# Ni - Calculus of Thought



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> You clearly have extroverted thinking, which you demonstrated in your opening post. There are some people here who think they can extrovert their introverted functions. The way we present our thinking gives clues to which extroverted function is the highest on our cognition list.
> 
> The highest extroverted function of an INTJ is Te, so that is what we extrovert. Our description of our dominate introverted function should look more like Te than anything else. The fact that you described Ni with accuracy and with a technical description points to INTJ.
> 
> If your description of Ni was softer, more mystical, or without objective facts then it would be described through a function other than Te, most likely Fe or maybe Ne. Since you used objective (both non-personal and fact based) outside authority based description you shouldn't worry about people questioning your type. You know best anyway.


You also typed me as ESTJ; I'm not sure I trust you when it comes to your abilities to spot the functions. Could you provide an examples in the post as to why he as Te rather than Ti? Simply stating that he has Te does nothing for your argument.



Kathy Kane said:


> I agree. I think some people want Ni to be some magical function. When it isn't described that way they complain.


I agree with the explanation of Ni, just not the fact that he is an INTJ.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Raawx said:


> You also typed me as ESTJ; I'm not sure I trust you when it comes to your abilities to spot the functions. Could you provide an examples in the post as to why he as Te rather than Ti? Simply stating that he has Te does nothing for your argument.


I said I believed you were extroverted and that you had Si and Ne. I hadn't even studied the theory much and I saw that in you, where everyone else just repeated INTJ because that was what you put as your type. 

The Te function processes information through extroverted means, both by confirming logic and systems through experts and authorities, and by "thinking out loud." Though, extroversion thinking definitely can be expressed in different ways: experiments being another example. This is the opposite of Ti, which uses personal logic and systems to make conclusions, and remains introverted in the person. A Ti isn't going to explain their thinking process, but will use another extroverted function to explain it, such as Se or Ne. This is why Te and Ti look so different. Te is expressing itself and Ti is really just Ne or Se explaining Ti. 




> I agree with the explanation of Ni, just not the fact that he is an INTJ.


I can't imagine another function set making such a connection, forming a theory based on it, and then experimenting with the theory. That is pretty much the definition of a INTJ.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> I said I believed you were extroverted and that you had Si and Ne. I hadn't even studied the theory much and I saw that in you, where everyone else just repeated INTJ because that was what you put as your type.
> 
> The Te function processes information through extroverted means, both by confirming logic and systems through experts and authorities, and by "thinking out loud." Though, extroversion thinking definitely can be expressed in different ways: experiments being another example. This is the opposite of Ti, which uses personal logic and systems to make conclusions, and remains introverted in the person. A Ti isn't going to explain their thinking process, but will use another extroverted function to explain it, such as Se or Ne. This is why Te and Ti look so different. Te is expressing itself and Ti is really just Ne or Se explaining Ti.
> 
> ...


If you haven't studied the theory much it doesn't really give your opinions more weight and validity, especially if your opinions are also incorrect. 

The op is not an intj.


@Raawx essentially I feel like he's moving in the wrong direction. I can't explain it well but it feels like we are in a tug of war and I don't get where I want to go and it feels very frustrating. I also find it very tiring reading the op like it takes more effort than what I desire to make sense of it. 


I think the op is a good example of describing ti though.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I said I believed you were extroverted and that you had Si. I hadn't even studied the theory much and I saw that in you, where everyone else just repeated INTJ because that was what you put as your type.


Fair enough.



Kathy Kane said:


> The Te function processes information through extroverted means, both by confirming logic and systems through experts and authorities, and by "thinking out loud." Though, extroversion thinking definitely can be expressed in different ways: experiments being another example. This is the opposite of Ti, which uses personal logic and systems to make conclusions, and remains introverted in the person. A Ti isn't going to explain their thinking process, but will use another extroverted function to explain it, such as Se or Ne. This is why Te and Ti look so different. Te is expressing itself and Ti is really just Ne or Se explaining Ti.


He's not thinking out loud; I think out loud when I post, so I think I can recognize it fairly well. Rather, he took the time to develop his theory fully before he posted it. Also, he explains his thinking process so as to provide an explanation as to what he believed Ni truly is. He thought that through the analogy he would best be able to convey the idea that he had thought out. He walks you through it, gives specific examples, and does his best to make his definition as clear as possible.

I do see a little Te; Ti wouldn't ask for opinions on his theory to enhance it. Rather it would postulate that it is correct. Still, thats not enough evidence to make him a Te dom in the slightest.



Kathy Kane said:


> I can't imagine another function set making such a connection, forming a theory based on it, and then experimenting with the theory. That is pretty much the definition of a INTJ.


But, he doesn't do that. He sees a perfect way to explain what he's understood through his readings and interpretations through his theory. He, as I said earlier, explains a theory that is intended to be a clarification to solve the ambiguity in the explanation of Ni. He also doesn't experiment with the theory; there is no empiricism in his post. It's all pure theory and explanation. Ni's are not the only others capable of making theories. Keep in mind, his entire post is an analogy to calculus. An Ni user wouldn't explain the idea in such a manner.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Raawx said:


> You also typed me as ESTJ; I'm not sure I trust you when it comes to your abilities to spot the functions. Could you provide an examples in the post as to why he as Te rather than Ti? Simply stating that he has Te does nothing for your argument.


I noticed that she confuses Ni with judging functions, thing that was clear on the perceiving functions thread started by Old Intern. Personally I think that math analogies like the one of the OP have inherently a Ti way of explaining concepts, as maths seems to be the paradise of Ti doms, as areas like linear algebra make more sense for Ti users. 

In fact this last post confirms what I've seen before about how she confuses functions:



Kathy Kane said:


> I said I believed you were extroverted and that you had Si and Ne. I hadn't even studied the theory much and I saw that in you, where everyone else just repeated INTJ because that was what you put as your type.
> 
> The Te function processes information through extroverted means, both by confirming logic and systems through experts and authorities, and by "thinking out loud." Though, extroversion thinking definitely can be expressed in different ways: experiments being another example. This is the opposite of Ti, which uses personal logic and systems to make conclusions, and remains introverted in the person. A Ti isn't going to explain their thinking process, but will use another extroverted function to explain it, such as Se or Ne. This is why Te and Ti look so different. Te is expressing itself and Ti is really just Ne or Se explaining Ti.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> If you haven't studied the theory much it doesn't really give your opinions more weight and validity, especially if your opinions are also incorrect.


I said at the time that I typed him. I still got closer to his type than anyone else who tried on that thread. I have studied it a lot more since then. 



> The op is not an intj.


Only he can know for sure about that. He shows a lot of Ni and Te, so I wouldn't doubt he is an INTJ. Though, I wouldn't be so definitive about another person's type.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> @_Raawx_ essentially I feel like he's moving in the wrong direction. I can't explain it well but it feels like we are in a tug of war and I don't get where I want to go and it feels very frustrating. I also find it very tiring reading the op like it takes more effort than what I desire to make sense of it.
> 
> 
> I think the op is a good example of describing ti though.


You think? I don't know. I just get it; his explanation just makes sense to me. Maybe it's a faulty theory, but I can understand why he's thinking in this way and how exactly it makes sense. Excuse my rudimentary explanation, but from what I can understand Ni gathers the points subconsciously (Se) and at the subconscious level it begins to connect the points to form an explanation. Over time, this data is gathered to create a 3D model that helps to best predict behavior. These predictions are what seems magical. Does that help? :/



Kathy Kane said:


> Only he can know for sure about that. He shows a lot of Ni and Te, so I wouldn't doubt he is an INTJ. Though, I wouldn't be so definitive about another person's type.


Not exactly. Subjective data, as interpreted by an individual, can be problematic to coming to an accurate conclusion. Personally, I find that typing works best when other people type you.

Also, you have failed to make specific arguments as to why he has Ni and Te.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> He's not thinking out loud; I think out loud when I post, so I think I can recognize it fairly well. Rather, he took the time to develop his theory fully before he posted it.


 The op has said he is open to suggestions. That points to someone who is not set in his theory, but is still seeking input. That is how NiTe works. Looking to fill the holes by outside sources.


> Also, he explains his thinking process so as to provide an explanation as to what he believed Ni truly is. He thought that through the analogy he would best be able to convey the idea that he had thought out. He walks you through it, gives specific examples, and does his best to make his definition as clear as possible.


How is that not Te? He extroverted his thinking process. What else would that be?



> I do see a little Te; Ti wouldn't ask for opinions on his theory to enhance it. Rather it would postulate that it is correct. Still, thats not enough evidence to make him a Te dom in the slightest.


It is evidence that he doesn't use Fe to explain his thinking process. And since Ti and Fi don't work as extroverted functions, there aren't any other options. Unless he used an extroverted perceiving process, which I don't see at all. 



> But, he doesn't do that. He sees a perfect way to explain what he's understood through his readings and interpretations through his theory. He, as I said earlier, explains a theory that is intended to be a clarification to solve the ambiguity in the explanation of Ni. He also doesn't experiment with the theory; there is no empiricism in his post. It's all pure theory and explanation. Ni's are not the only others capable of making theories. Keep in mind, his entire post is an analogy to calculus. An Ni user wouldn't explain the idea in such a manner.


The scientific method isn't the only way to experiment with a theory. He tried out his theory on us to gain some knowledge. That is experimentation. 

Ni uses symbols. Here is a definition of symbol: "Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible."

Calculus is a symbol of the invisible Ni. He used Te to explain Ni. That is how I would expect an INTJ to define it.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> I noticed that she confuses Ni with judging functions, thing that was clear on the perceiving functions thread started by Old Intern. Personally I think that math analogies like the one of the OP have inherently a Ti way of explaining concepts, as maths seems to be the paradise of Ti doms, as areas like linear algebra make more sense for Ti users.
> 
> In fact this last post confirms what I've seen before about how she confuses functions:


Here is an example of someone who thinks introverted functions will extrovert themselves. I don't think you understand the difference between extroverted and introverted.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Not exactly. Subjective data, as interpreted by an individual, can be problematic to coming to an accurate conclusion. Personally, I find that typing works best when other people type you.
> 
> Also, you have failed to make specific arguments as to why he has Ni and Te.


Since introverted functions won't extrovert, it's easy for an outsider to mistype another person. We can't be in their head or body, so they have to make the final decision. It's helpful to get other people's input, but we know ourselves best. 

I have given a lot of evidence as to why the OP points to Ni Te. I haven't seen anything to disprove my evidence. Just because other people don't agree doesn't mean I'm wrong.


----------



## Hierophant Azmo (Dec 19, 2013)

I did some reading at the source, and this is what I've got. I apologize for the huge post -- Jung is a long winded-guy. I wanted to provide the context so others could interpret Jung's meaning. I bolded the important stuff if you don't care about context.
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

*About Thinking, Both Introverted and Extroverted*
Although I do not propose to present the nature of introverted thinking at this point, reserving it for a later section, it is, however, essential that I should make a few statements about it before going further. For if one considers strictly what I have just said concerning [p. 430] extraverted thinking, one might easily conclude that such a statement includes everything that is generally understood as thinking. *It might indeed be argued that a thinking whose aim is concerned neither with objective facts nor with general ideas scarcely merits the name 'thinking'.* I am fully aware of the fact that the thought of our age, in common with its most eminent representatives, knows and acknowledges only the extraverted type of thinking. *This is partly due to the fact that all thinking which attains visible form upon the world's surface, whether as science, philosophy, or even art, either proceeds direct from objects or flows into general ideas. On either ground, although not always completely evident it at least appears essentially intelligible, and therefore relatively valid. In this sense it might be said that the extraverted intellect, i.e. the mind that is orientated by objective data, is actually the only one recognized.*
There is also, however -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect -- an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term "thinking" can hardly be denied: *it is a kind that is neither orientated by the immediate objective experience nor is it concerned with general and objectively derived ideas. *I reach this other kind of thinking in the following way. When my thoughts are engaged with a concrete object or general idea in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back again to my object, this intellectual process is not the only psychic proceeding taking place in me at the moment. I will disregard all those possible sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought, merely emphasizing the fact that this very thinking process which proceeds from objective data and strives again towards the object stands also in a constant relation to the subject. This relation is a condition sine qua non, without which no think- [p. 431] ing process whatsoever could take place. Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, towards objective data, nevertheless it is my subjective process, and it can neither escape the subjective admixture nor yet dispense with it. Although I try my utmost to give a completely objective direction to my train of thought, even then I cannot exclude the parallel subjective process with its all-embracing participation, without extinguishing the very spark of life from my thought. This parallel subjective process has a natural tendency, only relatively avoidable, to subjectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject.

*The first bolded section is what Ti is. The second bolded section is what Te is. The third bolded section is what Ti is not (and what Te is)*



*Intuition, General*
*Just as sensation, when given the priority, is not a mere reactive process of no further importance for the object, but is almost an action which seizes and shapes the object, so it is with intuition, which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out.* But, because this process extracts the perception unconsciously, it also produces an unconscious effect in the object. The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways. Such images have the value of definite discernments, and have a decisive bearing upon action, whenever intuition is given the chief weight; in which case, psychic adaptation is based almost exclusively upon intuition.



*Intuition, Introverted*
Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervation disturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity;* it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon,* i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case.



*Intuition, Extroverted*
The intuitive is never to be found among the generally recognized reality values, but he is always present where possibilities exist. He has a keen nose for things in the bud pregnant with future promise. *He can never exist in stable, long-established conditions of generally acknowledged though limited value*: because his eye is constantly ranging for new possibilities, stable conditions have an air of impending suffocation. *He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any considerable future development no longer clings to them.* As long as a possibility exists, the intuitive is bound to it with thongs of fate. It is as though his whole life went out into the new situation. *One gets the impression, which he himself shares, that he has just reached the definitive turning point in his life, and that from now on nothing else can seriously engage his thought and feeling.*



My original assertions and type prevail against all arguments thus far presented. The OP is objective, not subjective: Te, not Ti. The OP is concerned with the immediately objective and generally and objectively derived ideas: Te. Intuition as a whole contributes as much to the object as much as it takes: Intuition sees the possibility of connections between ideas events -- it sees the function that occurs between data plots. Ni peers behind the scenes, and perceives the image that produced the phenomenon: this is exactly what my originally theory does, Ni. 

Finally, the difference between Ni and Ne is where they look. Ni cares about what's going on between data points.








Ne is confronted with feelings of stagnation when working between limits. It requires the factor of possibility.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Here is an example of someone who thinks introverted functions will extrovert themselves. I don't think you understand the difference between extroverted and introverted.


Funny thing that I get critics from someone that can't differenciate a perceiving function from a judging one. The OP is clearly Ti based, not Ni, as it creates an entire system, connecting aspects of mathematics with the process done by a cognitive function. Ni won't create that convoluted system that was described here, and in fact that explanation of Ni made me cringe because it's defining a logical function. 

I don't know if this got posted on the perceiving functions thread, but this is a description of Ni. I prefer to post this as will be futile to use my own words for explaining why the OP describes Ti.

A verbatim excerpt taken from Chapter 10 of Carl Gustav Jung's work "Psychological Types" (1921):

=============================================


(III) PECULIARITIES OF THE BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS IN THE INTROVERTED ATTITUDE

 *8. Intuition*

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

 Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type. 

 The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established  in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive. To the one just as much as to the other, it is an _ae[]sthenic problem, _a question of perception, a 'sensation'. In this way, the consciousness of his own bodily existence fades from the introverted intuitive's view, as does its effect upon others. The extraverted standpoint would say of him: 'Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless phantasies'. A perception of the unconscious images, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility. But, since these images represent possible ways of viewing life, which in given circumstances have the power to provide a new energic potential, this function, which to the outer world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel. 

 *Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line*, _i.e. _the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are [p. 508] represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates. 

 Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things. 

 *9. The Introverted Intuitive Type*
 
The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509] 

 If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels. 
 
Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'. 

 The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete 'sublimation' is prevented. But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude. The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects. [p. 511] 
*
For comparison I also copied Jung's description of Ti :*

_III) PECULIARITIES OF THE BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS IN THE INTROVERTED ATTITUDE
_ *
1. Thinking



*When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity. 

But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life. What sort of a causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results? 

This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being 'merely' symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts. [p. 483] 

Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says 'Est, ergo est' ('It is ; therefore it is') ; while the latter says 'Cogito, ergo cogito' (' I think ; therefore I think'). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact. For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence. In both cases the further development of life is crowded out of the domain of thought into the region of other psychic functions which had hitherto existed in relative unconsciousness. The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts. Whenever consciousness, wedded to the function of thought, confines itself within the smallest and emptiest circle possible -- though seeming to contain the plenitude of divinity -- unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life. If this should be the intuitive function, the 'other side' will be viewed with the eyes of a Kubin or a Meyrink. If it is the feeling-function, [p. 484] there arise quite unheard of and fantastic feeling-relations, coupled with feeling-judgments of a quite contradictory and unintelligible character. If the sensation-function, then the senses discover some new and never-before-experienced possibility, both within and without the body. A closer investigation of such changes can easily demonstrate the reappearance of primitive psychology with all its characteristic features. Naturally, the thing experienced is not merely primitive but also symbolic; in fact, the older and more primeval it appears, the more does it represent the future truth: since everything ancient in our unconscious means the coming possibility. 

Under ordinary circumstances, not even the transition to the 'other side' succeeds -- still less the redeeming journey through the unconscious. The passage across is chiefly prevented by conscious resistance to any subjection of the ego to the unconscious reality and to the determining reality of the unconscious object. The condition is a dissociation-in other words, a neurosis having the character of an inner wastage with increasing brain-exhaustion -- a psychoasthenia, in fact. 


*2. The Introverted Thinking Type


*Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper. 

The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, _i.e., _in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486] disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. 

When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the [p. 488] better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation. 

With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own _person _now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within. 

The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category. 

 
 [ Web Source: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10 ]


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Honestly, TiNe. There's just no way in hell an INTJ would actually craft a system like the OP to describe Ni. It's too focused on logical details.


This is a distinct possibility.

I do appreciate the OP's description of Ni, yet there are analogies that seem very optimistic and rapid, a distinct Ne flavour.

However, I'll leave it up to @Hierophant Azmo to decide his cognition based on research and self examination. He seems open minded in this regard.

To be more on thread-topic: It was very intelligibly put together.


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

Interesting stuff, but considering you wanted to "simplify" it, I don't know if the kids are ready for z-axis calculus (calc. iii). 

Perhaps it's 4AM and I'm a little drunk and need to reread this in the morning.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Hierophant Azmo said:


> Please, criticize everything. I meant it that I value above all your opinions -- about everything. What the hell is a forum for anyway, right?
> 
> INTP might be a better fitting robe than the old, and I'm extremely grateful to all opinions that introduced the idea. New opinions welcome too, of course.
> 
> ...


The way you are interacting here, and the many many charts and grafts and actually bothering to pull people through your logic?

You are an INTP, my friend. 

1) You QUICKLY shifted to @ephemereality's viewpoint, seeking to induct it into your own. Ne. The natural urge is to accept the opposing view quickly in order to better analyze it. NiTe does not do that. 

2) You are gracious and gregarious in your posts.. you create a cooperative aire with somewhat ostentatious displays of esteem. Fe. The above quoted post shows this. 

3) Graphs! God I love graphs. Mmm, sweet sweet graphs.

On the point of Ni, I am going to say that I think it DOES pattern_ in a sense_. I think that Perceiving functions trigger the creation of patterns... such as every single ISxJ in creation commenting on physical similarities between my children and I. Every damn time. I think that Si is doing that. The question is, is that a 'pattern'? Or a 'connection'?

Yes, but more the suggestion of one. Rather, perception of one. Immediately, T must choose if the suggested connection is valid. Si, in that case, lives in a nothing space outside of that thought. If you want to call it negative space, whatever, but it is 'the connection' that T must vet. 

I think a big problem is the constant tendency for us to attribute rational thought to Perception. It would exist outside of it entirely... it is simply, as I have taken to calling it, 'material' (impressions, epiphany, so many words that still fail to isolate it from rational thought) that our Judgment takes and forms into any rational thing at all. There is 0 rational thought in a sensory connection... it's not even a connection yet, really, until pulled into rational thought and deemed sensible and agreeable. 

So, say that Ti is organizing a thought, or a premise, or a grand theory... it will be building its sandcastle up, and then suddenly it will start to craft a new tower. Why? Well, it just seemed like a good idea. Maybe they say, 'it just came to me to do that'. Well, that would be your 'negative space' outside-of-rational-thought whatever it is that comprises Perception. That you decided to do it is because F deemed it agreeable and T decided that it was a sensical thing. It would work and makes sense. 

We are so much our rational mind that isolating Perception from that is a very awkward proposition.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

arkigos said:


> 2) You are gracious and gregarious in your posts.. you create a cooperative aire with somewhat ostentatious displays of esteem. Fe. The above quoted post shows this.


This in particular seems pretty significant. I would even say that he might also be a 9.

@_Kathy Kane_

If introverted functions cannot be ''seen'' from the outside at all, how do you convincingly distinguish between ENTJ or INTJ for instance? They would both show Te mainly to the outside world according to you.

You would say that it's their personal introspection only that decides if they lead with an introverted function? That makes the theory ''up for grabs'' pretty much as anyone can convince themselves that they are any type in that sense, either willingly or not. 

If you answer that the INTJ would be able to explain Ni in an ''Te way'', wouldn't an ENTJ be able to do that as well? Also a good Ni user.

Also people have been throwing you the basics about cognitive function theory (which influenced heavily the MBTI in case you didn't know) in this thread and others but you've been ignoring them.

If you want to present your own personal view of how cognition works then that's fine to share for discussion. But don't pretend your view of things is superior and accurate when you have an immense burden of proof on your shoulders right now.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hierophant Azmo said:


> Finally, the difference between Ni and Ne is where they look. Ni cares about what's going on between data points.
> View attachment 91180
> 
> 
> ...


If that's what you think, you really don't understand Ni or irrationality as a whole, for the matter. It's very evident to me that you want irrationality to become rationality. Irrationality or perception is, as arkigos mentioned, merely the ability to observe or perceive the object. @arkigos sure, there is a "patterning" to how Pi works in that Si for example may wish to recreate or re-experience a specific experience they have had, and to do that they must re-create that pattern as well, but I wouldn't say that's the same as perceiving the pattern. The way I understand it now, after thinking about this a lot, is that perception simply provides with data judgement creates into patterns. Over time, you simply become more accurate in determining the pattern of something you perceive, which may perhaps in the rational or thinking mind become analogous to perceiving patterns. As is noted, perception does not exist in a vacuum on its own. 

Also, I think Western philosophy is heavily Ti-based as a whole. If you look at Eastern philosophy, you see a completely different idea of school of thought less focused on trying to figure out what something or distinguishing patterns, and more focus is spent on accepting and taking things as they are. Enlightenment does not come from "over-thinking". The reason for this I claim, is that a lot of Eastern philosophy is very Ni-derived, which is likely why it spoke to Jung as well.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> This in particular seems pretty significant. I would even say that he might also be a 9.
> 
> @_Kathy Kane_
> 
> If introverted functions cannot be ''seen'' from the outside at all, how do you convincingly distinguish between ENTJ or INTJ for instance? They would both show Te mainly to the outside world according to you.


I never said they "cannont be seen." I said they don't extrovert themselves. An actual extroverted function would explain the introverted functions. So Ni would be explained through Te or Fe. Ni isn't going to explain Ni. That is why INTJs have stronger, crisper, and straight forward language when explaining their Ni. People with Fe would have more soft, flowing, flowery language when describing Ni. It is also why INTJs aren't as willing to call Ni mystical, magical, or psychic. We don't view it through personal ideas and view points. We look for an external system that fits and explain it that way. 



> You would say that it's their personal introspection only that decides if they lead with an introverted function? That makes the theory ''up for grabs'' pretty much as anyone can convince themselves that they are any type in that sense, either willingly or not.
> 
> If you answer that the INTJ would be able to explain Ni in an ''Te way'', wouldn't an ENTJ be able to do that as well? Also a good Ni user.
> 
> ...


I'm not set on the way the functions are ordered in any of the current systems.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Funny thing that I get critics from someone that can't differenciate a perceiving function from a judging one. The OP is clearly Ti based, not Ni, as it creates an entire system, connecting aspects of mathematics with the process done by a cognitive function. Ni won't create that convoluted system that was described here, and in fact that explanation of Ni made me cringe because it's defining a logical function.


Posting other people's explanation doesn't mean you understand it. It just proves you can copy and paste.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I'm not set on the way the functions are ordered in any of the current systems.


Ah, I see. Then get back to us when you figured it out on your own then.

Also, you're right that a real INTJs will probably not describe Ni as magical or mystical in a rigorous sense. But Te itself obviously cannot fully express what Ni is. Which is why slightly ''flowery'' language might have to be used sometimes because of the nature of Ni.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Posting other people's explanation doesn't mean you understand it. It just proves you can copy and paste.


Good joke, I think that you didn't even bother to read those explanations that are the original descriptions of Ni and Ti, so you can't give a better argument that saying that I didn't understand Jung's ideas. In fact I copied them because they supported my idea about the OP being Ti based.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Ah, I see. Then get back to us when you figured it out on your own then.
> 
> Also, you're right that a real INTJs will probably not describe Ni as magical or mystical in a rigorous sense. But Te itself obviously cannot fully express what Ni is. Which is why slightly ''flowery'' language might have to be used sometimes because of the nature of Ni.


My point is in the approach. Te won't approach it that way. I can concede a small portions of the explanation might be as such. However, several descriptions I have read are overwhelmed with it. 

I'm not saying it's bad in any way. I actually think it's good to have it explained in both perspectives so both Te and Fe can understand it. I just don't think an INTJ would find it useful to use purple pros as an explanation of a cognitive function.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

I didn't read the whole thread but let's make it clear that Ni is present, dominant or auxiliary, only in Judgment types. The J turns your sensory function into either Si or Ni while the P would turn them into Se or Ne. Introverts have there introverted function dominant. So by understanding that Ne perceives by collecting information and drawing connections based on multiple perspectives. Ni would collect information and base a judgment from one perspective. N looks for information (differently than S) while Ni judges that information and Ne perceives it. Ne wants to explore everything before coming to a conclusion and Ni concludes from one persons subjective experience and thought processes. It's not a surprise you relate the function to math and patterns because it's a judging function. Ne doesn't care about patterns, only the vast amount of information from multiple perspectives. Ne perceives.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> My point is in the approach. Te won't approach it that way. I can concede a small portions of the explanation might be as such. However, several descriptions I have read are overwhelmed with it.
> I'm not saying it's bad in any way. I actually think it's good to have it explained in both perspectives so both Te and Fe can understand it. I just don't think an INTJ would find it useful to use purple pros as an explanation of a cognitive function.


Yea, the descriptions are pretty bad usually. I don't necessarily disagree with this post of yours per se.

On the other hand, my issue with your perspective was reflected in the questions I asked in my other post. But you had no answer to them because you're not ''set'' on any order. Although I don't think you could answer even if you did have one honestly.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Yea, the descriptions are pretty bad usually. I don't necessarily disagree with this post of yours per se.
> 
> On the other hand, my issue with your perspective was reflected in the questions I asked in my other post. But you had no answer to them because you're not ''set'' on any order. Although I don't think you could answer even if you did have one honestly.


Based on the vast amount of mistyped people on this site, I'm reluctant to expand on my ideas here. 

For whatever reason the amount of posts equals authority, regardless of any real knowledge. The fact that people can't see the problems with the personality type systems out there is a huge red flag for me.


----------



## Hierophant Azmo (Dec 19, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Since introverted functions won't extrovert, it's easy for an outsider to mistype another person. We can't be in their head or body, so they have to make the final decision. It's helpful to get other people's input, but we know ourselves best.


Personally, I'm with @Kathy Kane on this one. I think the individual can make the best call on his personality type. Opinions from others expedite the process immensely, but ultimately he knows himself best. Also, I think this is a really interesting theory about the introvert's interaction with others -- that he does so predominantly with his extroverted auxiliary function. Somehow it sounds familiar, or maybe just "feels right". Either way I'm going to look into it. Cool theory, @Kathy Kane.





arkigos said:


> The way you are interacting here, and the many many charts and grafts and actually bothering to pull people through your logic?
> 
> You are an INTP, my friend.
> 
> ...


I am exceedingly flattered to be attributed some of the INTP's most endearing qualities, especially graph love. Mmm, visual data. These are, however, stereotypes (with, of course, very high rates of incidence among INTP -- it's a nice heuristic for typing them quickly). I think, quite hilariously, that part of the reason I am being typed other-than-INTJ is my apparent warmth towards others. I actually started giggling about three-fourths of the way through the thread. Indeed, as other traits have high incidence among INTP, so too does smack and sting associate with INTJ! Of course amicable INTJ exist (and quite abundantly in number if not in percentage), but I shall nevertheless count a point towards INTP. Hah! Really quite funny.

Also @arkigos, I bolded some lines from your post just to clarify. I think you are saying that Ni recognizes the possible presence of a connection, but a judging function (T/F) must actually build the connection. I think we are agreeing, but you may be suggesting a new nuance -- I may be missing the subtleties of your opinion.





Word Dispenser said:


> I do appreciate the OP's description of Ni, yet there are analogies that seem very optimistic and rapid, a distinct Ne flavour.
> 
> However, I'll leave it up to @Hierophant Azmo to decide his cognition based on research and self examination. He seems open minded in this regard.
> 
> To be more on thread-topic: It was very intelligibly put together.


Thank you, @Word Dispenser! Your insights and encouragement are dearly appreciated.





ephemereality said:


> If that's what you think, you really don't understand Ni or irrationality as a whole, for the matter. It's very evident to me that you want irrationality to become rationality. Irrationality or perception is, as arkigos mentioned, merely the ability to observe or perceive the object. @arkigos sure, there is a "patterning" to how Pi works in that Si for example may wish to recreate or re-experience a specific experience they have had, and to do that they must re-create that pattern as well, but I wouldn't say that's the same as perceiving the pattern. The way I understand it now, after thinking about this a lot, is that perception simply provides with data judgement creates into patterns. Over time, you simply become more accurate in determining the pattern of something you perceive, which may perhaps in the rational or thinking mind become analogous to perceiving patterns. As is noted, perception does not exist in a vacuum on its own.
> 
> Also, I think Western philosophy is heavily Ti-based as a whole. If you look at Eastern philosophy, you see a completely different idea of school of thought less focused on trying to figure out what something or distinguishing patterns, and more focus is spent on accepting and taking things as they are. Enlightenment does not come from "over-thinking". The reason for this I claim, is that a lot of Eastern philosophy is very Ni-derived, which is likely why it spoke to Jung as well.





ephemereality said:


> essentially I feel like he's moving in the wrong direction. I can't explain it well but it feels like we are in a tug of war and I don't get where I want to go and it feels very frustrating. I also find it very tiring reading the op like it takes more effort than what I desire to make sense of it.
> 
> I think the op is a good example of describing ti though.


I feel, @ephemereality, that you dislike my attempt to rationally explain irrationality. I understand that -- I dislike irrational explanations for rationality. I recognize, however, that such explanations make otherwise unintelligible concepts communicable across the rational/irrational divide. I am not trying to make Ni a rational function -- I am merely attempting to explain it rationally.

I think too that we agree about Ni as a whole, except for the last bit of the theory: connection the dots. Where I say Ni sees the possibility of connections, you say it only sees the dots and does not draw the connections. I think you have captured the source of our disagreement as differences in hemisphere. That's brilliant. I think, then, that we can perhaps come to a consensus:

In the Eastern Hemisphere, Ni users are taught to hold the blank space, Ma, between events as sacred -- the emptiness is beautiful. Judging functions, then, are applied elsewhere, such as to accepting the emptiness. Emptiness is sacred -- don't change the tradition of acceptance.

In the Western Hemisphere, Ni users are taught to fill the blank space -- to actualize the potential connections Ni sees using a judging function. Emptiness is potential, and left empty it is wasted.

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding. Let me know.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Based on the vast amount of mistyped people on this site, I'm reluctant to expand on my ideas here.
> 
> For whatever reason the amount of posts equals authority, regardless of any real knowledge. The fact that people can't see the problems with the personality type systems out there is a huge red flag for me.


So what if people are mistyped? If your ideas have any merit they can still be useful.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hierophant Azmo said:


> I feel, @ephemereality, that you dislike my attempt to rationally explain irrationality. I understand that -- I dislike irrational explanations for rationality. I recognize, however, that such explanations make otherwise unintelligible concepts communicable across the rational/irrational divide. I am not trying to make Ni a rational function -- I am merely attempting to explain it rationally.
> 
> I think too that we agree about Ni as a whole, except for the last bit of the theory: connection the dots. Where I say Ni sees the possibility of connections, you say it only sees the dots and does not draw the connections. I think you have captured the source of our disagreement as differences in hemisphere. That's brilliant. I think, then, that we can perhaps come to a consensus:
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but WHAT? Why rationalize something that's so simple and doesn't need more rationalization than already is? You don't understand if you think it's about how people "think". No, that's not how I drew the analogy at all. I drew the analogy to showcase that there is a bias in different philosophical traditions. Essentially the way I read this is that you simply try to justify yourself. STOP IT. @arkigos have fun, I'm out. I can't deal with this Fe-seeking to conjoin me in this fucking horrid idea and conceptualization by keep bending things to something it's not. All it does is frustrating me.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> So what if people are mistyped? If your ideas have any merit they can still be useful.


I want to test it more. I just don't see this as the place to do that. Look at this thread. Personal feelings and the "Jung purists" have overridden the merit of the theory. Instead of helping the OP perfect his ideas, we got into a discussion about whether or not he was an INTJ. 

If I felt confident I could get feedback without all the drama, I would jump in and share. I'll work on it from my own observations for now.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I want to test it more. I just don't see this as the place to do that. Look at this thread. Personal feelings and the "Jung purists" have overridden the merit of the theory. Instead of helping the OP perfect his ideas, we got into a discussion about whether or not he was an INTJ.
> 
> If I felt confident I could get feedback without all the drama, I would jump in and share. I'll work on it from my own observations for now.


Well, I suppose I can't blame you for wanting to avoid all the drama, but it comes with the teritory. In a way I think the drama itself can open the door to some sort of understanding.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> Well, I suppose I can't blame you for wanting to avoid all the drama, but it comes with the teritory. In a way I think the drama itself can open the door to some sort of understanding.


I agree. I'm just not ready to sift through it all to get to the good replies. I'll work on my theory more and then decide. It's still a glimpse of an idea without much evidence. It needs work still.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

@Hierophant Azmo I wanted to get back to the op. I saw a study that showed introverts give as much value to objects as they do to people's faces (the study was faces verses flowers.) 

I see it as, the lives of the other person isn't as important as the reasons behind their actions (Ni) and the internal sensory impressions (Si.) Where, extroverts focus on people because they either give possibilities (Ne) or sensory action (Se.)

Your example could use people's lives for the extroverts and impressions for the introverts.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't know anything about Calculus or higher math, but I did have a dream one time.

I was in this weird building, talking to someone. I told them to explain my personality/worldview... and they said something like this.

"You wouldn't comprehend it, but I can tell you anyway. Putting this as simply as I can, your psyche was configured as a quantified implication engine, and your precepts are archetypal of ancient Athens." 

I don't have a clue what he meant, in fact I didn't think it meant anything at first. I wasn't sure if "quantified implication" was even a real thing. But I looked it up as soon as I woke up, and it turned out there really IS, and it's something from Calculus... way over my head, though.

I'm still wondering if that was gibberish or not.


----------



## Hierophant Azmo (Dec 19, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> Well, I suppose I can't blame you for wanting to avoid all the drama, but it comes with the teritory. In a way I think the drama itself can open the door to some sort of understanding.


 @Nonsense I like your outlook.




Kathy Kane said:


> @Hierophant Azmo I wanted to get back to the op. I saw a study that showed introverts give as much value to objects as they do to people's faces (the study was faces verses flowers.)
> 
> I see it as, the lives of the other person isn't as important as the reasons behind their actions (Ni) and the internal sensory impressions (Si.) Where, extroverts focus on people because they either give possibilities (Ne) or sensory action (Se.)
> 
> Your example could use people's lives for the extroverts and impressions for the introverts.


That's a refreshing approach, and the experiment sounds cool. I'll try looking for it. I enjoy thinking about the implications of differences between extrovert and introvert focus -- limitless. 

As for application to the theory, I'll be honest: I have no idea. I constructed the idea thinking of a dominant Ni, and thus it would only surely address introverts, specifically INTJ and INFJ. I hear-tell that functions behave differently in different positions. I don't know how this concept works nor how much merit it holds, only that I know of it. I'm not sure that Ni would work as, perhaps, vividly in positions other than dominant. I know my Fi (or Fe for the INTP advocates) is a spark against the blazing glory that is INFP (or ENFJ).

Also, I haven't ignored the abundant number of individuals who posit that I am an INTP. I'm introspecting and researching.




delphi367 said:


> I don't know anything about Calculus or higher math, but I did have a dream one time.
> 
> I was in this weird building, talking to someone. I told them to explain my personality/worldview... and they said something like this.
> 
> ...


You are gorgeous.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Hierophant Azmo said:


> That's a refreshing approach, and the experiment sounds cool. I'll try looking for it. I enjoy thinking about the implications of differences between extrovert and introvert focus -- limitless.
> 
> As for application to the theory, I'll be honest: I have no idea. I constructed the idea thinking of a dominant Ni, and thus it would only surely address introverts, specifically INTJ and INFJ. I hear-tell that functions behave differently in different positions. I don't know how this concept works nor how much merit it holds, only that I know of it. I'm not sure that Ni would work as, perhaps, vividly in positions other than dominant. I know my Fi (or Fe for the INTP advocates) is a spark against the blazing glory that is INFP (or ENFJ).
> 
> Also, I haven't ignored the abundant number of individuals who posit that I am an INTP. I'm introspecting and researching.


I knew as soon as I wrote my post that I needed the link. :ninja:

Here is an article about the study: Brains of Introverts Reveal Why They Prefer Being Alone | LiveScience

If you ever want to expand your theory, I think your idea can apply to the other perceiving types. 

I would say if you have no interest in the application of your theory then that might point to INTP. Even if it turns out you're not an INTJ, I still think your theory is good :tongue:


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> " your psyche was configured as a quantified implication engine"
> 
> I don't have a clue what he meant, in fact I didn't think it meant anything at first. I wasn't sure if "quantified implication" was even a real thing. But I looked it up as soon as I woke up, and it turned out there really IS, and it's something from Calculus... way over my head, though.


Well, I guess Ni people are magic after all, SWISH. lol



@*Hierophant Azmo* I think you are an INFJ because looking at this thread you are actively concerned with balancing the group vibe and acknowledging different peoples views, EFFF EEEEE.


Your OP graphing idea is similar to how I've seen the relationship between my introverted functions, Ni and Ti.

The actual space that your graphs occupy would be Ni, as would the abstract ability to treat the time axis as a simple detail, making past, present and future plot points work together easily. 
I really don't like the graph lines in this example because that would imply solidity of context. Like how Ni doesn't see time difference as an obstacle, Ni doesn't see context as an obstacle. 

When we talk about comparing mike and sally in order to predict behavior, yes we might, but then something as random as cheese manufacture might be introduced for whatever reason.
So you can have the sally data and the mike data overlapping, but then sliding in from all different directions is the other data. So if want to use graphs you end up with graph origami. 


The actual process of Ni in motion is disgusting to describe, hence all the 'aha moments' level descriptions. Ni is the ability to ignore the graph and axis lines in nature. It deals with implications and meta implications in the 'ma' dimension, which is why that 'quantified implication engine' description is cool.

If it could speak would say crazy things like 'Hmm, I'm just going to pretend like time is irrelevant.' or 'Bacon is synonymous with plagiarism because FUCK YOU.'



Ni is the space with all it's secret invisible rules

Se is the stars, there's much more space than there are stars but they burn brightly

Ti is the lines drawn between them to calculate their movements 

Fe is the starsign you draw over it all, the appropriate meaning of what you are looking at


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

@_Hierophant Azmo_: What ever your type, I get a sense of kindred spirit/kinship that I wouldn't otherwise from INTJ, and can appreciate what a good sport you're being when people like me are derailing your thread and prodding at your cognition. roud:

At least we can safely say that there is no self-assuming behaviour of INTJ pride, which I've seen as being kind of suffocatingly obnoxious on these forums, and quite amusingly not necessarily perpetrated by INTJs.

But, I like the idea of breaking out of the molds of how we assume each type to be. Writing politely and being open does not necessarily a non-INTJ make. Your _theory _at least, seems Ni to me, where all data was always coming back to, connecting, and supporting, the overarching theme.

I think the idea that Ni is based on derivitives is brilliant, really. Calculus may be an excellent analogy to illustrate it.

I think the confusion may be in your prose, because it's so absolutely pleasant to read, like you could be writing science fiction or high fantasy. :kitteh: INTJs have a more Asimov-strictness to their writing, I've noticed.

This is in no way a deciding factor, as writing style is more dependent upon environmental encouragement, I think.

I'm actually fairly surprised that you'd be Generation Z, and I don't say that lightly. Most people are accused one time or another of being older than they are. You write more like a Generation X INTJ that's mellowed out quite a fair bit.


----------



## Hierophant Azmo (Dec 19, 2013)

@Kathy Kane That is cooool. I wonder, then, if that adds a shade of distinction for the same cognitive functions between extroverts and introverts. For example, in INFJ Fe would, according to this data, function as much on people as on otherwise; in ENFJ, Fe would function more on people. I think the difference, the balance in focus between people and not-people, is an important facet of cognition, and differences between introverts and extroverts could mean huge changes for cognition as a whole. 

Perhaps the cognitive functions are the same across all types, and the extroverted functions are consistently more interested in people, whereas the introverted functions are consistently interested in both with what I suspect is a slight leaning towards not-people to balance an extroverted auxiliary function.

The whole business is exciting.

I'm also interested in your ideas of expanding the theory to all perceiving functions. If you don't want to post it on the forum, I understand that. PMs are welcome always. 


@Bardo I see your INFJ argument -- it's a good one. I spent some time thinking that might be me. I'm truthfully unsure at the moment. I've been introspecting a lot in a small time frame, and that generally leaves me feeling like all my insides look the same. I'll return to the proposition in a few days and see how it works. I will also add, however, that the attention I pay to group dynamic is an acquired ability, one learned from serious error. I now apply it universally to my life for fear of being errant in a previous way. The question, then, is if I acquired it by sheer force of self-reprimand, or if it is a less-than-dominant function slowly making its debut. I am still quite young. Both cases are, I think, plausible.

I'm intensely considering the points you made about the theory, too. Especially the point about disliking the "lines between dots" idea. You're not the first person to vocally dislike that aspect of the theory. Do not feel guilty in any way, your opinion is magnificently insightful and welcome. I'm going to consider what that means for Ni amongst different users, and I'm going to reexamine the line between perceiving and judging functions. 

Lastly, I'm quite attached to the INFJ picture you painted. Should I discover it my type, I will be no less than honored.


@Word Dispenser I am unspeakably grateful for your empathy. So too, though, do I encourage the pokery and derailment: this train belongs to you equally, and your direction, advice, and raw understanding are the most important parts of the ride. 

I experience those moments of screaming ego. I have been taught by those much wiser than I the trick of, when hotly-inflated opinions press outward on my head, sealing my mouth lest they escape otherwise. A mere parlor trick that produces more illusion than reality. What I'm saying is that I beg you not place me on a pedestal -- my skirt is much too short for that :laughing:

My prose, however, is always available for compliment. It adores the attention. I'm considering writing as a profession. Perhaps that is naive, in which case I am considering writing a novel when I have time not spent at work. I think you and @Nonsense participated in NaNoWriMo? My prose and I are absolutely giddy. Off-topic, but I haven't read anything by Asimov and have heard it is rather a must (also I love Science Fiction). Recommendations?

Finally, I am thrilled to have ignited an analogy between your spirit and mine. You execute your erudition with thoughtfulness of topic and of others -- an art you effortlessly grace.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Hierophant Azmo said:


> @_Kathy Kane_ That is cooool. I wonder, then, if that adds a shade of distinction for the same cognitive functions between extroverts and introverts. For example, in INFJ Fe would, according to this data, function as much on people as on otherwise; in ENFJ, Fe would function more on people. I think the difference, the balance in focus between people and not-people, is an important facet of cognition, and differences between introverts and extroverts could mean huge changes for cognition as a whole.
> 
> Perhaps the cognitive functions are the same across all types, and the extroverted functions are consistently more interested in people, whereas the introverted functions are consistently interested in both with what I suspect is a slight leaning towards not-people to balance an extroverted auxiliary function.
> 
> ...


And yet I'm reminded at how flowery my words used to be when I was around your age. I became more condensed after I went to Journalism. :laughing:

Yes, Asimov is one of the greats. There are plenty more. 

Lectures: Brenzel - Floating University < This guy mentions a lot of classics, which are great for anyone to read.

I'm not really in a mind to maintain focus on recommendations, unfortunately. roud:


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

Hierophant Azmo said:


> @_Bardo_ I see your INFJ argument -- it's a good one. I spent some time thinking that might be me. I'm truthfully unsure at the moment. I've been introspecting a lot in a small time frame, and that generally leaves me feeling like all my insides look the same. I'll return to the proposition in a few days and see how it works. I will also add, however, that the attention I pay to group dynamic is an acquired ability, one learned from serious error. I now apply it universally to my life for fear of being errant in a previous way. The question, then, is if I acquired it by sheer force of self-reprimand, or if it is a less-than-dominant function slowly making its debut. I am still quite young. Both cases are, I think, plausible.
> 
> I'm intensely considering the points you made about the theory, too. Especially the point about disliking the "lines between dots" idea. You're not the first person to vocally dislike that aspect of the theory. Do not feel guilty in any way, your opinion is magnificently insightful and welcome. I'm going to consider what that means for Ni amongst different users, and I'm going to reexamine the line between perceiving and judging functions.
> 
> Lastly, I'm quite attached to the INFJ picture you painted. Should I discover it my type, I will be no less than honored.




Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. I hope you do find INFJ is your type because we need all the recruits we can get lol.


I also used to think that I acquired my group dynamic focus over time. I also thought that INTJ was my type originally, a lot of Ni doms can mistype pretty hard as the other Ni dom. I've read INTJs saying they have developed people reading skills before, which always makes me suspect INFJ. 

I'm a type 5 on the Enneagram which half of all INTJs are, half of all INTPs too, which I imagine is a big part of why INTPs and INTJs mistype as each other a lot.
What might be considered classic INTJ or INTP behavior is also classic type 5 behavior.

There are a lot of 5 INFJs here but it's not very common out in the world, it might be an option for you. A lot of 5s on the internet!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Bardo said:


> internet!


Actually no. Most 5s are not 5s at all, especially on this forum. Usually 9s, 6s or 1s. Occasionally also 2s.


----------



## Hierophant Azmo (Dec 19, 2013)

Bardo said:


> Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. I hope you do find INFJ is your type because we need all the recruits we can get lol.
> 
> 
> I also used to think that I acquired my group dynamic focus over time. I also thought that INTJ was my type originally, a lot of Ni doms can mistype pretty hard as the other Ni dom. I've read INTJs saying they have developed people reading skills before, which always makes me suspect INFJ.
> ...


Thanks Bardo, great stuff. I'm looking into development of functions over time. I've got a feeling you're right.

Also, I can see the internet being a 5's supreme haven.



@ephemereality I value your opinions, and I hope you'll give mine a fighting chance. I came across a video posted by @RunForCover07, and it really got me thinking. I was noticing a lot of parallelisms between the video's examples and our conversations, especially around 11:30.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/175821-sensing-intuition-preferences-explained.html



ephemereality said:


> Ni just sees the lack of space instead of the space (and how do we perceive lack of space? By studying the actual objects present), but Ni makes no predicament about that space and how it connects to visible space. That would be judgement. Judgement _connects_ and _creates patterns_. *Ni simply perceives the object(s) judgement connects between.
> *


I think you are describing sensing, actually -- it only observes the objects. Intuition _does_ see patterns.



ephemereality said:


> Then you don't know what perception actually is. You cannot perceive "patterns". Patterns are logical constructs.
> 
> Perception = perceive object. That's all it does. *You over-complicate.
> *
> ...


Honestly, I don't think you are.



ephemereality said:


> Also, I think Western philosophy is heavily Ti-based as a whole. If you look at Eastern philosophy, you see a completely different idea of school of thought less focused on trying to figure out what something or distinguishing patterns, and more focus is spent on accepting and taking things as they are. Enlightenment does not come from "over-thinking". The reason for this I claim, is that a lot of Eastern philosophy is very Ni-derived, which is likely why it spoke to Jung as well.


I disagree. I think that Eastern philosophy is derived from Sensing and perhaps Feeling, especially Si and Fi, and that Western Philosophy is derived from Sensing and perhaps Thinking, especially Se and Te.

Eastern philosophy doesn't "over think". Western philosophy says the same thing in as many ways as it can.



ephemereality said:


> I'm sorry, but WHAT? Why rationalize something that's so simple and doesn't need more rationalization than already is? You don't understand if you think it's about how people "think".


I think you've got Si pretty high in your cognitive stack, if not dominant.

These are, of course, merely my opinions. You know your cognition best.


----------



## HigherFrequencyYou (Nov 22, 2013)

Hierophant Azmo said:


> I think you are describing sensing, actually -- it only observes the objects. Intuition _does_ see patterns.


Exactly.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Hierophant Azmo said:


> @ephemereality I value your opinions, and I hope you'll give mine a fighting chance. I came across a video posted by @RunForCover07, and it really got me thinking. I was noticing a lot of parallelisms between the video's examples and our conversations, especially around 11:30.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/175821-sensing-intuition-preferences-explained.html


Wow, if you think I'm a sensor, I'm left speechless. Nothing left to say really. How about a better comparison?

Quasi-identity - Wikisocion

People can have issues communicating for many reasons, but it's usually because they do _not share_ cognitive functions, rather *than* being S or N. That's something Keirsey came up with (I don't think Myers made any attempts to actually classify communication between types), and Keirsey's types are very far removed from anything Jungian. 



> I think you are describing sensing, actually -- it only observes the objects. Intuition _does_ see patterns.


No. I don't mean objects literally. That's the word I use but it was meant to be understood abstractly. Also, intuition can be concrete. Take Satan for example, being representative of absolute evil. Concrete representation of an abstract concept. 



> Honestly, I don't think you are.


Have fun with that. 



> I disagree. I think that Eastern philosophy is derived from Sensing and perhaps Feeling, especially Si and Fi, and that Western Philosophy is derived from Sensing and perhaps Thinking, especially Se and Te.


Do you actually know much about Eastern philosophy and what intuition is in a Jungian sense? Most Eastern philosophy is NiFe, not SiFi. The Western philosophy you cite here is TiSe or TeSi. 



> Eastern philosophy doesn't "over think". Western philosophy says the same thing in as many ways as it can.


Your point? 



> I think you've got Si pretty high in your cognitive stack, if not dominant.


LOL. Ok, if that's what you think, no wonder you got your own type so confused. 



> These are, of course, merely my opinions. You know your cognition best.


Then why suggest them if you aren't going to stand for them?


----------



## HigherFrequencyYou (Nov 22, 2013)

I must say I very much enjoyed hearing about Ni being described from a Te perspective. I sometimes share it from an Fe perspective with people and it's interesting how many differences yet similarities actually exist, especially the pattern part. This has become one of my favorite threads. I love INTJs!

*goes off to read a bunch of INTJ threads*


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> Well, I suppose I can't blame you for wanting to avoid all the drama, but it comes with the teritory. In a way I think the drama itself can open the door to some sort of understanding.


Quite insightful! Case in point -



ephemereality said:


> Wow, if you think I'm a sensor, I'm left speechless. Nothing left to say really. How about a better comparison?


INTJ vs. ISTJ | Prelude Character Analysis



ephemereality said:


> People can have issues communicating for many reasons, but it's usually because they do _not share_ cognitive functions, rather *than* being S or N.


Or it could be both! 



ephemereality said:


> No. I don't mean objects literally. That's the word I use but it was meant to be understood abstractly. Also, intuition can be concrete. Take Satan for example, being representative of absolute evil. Concrete representation of an abstract concept.


You used the word object...but meant it abstractly? As an Introverted Intuition dom I use EXTROVERTED SENSING and so objects are just objects and no, intuition can't be concrete, that is clearly sensing.

Your example of satan being the personification of absolute evil is quite literally a textbook example of how Si works. 

If you turn to page 397 of psychological types, Jung, in explaining the operation of Si, describes the subjective perception of objects as archaic forms, a malevolent demon being one of the examples he suggests.





ephemereality said:


> Have fun with that.


I thought you were an ISTJ a couple days ago, or perhaps it was yesterday. But yes I thought you were an ISTJ quite distinctly before Azmo suggested and the points he raised are quite valid and reinforcing.



ephemereality said:


> Perception = perceive object.


...unless we are talking about _INTROVERTED_ *INTUITIVE* PERCEPTION.

*perception* = *perceive*

*object = sensory *

Sensory perception - Se or Si



ephemereality said:


> Do you actually know much about Eastern philosophy and what intuition is in a Jungian sense? Most Eastern philosophy is NiFe, not SiFi. The Western philosophy you cite here is TiSe or TeSi.


Seeing as how most of the INFJs on celebrity types are philosophers I'd say we've got the philosophy game on lockdown eastside and westside cos we pack heat when we ride. The mysteries of the universe aren't so tough when thugs buckin 9 mil slugs be rollin uuup, tokin mad blunts to phat beats, we tear up the street, yall know cops can't duck glocks when our moves are so sweet. Uh.



ephemereality said:


> LOL. Ok, if that's what you think, no wonder you got your own type so confused.


Well he at least got his first cognitive function right, which is a pretty big thing to miss. If you are seriously suggesting that introverted intuition does nothing but perceive objects you need to go and read the basic entry level descriptions of the functions, because it is out of all the functions the furthest from being object based.

Any sensory focus experienced by an Ni doms is Se, momentary and extroverted. In other words - raw, objective and instant.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Bardo said:


> INTJ vs. ISTJ | Prelude Character Analysis


If you want to know, I don't relate much to either of the INTJ and ISTJ online profiles. If I have to pick online descriptions of a type I tend to relate the most to, it's actually INTP so there you go. Not that I think it's valid to type people based on descriptions in the first place. 



> Or it could be both!


Or noooo?

Quadra - Wikisocion
Duality - Wikisocion



> You used the word object...but meant it abstractly? As an Introverted Intuition dom I use EXTROVERTED SENSING and so objects are just objects and no, intuition can't be concrete, that is clearly sensing.


Because the word illustrated an idea and a concept I had in mind. And yes, intuition can be concrete. I can't find where Jung mentions it, but @PaladinX has quoted it elsewhere on this forum. 



> Your example of satan being the personification of absolute evil is quite literally a textbook example of how Si works.


No, not necessarily. It depends on how you choose to interpret the symbol. Are you more focused on the concrete nature of the object or are you focused on what the object intuitively represents? Intuition is always linked to sensation. You can't set up an argument where all forms of concrete intuition is sensation just because it's convenient for you to do so, while ignoring the fact that intuition needs sensation in order to work from something. 



> If you turn to page 397 of psychological types, Jung, in explaining the operation of Si, describes the subjective perception of objects as archaic forms, a malevolent demon being one of the examples he suggests.


It does, but now I might suggest _you_ are interpreting that literally. Jung doesn't necessarily mean actual demons as much as he's trying to point out how Si may attach meaning to physical objects becoming idols. They may be associated with positive qualities too, like Jesus on the cross. 



> I thought you were an ISTJ a couple days ago, or perhaps it was yesterday. But yes I thought you were an ISTJ quite distinctly before Azmo suggested and the points he raised are quite valid and reinforcing.


orly.


> ...unless we are talking about _INTROVERTED_ *INTUITIVE* PERCEPTION.
> 
> *perception* = *perceive*
> 
> ...


So how does Ne perceive then, if Ne does not orient itself towards the object? 

This is the very first sentence Jung writes about the Ne dom:

9. The Extraverted Intuitive Type

Whenever intuition predominates, a particular and unmistakable psychology presents itself. *Because intuition is orientated by the object*, a decided dependence upon external situations is discernible, but it has an altogether different character from the dependence of the sensational type.​


> Seeing as how most of the INFJs on celebrity types are philosophers I'd say we've got the philosophy game on lockdown eastside and westside cos we pack heat when we ride.


Since when was Celebrity Types a credible source to use for typing? Why don't you argue the theory i.e. whether the philosophy properly matches NiFe instead of referring to more than questionable typings? 



> Well he at least got his first cognitive function right, which is a pretty big thing to miss. If you are seriously suggesting that introverted intuition does nothing but perceive objects you need to go and read the basic entry level descriptions of the functions, because it is out of all the functions the furthest from being object based.


A lot of people get it wrong because a lot of people don't always recognize what is the most natural and comfortable to them, being too used to it so it's difficult to recognize within oneself, especially in an objective manner. I typed as INTP and INFP before I settled on INTJ. 

And yes, I am seriously suggesting intuition in general being perception does nothing else but perceiving the world. Also, I wonder what basic entry level descriptions of the functions you are referring to here since I am referring to what Jung defined, not some random MBTI site that is far removed from anything Jung. Most MBTI definitions of the functions suck. 



> Any sensory focus experienced by an Ni doms is Se, momentary and extroverted. In other words - raw, objective and instant.


Yes it is, though it doesn't have to be raw, objective and instant, lol. That's you placing value judgements on what sensation is. I know what Se is and what it's like, I have experienced it many times like when I am at a theme park and I am suddenly overcome by the urge to try every attraction ride that offers some excitement there over and over and over. I want to try all of them, experience all of it. It doesn't get more extroverted than that, because Se wishes to maximize sensory experience in a wholesome kind of way, taking in as much as possible at once.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@ephemereality



> *Concrete* and abstract *forms of intuition* may be distinguished according to the degree of participation on the part of sensation. *Concrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with the actuality of things*, while abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of ideational associations. *Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it follows directly from the given circumstances*; whereas abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, necessitates a certain element of direction, an act of will or a purpose.


Definition of Intuition

Otherwise found on pg 453 of Psychological Types.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Hierophant Azmo everything in your OP seems to document a person’s reactions to their own experiences. This doesn’t resemble Ni described by Jung, or any other typing-testing systems. It looks like an extreme, elaborate emotional defense mechanism with no particular engagement of functions. Giving your feelings a system or inventing what you think are intellectually sounding names for your experiences is very illogical. Perceiving functions being defined as “irrational” can be confusing terminology. From Jung this simply means indirect thinking, but you have instead, invented your own system of indirect feeling? You make an exercise for yourself of endless loops or hoops with no purpose other than to avoid living your life, wearing a mask to yourself? 

Ni doesn’t apply to how you feel about a sandwich or a death in the family. Ni’s opposition to Se is only about not acting on (or fully taking in) the information of the moment, but to instead apply correlations and derived meanings – not personal evaluations. Ni is about underlying, universal or timeless meanings, it is about the way you learn and recall what you know - for use – not avoidance.

I don’t see Ni in your example. You could be describing misdirected use of Ti problem solving, or you could be Si dom – maybe. I’m not going to stay following this thread but thought I would put this out here for anyone reading - because it has potential to confuse people who are here to understand functions and have not been here long enough to know how much this is off track.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Because the word illustrated an idea and a concept I had in mind. And yes, intuition can be concrete. I can't find where Jung mentions it, but @_PaladinX_ has quoted it elsewhere on this forum.


If Ni is the space between objects, which is what we were all saying earlier, you then contradict yourself by saying that Ni doesn't deal with space but judgement does. You said both of those things and they contradict each other.

You then say Ni does nothing but perceive objects, in fact all perception functions perceive objects and *nothing else*. 

Then you claim that when you say object you mean object in an abstract way.

So Ni is the space between abstract objects but at the same time doesn't deal with abstract objects, judgement deals with abstract objects.

So what are you actually saying with any of this?




ephemereality said:


> No, not necessarily. It depends on how you choose to interpret the symbol. Are you more focused on the concrete nature of the object or are you focused on what the object intuitively represents?


Everything wrong with this would take as long to write out as the last part. The _concrete but abstract_ nature of the object yeah? Because when you say object you mean abstract. What the object intuitively, but at the same time concretely represents yeah?



ephemereality said:


> It does, but now I might suggest _you_ are interpreting that literally. Jung doesn't necessarily mean actual demons as much as he's trying to point out how Si may attach meaning to physical objects becoming idols. They may be associated with positive qualities too, like Jesus on the cross.


I'm not debating if certain internal images are positive or negative, I'm debating that your totemic explanation of psychological items is distinctively Si themed.
I clearly interpreted the Jung description conceptually, his description of the Si train of thought fit the example you gave of your own train of thought.



ephemereality said:


> A lot of people get it wrong because a lot of people don't always recognize what is the most natural and comfortable to them
> being too used to it so it's difficult to recognize within oneself, especially in an objective manner. I typed as INTP and INFP before I settled on INTJ.


Exactly.
So you are abrasively accusing people of not knowing about type and functions yet you admit you can't tell the difference between introverted feeling, introverted thinking, introverted intuition and evidently introverted or extroverted sensing?



ephemereality said:


> And yes, I am seriously suggesting intuition in general being perception does nothing else but perceiving the world. Also, I wonder what basic entry level descriptions of the functions you are referring to here since I am referring to what Jung defined, not some random MBTI site that is far removed from anything Jung. Most MBTI definitions of the functions suck.


Now you're trying to backtrack, you aren't saying N functions perceive the world at all. You are trying to say that intuition perceives objects, you have explicitly stated that *perception* = perceive *object* and that it does *nothing else*. 




ephemereality said:


> That's you placing value judgements on what sensation is.


hy·poc·ri·sy _noun_ : the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do.


There was a lot more to this post, a whole lot more, but it's become such an ordeal to lay out all of the problems here.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> . Not that I think it's valid to type people based on descriptions in the first place.


O.K I missed this part, this is incredible, absolutely astronomical. I've never herd of anyone having serious beef with _descriptions._ 

So what do you think is a valid way to type someone if not by basing it on descriptions? 

Do you realize that everything you've ever read about a type or function is a description? 

Do you realize that everything you wrote about in this thread relating to functions and how they operate is a description?

Do you realize that when you write words you are describing your thoughts?

Do you realize that other people can see the things you write?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Bardo said:


> If Ni is the space between objects, which is what we were all saying earlier, you then contradict yourself by saying that Ni doesn't deal with space but judgement does. You said both of those things and they contradict each other.


No it doesn't, because is introverted, so instead of focusing on the object itself, it wants to move away from it. It perceives the same object as an Ne type, but instead of being focused on the object like the Ne type would, Ni denies the existence of the object and seeks to see what the object is not. I would suggest to read up on Jung's definition of introversion-extroversion. 



> You then say Ni does nothing but perceive objects, in fact all perception functions perceive objects and *nothing else*.


Yes, perception is perceiving the object. I never made any suggestion as to how each function and their attitude relates to the object in terms of introversion-extroversion. 



> Then you claim that when you say object you mean object in an abstract way.


Yes, it is, because "object" does not refer to an actually concrete object, but it refers to all that which exists outside ourselves, which you should know if you read Jung on this. 



> So Ni is the space between abstract objects but at the same time doesn't deal with abstract objects, judgement deals with abstract objects.


That doesn't make any sense. You put a word in there that I didn't intend, nor was I ever referring to judgement at any point. 



> So what are you actually saying with any of this?


Perception perceives, judgement judges. That's how simple it is. 



> Everything wrong with this would take as long to write out as the last part. The _concrete but abstract_ nature of the object yeah? Because when you say object you mean abstract. What the object intuitively, but at the same time concretely represents yeah?


Because "object" can mean more than one thing? Clearly. It's contextual. An object can be both concrete and abstract in nature. Atoms are abstract objects because they are not something we can concretely sense, yet atoms are concrete in that they are referring to actual things that exist as opposed to say, "faith", which is not something we can point to in a concrete way like we can atoms. 



> I'm not debating if certain internal images are positive or negative, I'm debating that your totemic explanation of psychological items is distinctively Si themed.


And I just told you you are interpreting Jung and me literally. 



> I clearly interpreted the Jung description conceptually, his description of the Si train of thought fit the example you gave of your own train of thought.


Except that's not how came across to me. It came across as very literal. 

E


> xactly.
> So you are abrasively accusing people of not knowing about type and functions yet you admit you can't tell the difference between introverted feeling, introverted thinking, introverted intuition and evidently introverted or extroverted sensing?


LOL. When did I admit I don't know I can't tell between the functions and their attitudes? The OP was uncertain about their type. I made a suggestion. Apparently my reasoning and suggestion wasn't welcome. The only reason I am _still_ arguing here is because I don't think the same can be said about you and the OP. 



> Now you're trying to backtrack, you aren't saying N functions perceive the world at all. You are trying to say that intuition perceives objects, you have explicitly stated that *perception* = perceive *object* and that it does *nothing else*.


But the world = object, sigh. 



> hy·poc·ri·sy _noun_ : the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do.


lol. 



> There was a lot more to this post, a whole lot more, but it's become such an ordeal to lay out all of the problems here.


orly.


----------



## Hierophant Azmo (Dec 19, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Then why suggest them if you aren't going to stand for them?


Was merely acknowledging the limits of the my opinion. 



Old Intern said:


> @Hierophant Azmo*(1)*everything in your OP seems to document a person’s reactions to their own experiences. This doesn’t resemble Ni described by Jung, or any other typing-testing systems. It looks like an extreme, elaborate emotional defense mechanism with no particular engagement of functions. *(2)*Giving your feelings a system or inventing what you think are intellectually sounding names for your experiences is very illogical. Perceiving functions being defined as “irrational” can be confusing terminology. From Jung this simply means indirect thinking, but you have instead, invented your own system of indirect feeling? You make an exercise for yourself of endless loops or hoops with no purpose other than to avoid living your life, *(**)*wearing a mask to yourself?
> 
> *(3)*Ni doesn’t apply to how you feel about a sandwich or a death in the family. Ni’s opposition to Se is only about not acting on (or fully taking in) the information of the moment, *(4)*but to instead apply correlations and derived meanings – not personal evaluations. *(5)*Ni is about underlying, universal or timeless meanings, it is about the way you learn and recall what you know - for use – *(**)*not avoidance.
> 
> I don’t see Ni in your example. *(*)*You could be describing misdirected use of Ti problem solving, or you could be Si dom – maybe. I’m not going to stay following this thread but thought I would put this out here for anyone reading - because it has potential to confuse people who are here to understand functions and have not been here long enough to know how much this is off track.


Honest opinions always welcome. But you won't help anyone learn *(*)* by asserting your opinion and running off without evidence or reasoning; nor (at least in this thread) will the *(**)*irrelevantly subjective help.

Lastly, from my original post, checkmate:



Hierophant Azmo said:


> *(1)*I have ventured to forge my own account, or perhaps to illuminate the back-stage work that other descriptions omit. *(1)*I make no illusions otherwise: I am merely clogging your CPU with my own malodorous exhalations. I assert with equal honesty, however, that I value above all else your opinions, and they shall be joyously received.
> 
> To discard everything I have hereto said, I had my “Aha!” moment in class. My sudden and total realization was that Ni is Calculus: slope, derivatives, integration, and (unlike Calculus) extrapolation. *(2)*I don’t call it that to elevate my own thought processes; the other functions deserve equally lofty parallelisms, and that I cannot give them their due explanations reflects only my own shortcomings. Onward and succinctly, Ni absorbs information about a topic, plots it, looks at the resultant shape, and compares it to familiar shapes for a course prediction.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

These plot points are about what all these events mean to yoooooouuuuuuu. Not corelations about how the universe works. This would make it maybe Si, or something else not directly related to functions at all. What definitions are you working from?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Bardo said:


> O.K I missed this part, this is incredible, absolutely astronomical. I've never herd of anyone having serious beef with _descriptions._
> 
> So what do you think is a valid way to type someone if not by basing it on descriptions?
> 
> ...


Well, I'm not too fond of the _personality type _descriptions, 'cause they're fairly limited in scope, as they normally only describe behaviour... And any personality type can behave a certain way, but still be different than that expression.

No need to get all hoity-toity about it.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Geee, I have a new function, and a new function definition based on what I ate for breakfast and how I pour coffee.

Its one thing to refine definitions based on up-dated wording . . . . or using observations over a period of time with more than just yourself . . . . or finding/reconciling commonalities in existing systems or studies . . . .OR creating a brand new study; looking at Jung, MBTI, and whatever else exists, and comparing your own thought processes is kind of what this place is for . . . . . . but at some point there is no discussion if people are not trying to use a common vocabulary.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Bardo said:


> O.K I missed this part, this is incredible, absolutely astronomical. I've never herd of anyone having serious beef with _descriptions._
> 
> So what do you think is a valid way to type someone if not by basing it on descriptions?
> 
> ...


Define description.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

ephemereality said:


> Define description.





> description
> 
> noun
> 
> 1. a statement, picture in words, or account that describes; descriptive representation.


And then, describe is defined as...



> describe
> 
> 
> verb (used with object), described, describing.
> ...


It seems to me he's using this definition. Is that an adequate definition for both of you? I really can't imagine what else it would mean in this context.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> And then, describe is defined as...
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me he's using this definition. Is that an adequate definition for both of you? I really can't imagine what else it would mean in this context.


That's not why I asked that question. I asked because I rejected type descriptions, so I wasn't really concerned about the word in a general sense. The guy was just trying to nitpick.


----------

