# Is an insight from Ti or Ni?



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Suzanne said:


> So to use the above quote, directed apperception would be rational, using either T or F? And passive apperception would be irrational, N or S? But since Jung said passive thinking is Intuitive, then passive apperation is irrational but only N? Either N, or just Ni? Whatever the answer, does it mean Ti would be directed, forcing the mind to think, where Ni would be passive, allowing thoughts to come into the mind?
> 
> Assuming that's true, and I'm not positive I have it right, what about gathering information by asking question after question? That seems directed, which would be rational rather than irrational/information gathering, which doesn't make sense. Or maybe the asking of questions doesn't spring from a function? If it's possible to get tied up in confusion with regard to Jung, I'm the person for the job.




Undirected thinking is intuitive thinking yes.

But also even as simple as accepting new information, based on _aesthetic_ apperception. For instance, a heuristic like 'what is beautiful is good is true'. E.g. an 'elegant solution' of a mathematical problem. See more on this: The processing fluency theory of aesthetic pleasure



Jung Sensation said:


> Sensation is sense perception, via the sense organs and the 'bodily sense' (kinaesthetic, vaso-motor sensation, etc.).


Intuition and Sensation can both trigger body innervations, which is the physiological element of 'affect' (or emotion, including gut feeling, feeling of certainty or probability, discernment). It is not the innervation itself, merely what triggers it, and what one becomes conscious of (through Sensation), although not everyone has the same differentiated emotional /body perception /awareness. 



Jung Affect said:


> By the term affect we understand a state of feeling characterized by a perceptible bodily innervation on the one hand and a peculiar disturbance of the ideational process on the other.
> 
> (...) But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.


This is I think even more the case in combination with Extraverted Feeling, where 'subjective' Feeling (judgement) is overwhelmed by 'objective' Feeling (judgement). As a consequence the person may find it difficult to explain emotional response or differentiate what one feels and why, when it seeks to explain/justify or rationalize emotions in Fe perspective (inter-personal rather than intra-personal), or perhaps intellectualize it via Ti, or to discern personal emotion from emotional contagion ('from others', see also Crowd Psychology). 
More about body innervations on this thread.

Irrational doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't make sense by the way. Apperception is making sense of it. And part of that may involve 'insight', to have a 'penetrating' perception.


----------



## Suzanne (Dec 9, 2013)

@mimesis, I was going to read through the links and answer your comments, but then I got into links within links and an 18-page thread, so rather than waiting a few days to answer while I read through everything, I'll type up a quick response [edit: didn't turn out very quick lol] right away. I'm interested in seeing what the 18-page thread leads to with regard to linking the processing fluency theory of aesthetic pleasure to MBTI.

I did catch one of your posts where you said meditation helped separate you from lack of emotional control. I've wondered if my spiritual practices, which I'm not engaging in now, have given me the appearance of N and T. I was going to post it elsewhere at some point, but I'll just say briefly that the most important trait in my friends, and necessary in good friends, is the ability to clearly perceive themselves and their family, community, culture, country, and humanity as a whole, and even with anger or sadness have a sense of humor about the craziness of us all. No matter what someone's type is, it takes a big-picture viewpoint as well as an ability to stand back and see the truth, though by truth I don't mean all the way to enlightenment, rather seeing the games being played, the positives and negatives that are a part of everyone here. Because I so often live in this big picture viewpoint and stand back and logically analyze what's going on and where it will likely lead, it has the feel of N and T, and that's part of the basis of my confusion with my MBTI type. Is this something learned, or is it inherent? Could I be S or F, or both, and was pushed into N and T because early in my adulthood I had to dig deeper, to be able to stand back and observe objectively? And I don't have the answer at this point. When reading about SF's and NF's, they seem to frequently feel the need to move in to give comfort and make things right for someone, and it's not that I don't engage in it to some degree, it can't be ignored and is sometimes necessary, but it can sometime seem like a too-small band aid and can even at times slide into enabling, and if I help I'd rather get closer to the root of the problem than, especially for any particular individual, continually solve the higher-level symptoms. And really, if the physical world wasn't at risk and everyone was sane, both of which are so in-your-face that it's difficult to get away from, I'd spend my time horseback riding and backcountry skiing, analyzing equipment and nature just for pure fun.

Anyway, as far as I can tell I understand and use processing fluency with regard to aesthetic pleasure, and it's something I've either always engaged in and just started noticing in adulthood or, more likely, started doing at some point and now it's natural. I run "feeling-sensations" in a pleasurable way, in fact it would be difficult to fully enjoy physical or intellectual aesthetics without having this response. It triggers an intellectual understanding that what I'm looking at has significance to me in some way, that it can be a pure archetype I'm responding to, whether it's a real flower or a simplified drawing of one, an elegant intellectual solution, an insight that completes a pattern, or a knowing within that what I'm looking at or thinking about has a rightness to it or is a good path to follow, a feeling of lifting the body vibration for that moment. If I'm not sure whether or not to head in a particular direction and I don't receive the body sensation, it means I have to make a choice based entirely on logic, which isn't wrong, but I prefer having multiple ways of knowing when something is right. Martha Beck talked about this in "Finding Your Own North Star."

I haven't finished the crowd psychology article enough to comment on it, but I wanted to say that in the emotional contagion article, I consider explicit contagion to be a gross manipulation and have always been pretty much immune, even if it's being used for a "good" purpose, such as team building. Whatever type I am, I prefer straightforwardness rather than getting to a place via rituals, excess complexity for no reason, or explicit contagion. Used at work, it's inner roll the eyes time, and I wonder why management believes we're such idiots that we don't understand what's going on.

Thanks for all the info -- very interesting!


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

@_Suzanne_

The 'trancendent function' is perhaps relevant to you, with regard to 'insight', or 'seeing the whole', which is different from insight of 'connecting dots' within a context (the 'big picture'), rather 'reconciliation of opposites (perspectives/attitudes)'. 



Transcendent Function said:


> More abstractly, it's a method of consciously entering into a dialogue with the unconscious, which triggers the transcendent function, a vital _shift_ in consciousness, brought about through the union of the conscious and unconscious minds. Unexpected insights and self-renewal are some of the results of the transcendent function. It achieves what I call that elusive ‘Goldilocks' condition, the ‘just right' of having the conscious and unconscious minds work together, rather than being at odds. In the process it produces a third state more vivid and ‘real' than either; in it we recognize what consciousness _should_ be like and see our ‘normal' state as at best a muddling-through. Previously, the transcendent function had helped Jung when faced with the dilemma of having to choose between science or the humanities. Then it operated through a dream, producing the mandala-like symbol of the giant radiolarian. In the simplest sense, the transcendent function is our in-built means of growth, psychological and spiritual -- it's ‘transcendent' only in the sense that it ‘transcends' the frequent deadlock between the conscious and unconscious minds -- and is a development of what Jung earlier recognized as the "prospective tendencies in man."
> Jung's Active Imagination | Reality Sandwich


Sorry, there's more...:tongue:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...t-function-what-do-we-know-2.html#post3323086


----------



## Suzanne (Dec 9, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Sorry, there's more...:tongue:
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...t-function-what-do-we-know-2.html#post3323086


No need for :tongue: unless you *don't* link info.  Interesting articles. I didn't have a particularly active imagination when growing up, but that could have been partly because I was surrounded by SJ role models, or maybe I'm Se dom/aux.

I trigger insights by asking questions until there's a click, an ah ha moment so I suddenly understand the entirety of the part of the subject I'm interested in, or getting into enough of a meditative state that my conscious mind won't contaminate the results. The latter doesn't always work but sometimes the answer is very clear. Sometimes things just pop up out of the blue, such as a symbol or even words, that indicate what will happen in the future, and so far it's never been wrong, knock on wood to not tempt fate. This doesn't indicate I'm dom or aux Ni since I don't live in this state, plus I think anyone who has engaged in a spiritual practice long enough has this type of thing happen off and on, or some type of psychic phenomena.


----------



## Suzanne (Dec 9, 2013)

@mimesis, do you have a guess as to my type? Do I seem to fit a pattern of either function(s) or one of the 16 descriptions?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Suzanne said:


> No need for :tongue: unless you *don't* link info.  Interesting articles. I didn't have a particularly active imagination when growing up, but that could have been partly because I was surrounded by SJ role models, or maybe I'm Se dom/aux.
> 
> I trigger insights by asking questions until there's a click, an ah ha moment so I suddenly understand the entirety of the part of the subject I'm interested in, or getting into enough of a meditative state that my conscious mind won't contaminate the results. The latter doesn't always work but sometimes the answer is very clear. Sometimes things just pop up out of the blue, such as a symbol or even words, that indicate what will happen in the future, and so far it's never been wrong, knock on wood to not tempt fate. This doesn't indicate I'm dom or aux Ni since I don't live in this state, plus I think anyone who has engaged in a spiritual practice long enough has this type of thing happen off and on, or some type of psychic phenomena.





Suzanne said:


> @_mimesis_, do you have a guess as to my type? Do I seem to fit a pattern of either function(s) or one of the 16 descriptions?


You seem to be the type I like, but unfortunately I cannot link that to an MBTI type. I have (learned) the habit also to keep options open, so I am used to work with multiple possible scenarios. There is usually intuition involved, but more in 'guidance' than epiphanies or aha-erlebnis. I had to learn to discern intuition from emotions like anxiety or desire though. Sort of like to recognize intuition from the cacaphony voices in your head, or sensations you feel. I had ignored it, for instance in favor of rational considerations. And through trial and error, and damage done, I have learned to trust it. This guidance was important with meditation as well, since I only had one instruction and explanation of the basic principles that didn't last a lot more than an hour.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Suzanne said:


> No need for :tongue: unless you *don't* link info.  Interesting articles. I didn't have a particularly active imagination when growing up, but that could have been partly because I was surrounded by SJ role models, or maybe I'm Se dom/aux.


I wouldn't equate being a sensor to not having imagination. Most people don't have great imaginations anyway. Even if you did have a great imagination in an enviroment where it wasn't valued you'd most likely feel misunderstood or something like that, you'd notice the difference and your natural preferences would be evident.
Btw, what do you mean, concretely, when you say you didn't have a particularly active imagination? What do you value about imagination? (maybe your answers could give us some clues to your type)



> I trigger insights by asking questions until there's a click, an ah ha moment so I suddenly understand the entirety of the part of the subject I'm interested in, or getting into enough of a meditative state that my conscious mind won't contaminate the results. The latter doesn't always work but sometimes the answer is very clear. Sometimes things just pop up out of the blue, such as a symbol or even words, that indicate what will happen in the future, and so far it's never been wrong, knock on wood to not tempt fate. This doesn't indicate I'm dom or aux Ni since I don't live in this state, plus I think anyone who has engaged in a spiritual practice long enough has this type of thing happen off and on, or some type of psychic phenomena.


That sounds very similar to my mental process. I remember reading a topic in the ISTP forum about how they experienced Ti and I related to their descriptions (a surprise, I didn't think I would considering it's only my tertiary). I don't know where that thread is but you could look for it.
I find I can kind of visualize the logical structure of a system once I've understood it. It feels like this. And there is a sort of "Aha-moment" related to it that consists in realizing the logical relations of things. Do you do that and if you do, is it hard? Bear in my mind that my Ti is rather unconscious and is mixed with my Ni.


----------



## Suzanne (Dec 9, 2013)

mimesis said:


> You seem to be the type I like, but unfortunately I cannot link that to an MBTI type. I have (learned) the habit also to keep options open, so I am used to work with multiple possible scenarios. There is usually intuition involved, but more in 'guidance' than epiphanies or aha-erlebnis. I had to learn to discern intuition from emotions like anxiety or desire though. Sort of like to recognize intuition from the cacaphony voices in your head, or sensations you feel. I had ignored it, for instance in favor of rational considerations. And through trial and error, and damage done, I have learned to trust it. This guidance was important with meditation as well, since I only had one instruction and explanation of the basic principles that didn't last a lot more than an hour.


Yes! I've been through those experiences and lessons as well, you stated them perfectly. If I hadn't put rationality above intuition, I probably could have avoided some difficult lessons. But going back and redoing would make me someone other than who I am, so I don't want that path either. I wish you lived next door because I think we could have some great conversations, being interested in personality typing, psychology, philosophy and spirituality, preferably combined for a fuller picture.


----------



## Suzanne (Dec 9, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I wouldn't equate being a sensor to not having imagination. Most people don't have great imaginations anyway. *Even if you did have a great imagination in an enviroment where it wasn't valued you'd most likely feel misunderstood or something like that, you'd notice the difference and your natural preferences would be evident.
> *Btw, what do you mean, concretely, when you say you didn't have a particularly active imagination? What do you value about imagination? (maybe your answers could give us some clues to your type)


I'm glad you mentioned the bolded because it's been my thought that the native personality would show through no matter what, it just might not be as dominant appearing as it could have been.

I don't particularly like reading fantasy or science fiction, unless it's based in reality, because I find it tedious to have to jump into the middle of learning new worlds. I like flying horses on occasion, just don't put them on a weird planet where everything is different and I have to learn all new terminology before I can even understand the story -- it's tedious and distracting, and maybe I'll be banned by PerC for heresy.  As for my inner imagination, taking into account this is the internet, horseback riding at the ocean, being a world-famous wildlife scientist, picturing my ideal life, being spiritually "advanced," living among grizzly bears so I know what they eat, where they sleep, what they do during the day. I use imagination partly to experience real things I'll likely never be able to in real life, partly to experience beyond the limitations of real life. I don't often just sit and imagine how real things can be made better, having ideas just flowing into my mind, so I've wondered if I might be Se rather than Ne, and I don't spend a lot of time overall in any type of imagining. But that's just my inner imagination. In real life I'll accept almost anything at least partly, and I don't think it's necessarily only an F trait since I've had many T friends on my personal growth/spiritual path. TP's tended to be a little more critical than FP's and I fall in the middle, not accepting as much as the ENFP's I've known but not entirely ruling out much of anything. Who knows, maybe breatharianism works for some people, maybe Bigfoot is real, I pretty much believe in NDE's, and if someone said there was a little green man in their back yard, I'd go look. I've had enough weird things happen to me that I know what it's like when people say it's impossible, when it obviously isn't.




Pancreatic Pandora said:


> That sounds very similar to my mental process. I remember reading a topic in the ISTP forum about how they experienced Ti and I related to their descriptions (a surprise, I didn't think I would considering it's only my tertiary). I don't know where that thread is but you could look for it.
> I find I can kind of visualize the logical structure of a system once I've understood it. It feels like this. And there is a sort of "Aha-moment" related to it that consists in realizing the logical relations of things. Do you do that and if you do, is it hard? Bear in my mind that my Ti is rather unconscious and is mixed with my Ni.


I don't really grasp what consciousness and unconsciousness feel like, only understanding the ease vs. difficulty of using my mind in certain ways. The link is complex and I didn't understand the notations in the boxes, but I find that type of thought-process mapping to help my understanding of subjects. I believe I think that way when I'm analyzing, since I like to connect many things together into a coherent whole with ah ha moments, but my thought processes are less complex then a mathematical theory would require since I prefer to work out philosophical and psychological problems. I enjoy grappling with the gray areas but don't trust myself enough to take it to real life as a psychologist, probably being better at psychological or philosophical research where I can work out the logic without having to think quickly through areas that require intuition with feeling-type responses. But anyway, don't most people analyze in that manner? I just remembered, my possibly INFJ husband prefers sequential thinking and gets lost with too much branching too quickly, so I guess not everyone does. When it comes to what others have written, sometimes I critique what is there and come up with my own system, other times I take what is offered. As examples, I tend to read personality typing methods with an open mind, taking them as is, and only with difficulty letting them go since I want them to work. When reading philosophy, politics or what anyone is saying in real life, I typically see flaws and my mind immediately starts critiquing and fixing. I sometimes feel I have a better understanding of the whole than they do, that they've left common-sense logic behind and I need to fix the holes, either by discussion, debate or in my mind. Te vs. Ti? If so, I spend time at and enjoy doing both, though maybe it's all Te. I do like critiquing and fixing, though I'm not sure that's necessarily Ti either. I obviously don't have a good grasp of Te vs. Ti, I just know that I sometimes accept others' models, more frequently fix flaws and make them better, but I don't usually make mine up from nothing, I'll either fix something or take bits and pieces and tie them together into what I think is the truth. Truth and exactness is more important than workability, and I can spend hours or days understanding and working on a system that has nothing to do with anything but the enjoyment of theoretical perfection. I just as much enjoy working out equipment systems, such as the best pack, pair of skis, gloves, hat, jacket, etc., for a day or days of backcountry skiing, finding the perfect piece of equipment to solve the most number of problems for the least weight, and that *does* have to work, and it's a thrill when it does, when I've found the perfect gear, but then I continue looking for even better. Sorry about the repetition and stream of consciousness, but I'll just leave it since I'm heading off to bed.

Edit: I don't talk about myself this much in real life, and I'm not sure what to discuss in order to figure out my type. I'm just trying to cover what might be significant, though it's possible I'm not covering the right information. If anyone wants to make a guess, just 4 letters or a function will do.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Suzanne said:


> I'm glad you mentioned the bolded because it's been my thought that the native personality would show through no matter what, it just might not be as dominant appearing as it could have been.


Yes, that's precisely what I meant.



> I don't particularly like reading fantasy or science fiction, unless it's based in reality, because I find it tedious to have to jump into the middle of learning new worlds. I like flying horses on occasion, just don't put them on a weird planet where everything is different and I have to learn all new terminology before I can even understand the story -- it's tedious and distracting, and maybe I'll be banned by PerC for heresy.  As for my inner imagination, taking into account this is the internet, horseback riding at the ocean, being a world-famous wildlife scientist, picturing my ideal life, being spiritually "advanced," living among grizzly bears so I know what they eat, where they sleep, what they do during the day. I use imagination partly to experience real things I'll likely never be able to in real life, partly to experience beyond the limitations of real life. I don't often just sit and imagine how real things can be made better, having ideas just flowing into my mind, so I've wondered if I might be Se rather than Ne, and I don't spend a lot of time overall in any type of imagining. But that's just my inner imagination. In real life I'll accept almost anything at least partly, and I don't think it's necessarily only an F trait since I've had many T friends on my personal growth/spiritual path. TP's tended to be a little more critical than FP's and I fall in the middle, not accepting as much as the ENFP's I've known but not entirely ruling out much of anything. Who knows, maybe breatharianism works for some people, maybe Bigfoot is real, I pretty much believe in NDE's, and if someone said there was a little green man in their back yard, I'd go look. I've had enough weird things happen to me that I know what it's like when people say it's impossible, when it obviously isn't.


Hmm, a characteristic of Ne types is that they have an interest in _what could be_ or the _potential _of things. I remember an INFJ vs INFP test on celebritytypes.com had a question regarding fantasy and wether you enjoyed complete fiction or things that can be applied to real life, a question that tested Ne-Si vs. Ni-Se (although not in a very direct way). This is in direct opposition to Se which is _what is_, taking things as they are on the objective world. If you look at socionics Ne it is called the intuition of possibilities.
However, I imagine most people don't like overly complicated fantasy worlds that distract from the story.



> I don't really grasp what consciousness and unconsciousness feel like, only understanding the ease vs. difficulty of using my mind in certain ways.


Me either lol. I need to read on conscious vs. unconscious in relation to cognitive functions.



> The link is complex and I didn't understand the notations in the boxes, but I find that type of thought-process mapping to help my understanding of subjects. I believe I think that way when I'm analyzing, since I like to connect many things together into a coherent whole with ah ha moments, but my thought processes are less complex then a mathematical theory would require since I prefer to work out philosophical and psychological problems. I enjoy grappling with the gray areas but don't trust myself enough to take it to real life as a psychologist, probably being better at psychological or philosophical research where I can work out the logic without having to think quickly through areas that require intuition with feeling-type responses. But anyway, don't most people analyze in that manner? I just remembered, my possibly INFJ husband prefers sequential thinking and gets lost with too much branching too quickly, so I guess not everyone does. When it comes to what others have written, sometimes I critique what is there and come up with my own system, other times I take what is offered. As examples, I tend to read personality typing methods with an open mind, taking them as is, and only with difficulty letting them go since I want them to work. When reading philosophy, politics or what anyone is saying in real life, I typically see flaws and my mind immediately starts critiquing and fixing. I sometimes feel I have a better understanding of the whole than they do, that they've left common-sense logic behind and I need to fix the holes, either by discussion, debate or in my mind. Te vs. Ti? If so, I spend time at and enjoy doing both, though maybe it's all Te. I do like critiquing and fixing, though I'm not sure that's necessarily Ti either. I obviously don't have a good grasp of Te vs. Ti, I just know that I sometimes accept others' models, more frequently fix flaws and make them better, but I don't usually make mine up from nothing, I'll either fix something or take bits and pieces and tie them together into what I think is the truth. Truth and exactness is more important than workability, and I can spend hours or days understanding and working on a system that has nothing to do with anything but the enjoyment of theoretical perfection. I just as much enjoy working out equipment systems, such as the best pack, pair of skis, gloves, hat, jacket, etc., for a day or days of backcountry skiing, finding the perfect piece of equipment to solve the most number of problems for the least weight, and that *does* have to work, and it's a thrill when it does, when I've found the perfect gear, but then I continue looking for even better. Sorry about the repetition and stream of consciousness, but I'll just leave it since I'm heading off to bed.
> 
> Edit: I don't talk about myself this much in real life, and I'm not sure what to discuss in order to figure out my type. I'm just trying to cover what might be significant, though it's possible I'm not covering the right information. If anyone wants to make a guess, just 4 letters or a function will do.


I think you are a Ti user. A few of the characteristics you mentioned are typical in them. In my case, I "borrow" a lot of information regarding logical systems and incorporate them into my own because my Ti is not that strong in the first place. Borrowing information does not make you Te, but a Ti user always references back to their own logical system. "Does this make sense? Ok, good". That is its focus. NTPs are usually regarded as the archetypal philosophers.
So you say you don't feel as confortable with "intuition-feeling stuff"? If you find it easier to analyze things logically and coldly rather than making value judgements or emotionally affecting other people then I think it's safe to say you are a T. The only case where that might not be true is if your life experiences have heavily affected you. However, what is culturally regarded as intuition is sometimes just feeling, so I wouldn't say you are definitely a sensor. Thinking of what is easier and more _natural _to you is a good way to determine what your strong/weak functions are.

Btw, you sound like an "open-ended" type of person which would point towards perceiving-dom. Do you feel any rush towards reaching closure or a conclusion in any aspect of your life or are your perceptions alone your "goals"? (for example, experiencing new things, enjoying yourself, finding interesting concepts or symbols)


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

MAYBE Ti, possibly even Te, but I think very little, if at all, Ni.

I was talking to my INTJ best friend about his time in medical school. He goes to Johns Hopkins, top medical school in the country. He was telling me that the toughest part was they had to learn SO much information in SUCH little time, and it would be ridiculous to think one could study ALL the material for an exam.

I asked him, "so, how do you do it then?"

He said, "I read bits and pieces of everything and just infer the rest. It's all connected, you know."

When I do research, I only research small bits and pieces, and sort of put all the pieces together in my brain. That's Ni.

I remember when I was learning calculus. At first, I struggled. I remember I was lost and thought I was going to fail, and then I just worked on 3 or 4 problems, and was able to figure out EVERYTHING we covered just on those 3 or 4 problems, and aced the test.

Ni is a bunch of "aha" moments. From one fact or theory, you can infer three or four with assistance from Ti or Te.

That's the best way of simplifying it.


----------



## Suzanne (Dec 9, 2013)

Sorry, deleted because too much personal info on internet, and it's been answered by the person it was directed toward.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

@Suzanne Actually, the things you mentioned aren't what I meant by "what could be". Using earthquake prediction as an example, a Ni type will likely care about what's going to happen in the future (because it _is _going to happen) while the questions an Ne type would make might be more along the lines of "what would happen if there was an earthquake right now?" or "what would it be like to live in heaven and have an earthquake in the sky??". Those are a bit random but you get the idea. Being good at Ne consists in being good at creating these possibilities, on realizing where "this thing can take me", the potential. In fact, things that you mentioned like spirituality, psychology and business tend to be associated with Ni (and other functions of course).

I think there's a high chance you are an ESTP who's in touch with her Ni due to your interests, the people you interact with and the stage of your life you are in. Descriptions sometimes work, sometimes they don't. I can't really recommend any to you, although you might want to read Jung's Se type description. Btw, did your husband get you into MBTI? I noticed you said he used an "enneagram word" .


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

SharpestNiFe said:


> MAYBE Ti, possibly even Te, but I think very little, if at all, Ni.
> 
> I was talking to my INTJ best friend about his time in medical school. He goes to Johns Hopkins, top medical school in the country. He was telling me that the toughest part was they had to learn SO much information in SUCH little time, and it would be ridiculous to think one could study ALL the material for an exam.
> 
> ...


That might just be intuition in general, I did the same thing and I don't have Ni. If I didn't study or pay attention in class I would get a B on the test, if I did a 1-4 practice problems before the test I would get an A. A lot of times I would go into the test knowing nothing and just derive everything right then and there.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> That might just be intuition in general, I did the same thing and I don't have Ni. If I didn't study or pay attention in class I would get a B on the test, if I did a 1-4 practice problems before the test I would get an A. A lot of times I would go into the test knowing nothing and just derive everything right then and there.


That is SIMILAR to what I'm saying, but I'm not entirely sure it's what I mean. For instance, I can work out a couple of derivative problems, and from doing simple derivative problems, I learned anti-differentiation, graphing, consequences of differentiation, real world problems that could be solved with derivatives, etc. JUST based off of simple derivative problems, AND I figured all this stuff out in a spur of the moment while standing in front of the mirror brushing my teeth before bed. I essentially got my studying done in bed just piecing everything together. 

I think being able to figure out the rest of the test based on one or two problems may be "just" intuition. My older brother, who was in the same trig class as me when he was a senior (I was a sophomore  ) said he was able to pass these exams because he sort of "figured it out as he went." I remember one exam, in particular, where he got a 77 without studying for it, I got a 98 from minimal studying


----------



## Suzanne (Dec 9, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> @Suzanne Actually, the things you mentioned aren't what I meant by "what could be". Using earthquake prediction as an example, a Ni type will likely care about what's going to happen in the future (because it _is _going to happen) while the questions an Ne type would make might be more along the lines of "what would happen if there was an earthquake right now?" or "what would it be like to live in heaven and have an earthquake in the sky??". Those are a bit random but you get the idea. Being good at Ne consists in being good at creating these possibilities, on realizing where "this thing can take me", the potential. In fact, things that you mentioned like spirituality, psychology and business tend to be associated with Ni (and other functions of course).
> 
> I think there's a high chance you are an ESTP who's in touch with her Ni due to your interests, the people you interact with and the stage of your life you are in. Descriptions sometimes work, sometimes they don't. I can't really recommend any to you, although you might want to read Jung's Se type description. Btw, did your husband get you into MBTI? I noticed you said he used an "enneagram word" .


Since I've lived in earthquake country, it's not that I didn't think about it, but more in terms of practicing what I'd do if an earthquake hit and remembering to look out the window to see what the ground looks like when moving. I'm coming to see that I really don't think the way Ne's do. I have read a few interesting books on earthquakes, one being "Cascadia's Fault," by Jerry Thompson, if anyone is interested in the detective work used to uncover previous subduction zone quakes.

[deleted]

My husband became mildly interested in personality typing because of me, not vice versa. Everything he knows has been from articles I've read to him and his own observation of people, since he's not interested enough to read about it, though he's just as likely to initiate the typing of someone we just met as I am. I've been fascinated with personality typing because I didn't understand people well in a psychological sense and now understand that people can be categorized into personality patterns, and if they don't easily fit into one typing method I'll try to type them using another. Even if I'm mistaken, type can give a clue to behavioral patterns, if not inner thought processes.




Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Do you feel any rush towards reaching closure or a conclusion in any aspect of your life or are your perceptions alone your "goals"? (for example, experiencing new things, enjoying yourself, finding interesting concepts or symbols)


I forgot about the above. My perceptions alone aren't my goals since I have a need to accomplish and a need for growth in a spiritual sense, but once I decide on a goal, my perceptions along the way are a large part. It's difficult to accomplish anything if enjoyment of the path isn't part of it.


I've never tried calculus but likely will for a degree, so I'll see how I do then. I feel somewhat at a disadvantage when reading/communicating with INxJ's on the forum. Their methods of coming up with answers seem more mysterious, while INTP's and ISTP's methods align more with my thought processes.

Edit: I have read Jung's description of Se, but didn't think it was very insightful. Keirsey actually fits better, but still makes SP's seem somewhat one dimensional.

Edit the next day: Since no one has responded and I might be off the computer for a while, I deleted personal info above but left the rest. Thanks to everyone who has helped.


----------

