious or not necessarily anxious but otherwise stressed would find some crappy possibilities and possibly get even more stressed due to improperly perceiving these possibilities. But what about Intuitives under stress? I know they supposedly get stuck in S things but when they do happen to deal with a possibility idea while stressed what then?




> Yes, I was actually trying to highlight the difference between how Te and Ti works. Continuing from my example, because I desire to know the truth deeply, I used to get pretty egocentric and assume that other people would desire the same. Turns out I was wrong most of the time. In retrospect, since Ti-doms aren't that common, this is to be expected.


Oh dear, I run into this so often too when I'm in "Ti-mode". I'm usually either in Se/Fe mode or in this Ti-mode. Urm, I can greatly annoy people in both modes, just in a different way. 




> "...Hmm you sure you're not ENTP?"


Okay your reply makes sense... you are just one of those INTPs with loads of Ne. I noticed there are some INTPs like that... then some have a lot less Ne but still intuitive-ish. (That is, not ISTP)


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

@itsme45, I took a 3-week vacation from PerC and studied Enneagrams during that time, especially tritypes and instinctual subtypes. Unlike MBTI, they were fairly clear, and I put my results in my signature line. As for MBTI, I posted somewhere in the last couple days that I still wasn't 100 percent between Ne and Se but decided slightly toward Ne once I realized I understand and connect well with INxPs and not ISxPs. I don't know if that's a good way to decide on type, but nothing else seems to work. I think I was confusing myself by trying to decide by comparing the ExxPs, all of which I connect with well.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Karen said:


> @_itsme45_, I took a 3-week vacation from PerC and studied Enneagrams during that time, especially tritypes and instinctual subtypes. Unlike MBTI, they were fairly clear, and I put my results in my signature line. As for MBTI, I posted somewhere in the last couple days that I still wasn't 100 percent between Ne and Se but decided slightly toward Ne once I realized I understand and connect well with INxPs and not ISxPs. I don't know if that's a good way to decide on type, but nothing else seems to work. I think I was confusing myself by trying to decide by comparing the ExxPs, all of which I connect with well.


Nice stuff, glad you made a decision.  Cool about the enneagram being so clear for you... tritypes for me aren't clear at all so I dropped that topic


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

It was funny that I always poked fun at people trying to be cool in a Type 4 way, as in fun is so much more important than being different and cool and having depth, then I realized I run it very strongly underneath -- I'm alternative and special and don't think like those plebeians, among other silly things. Plus I realized depth of feeling is very important to me and always has been, unlike a typical 7, in fact I run 4 so much that I had to make sure that wasn't my dominant type. haha! Then I had to separate out 1 from my path of stress and see that my idealism in both positive and negative ways also runs frequently. So then I looked up 741/147 and it fit me better than any tritype, so that's me, and it feels right. I'm lucky I'm a 7 since whatever I come up with is great, or at least I make it great in my mind. ;D I also watched a long Fauvre video on instinctive subtypes, plus read quite a bit, to come up with sx/sp. I'd always thought so was first or second, but now I see it's obviously third.


----------

