# Can any intuitives actually describe their intuition?



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Please, explain it to me.
For the longest time, I thought I was an intuitive.

Now, I question whether such a thing even exists. I'd love for people to lay out, in clear terms, two things:


What makes you an intuitive?
Why aren't you a sensor?

I don't care if you go Ne, Ni, Se or Ni. Don't care. Just explain it to me.


The reasons I thought I was an intuitive (either Ni or Ne, resonate with both) was because I'm constantly seeing new ideas, able to predict future happenings very well, my mind wanders off into whoop-whoop land all the time, I sometimes find it difficult to focus (only when something doesn't interest me! I'm f*cking on the ball if I'm interested) etc etc you get the picture.

I also was majorly confused because my mind works like.. I'll see something and other things spring to mind pretty quickly. I also get those 'aha' moments everyone harps on about.

Thing is, to me, this is freaking.. everyone. Everyone can see something and think of other things from that one idea.
Everyone. Nobody is super simple herpaderp who sees a tree and that's it, no more, just a 'tree'. No matter how hard they try, they simply see a tree.

Bullshit. Unless disabled, everyone sees the colours, branches, leaves, etc etc the whole lot, and everyones mind is capable of forming new ideas from this, and everyones mind is capable of being reminded of other things from this.

I mean, shit, even seeing a "tree" is big-picture thinking if you really dive into it - it's an idea, an object, it's more than just the bark, roots, leaves etc. It's the whole thing combined. The big picture. The thing as a whole, immediately.


Another thing - the 'aha' moments - everyone gets these. It's how your brain works.
It's not exclusive to any function. It's just human. It's not some Ni thing. Everyone has "intuition" in this sense.


Everyone is capable of seeing the 'deeper meanings' of things.
Zoning out and not being 'present' has sweet jack all to do with intuition of any kind, imo, it's more like you're not interested, so you mentally check out. How does that relate to intuition?

Jumping to conclusions because you just "know" something is a trait everybody has.
You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't relate to this.

Obviously what I'm saying here will have it's flaws, that's why I made this thread.

I need to read, in clear terms, why you believe you are an intuitive, and not a sensor.
I need it in your own words. Do not copy-paste from some bullshit descriptors.


Because to me, I can't actually understand it. I can't for the life of me imagine myself to PERCEIVE the world in any other way than my 5 senses.


Whatever you say, be prepared to defend your statements because I, and hopefully others, will dissect and question it.


Thanks in advance to anyone who helps clear this up for me.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Look at how your memory works. I'm always impressed with how S's remember things. They go through the past in their mind as if it is a list of items that happened, one after the other.

When I remember stuff, it's not a list, it's a web of things that are connected.... and I remember the connections more than the actual things that happened. When I recall something from my past, I rebuild the the list of events from the connections. (And thus if I tell it more than once, it can come out slightly different every time. But the basic story is the same.)

When an S tells about a past event, it comes out in chronological order. They have to go through all the steps in chronological order.


You put an Ni in a social situation, and all the sudden he'll say something and especially the S's respond like he's nuts or weird. When asked what do you mean the Ni responds something like: "Oh,. you guys mentioned that and that reminded me of [something totally unrelated]" N's tend to be curious and ask where that came from. S's tend to dismiss it and show no interest so they can get back to the conversation. (that's not to say Ss are rude and don't care, it just means that staying at the conversation is important to them.)

Ofcourse, S's can change subjects too. As you have concluded correctly, individual cognitive functions are never in charge by them selves. We are always the result of all our cognitive functions working together. So S behaviour exists in N's and visa versa. It's what appears mostly that determines type.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Turi said:


> Bullshit.





> Do not copy-paste from some bullshit descriptors.


Are you angry?

Myers-Briggs type describes cognitive preferences, so whether everyone can do something is irrelevant to type. What is relevant is whether a given person _prefers_ to use a given cognitive function. Preferences become habits over time, so in that sense they are a bit more than simply preferences.

If you've not yet done so, I suggest you read _Gifts Differing_ (excerpt below) and Jung. There is a list of traits from the former posted somewhere on PerC that may also be helpful.



> _Those people who prefer intuition are so engrossed in pursuing the possibilities it presents that they seldom look very intently at the actualities._


I know that I'm an Intuitive because I don't pay much attention to immediate physical reality, I remember the gist of things better than I remember details (and am more interested in the former), I struggle to live in the present moment, I can't focus on purely physical activities for long without getting bored, I learn by concept much more easily than by example or by doing.



> Because to me, I can't actually understand it. I can't for the life of me imagine myself to PERCEIVE the world in any other way than my 5 senses.


Of course Intuitives do this as well; what I have found that is not well-explained is the _extent_ to which we do it. I suspect that Intuitives sort of cut off the physical sensing and switch to a mental mode, "seeing" connections flow through our minds, relatively quickly after sensing something. I can't really "prove" the validity of the following in any way, but it describes my experience and I suspect that other Intuitives will recognize this. 

Say there are two kids, one Sensor and one Intuitive, who look up at the sky. The Sensor notices a large cloud in the first moment, notices it's color in the second moment, notices which direction it's moving in the third moment. The Intuitive notices the same large cloud in the first moment, _starts looking inward_ in the second moment and _without trying_ "sees" a soft fluffy pillow floating through her bedroom in her mind's eye, then follows another unconscious mental connection and is thinking about dreaming in the third moment. The fact that these ideas are coming to her with hardly any effort, is what makes this an alternate type of Perception. She is really just watching ideas pop into her mind.

Both kids go inside and tell their parents about the cloud; the Sensor remembers and mentions the color, but the Intuitive has no idea what color the cloud was. Her eyes detected the color, but her brain didn't register it because it was busy processing mental connections about clouds.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Turi said:


> I can't for the life of me imagine myself to PERCEIVE the world in any other way than my 5 senses.


Specifically focusing on this sentence:

You perceive the world as it is now?

I perceive the world as dynamic system of which properties constantly change in importance. The more fundamental the property, the less it changes in importance.


----------



## Snowflake Minuet (Feb 20, 2016)

We all see the world through our five senses, and we can all very well think abstractly about things.

But where is your main focus in this regard? While both an N and an S can enjoy being in a nice moment and both can mentally take off from that moment and contemplate disparate things, the S is more likely to easily enjoy the moment and the N more likely to drift away from it.

In other words, it’s about preference—mainly about how you like to take in and process information. It’s the same with I and E: we all are human and we all need interaction and some degree of a social life; we also all need some time to ourselves. Most people simply need a lot more of one than the other to feel as energized and content as possible. 

An introvert can enjoy a crowd now and then or make themselves act more outgoing socially if they want or need to, even if though this isn’t the most natural or restful way for them to be. Similarly, an intuitive can focus on the moment and get themselves to be present, or to tune more solely into the physical senses, even though they more naturally dwell a bit more detached from the moment in their minds. 

An intuitive can remember details of things but more naturally remembers the “overall” of something; vice versa for a sensor. etc., etc..

I know I’m an intuitive because: I most readily see the bigger picture; I often feel out of touch with, or somehow distant from, the present—particularly the physical present; when I see a tree I rarely most prominently see a tree, but rather a “symbol” that speaks of some more universal meaning or connection; I’m happiest doing things which allow me to detach from the present in some way, such as writing, music, reading, thinking about the workings of the mind, or having a long conversation with someone that excites me and I get so wrapped up in the likely more abstract topic that I’m in a different sort of mind frame; I much prefer to be given a long, conceptually-focused paper to write than a more practical, hands-on project to solve or complete; there’s a separation in my mind between me and the non-physical layer through which I see the physical world and that physical world in which I feel I have to make an effort to exist; the list goes on.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

First of all: there aren't really 'intuitives' or 'sensors'. Everyone has a sensing function and an intuiting function. 

The most popular theory goes that everyone has Ni and Se or Ne and Si. You use the sensing function to percieve the world and the intuiting function to hypothesize about possibilities. That's true for everyone. 
The big difference comes with the ordering of these functions. When you're in a new situation, what does your mind do first? 

For example: I'm an INFJ, meaning that in a new situation I start by checking everything against my mental model of the situation. That's Ni. Only in the last step, there's the Se, seeking out new information (by interacting with the world). 

If you're actually an ISTP (as your account suggests), that means that you start off with Ti, get to Se next, then Ni and finally Fe (although there can be lots of reasons to skip steps, but we're talking about our first instincts. 
This means that in a totally new situation, you would probably start by going to your mental rulebook of similar situations (Ti). Ti gives general guidelines for how to solve general problems. Then there's Se. Se wants to interact with the world to get more information. This being step 2 would make you a sensor. Se gets information from the world and then passes that to Ni, the intuiting function. I know ISXP's that are very good at this step, and will often come with great insights into situations. It's not the first step, but it's definitely there. For the purposes of finishing the function stack we'll end with Fe. Fe is there to share your findings with the world and get some perspective. Fe wants to be in a situation where others agree with their findings. 

So, in that way, we're not that different. We use the same functions. We both use Ni to integrate information into our mental model of our world. What makes me an intuitive is that I'm doing this constantly, in all situations as a first step. You, as an Se-auxiliary user would probably get worn out by constantly revising your mental models and would rather interact with the world actively and let the model work itself out while you're going. 

That's all there is to it. Intuitives are the ones that work on ideas before wanting to interact with the real world, sensors are the ones that interact with the real world before wanting to work on their ideas. 
This does not mean that sensors don't come up with ideas or that intuitives don't want to interact with the world, it's just about what your brain does first in new situations. 

Of course there's also Si and Ne, but I'm not sure if that's that relevant to your question. (I'll elaborate if you want of course).


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Ok. I'll bite. (it took me a while to figure out how I was going to say this, so this post kind of long and rambly but I think I figured it out by the end). 

"Why aren't I Sensor?" That just seems like such a weird question. It's like "why aren't I an olympic gymnast?" I'm not a Sesnor because I freaking suck at Sensing. I try every day to be better at it and I'm slowly improving but I still suck.

Yeah, I'm capable of using my 5 senses and perceiving the world. But it's hard to make it _mean_ anything. I'm surrounded by colors and sounds and so on, but I'd be hard-pressed to know what any of it _means_. 
It's like this:
Do you have perfect pitch? If not, imagine somebody with perfect pitch plays a bunch of single notes on the piano and tells you what they are. Then, an hour later, they play the notes again and ask you what they are. When you don't know, they can't believe it. They're like "I just told you what the notes are, how did you already forget??!" 
That's what it means to be bad at Sensing.You sense things, but specific sensory experiences, in comparison with other ones, mean very little to you. You can't made order or sense out of the many things you sense. Except instead of being bad at recognizing a single note, you can't answer questions like "what was the weather like when you came in just now?" "was your car making a weird noise this morning?" "did the food taste okay?" you're like... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
And it's _not_ because you weren't paying attention or you were spacing out. It's because you don't understand the question. If somebody asks me "what was the weather?" I'm like "well it was kind of warm... maybe it was hot? I don't know, _I _didn't feel hot, but maybe you would feel hot? I don't know if it was humid or not... how do you tell if it's humid?"

@Turi I suggest you learn more about Se and Si and what amazing skills they can be. I think you're probably not appreciating how great Se is, maybe because it's so normal to you that you can't see how everybody doesn't do it. But that's because you're good at it and other people aren't. Sensing isn't JUST anything. Sensing is really difficult if it's not natural to you. 

As for _why_ I'm an Intuitive, 
it's because there's this whole complicated world inside of me that's really far removed from the outside world. I know that may sound like something I'm just repeating from a description, but I promise you, it's very very true and I mean it quite literally. I literally go off to a place that's completely my imagination, that's completely fueled by abstract ideas, and I literally cease to see or hear what's around me. It's not something happy and pleasant. I'm not like, I such a great ~inner world~ !~! I wonder every day why I keep getting lost in these thoughts, why I can't focus on the real world. It's really frustrating. 
You lose your reference point. Your reference point isn't anchored in the reality around you, but something you come up with yourself. You can't share your thoughts with others because you simply _don't have the language_. 

You said,
"I can't for the life of me imagine myself to PERCEIVE the world in any other way than my 5 senses."
I totally get that, and I totally understand. To me, Intuition doesn't really feel like Perception at all. Perception just feels like my 5 senses. Intuition feels like something my mind generates on its own. Dimly, up at the surface, I'm perceiving things around me, but in my mind (which is more vivid), there is all this other stuff going on. It doesn't seem like a direct perception of reality. It seems like a way to take in reality and figure it all out, except while you try to figure it out, you keep getting farther and farther removed from anything you actually _sensed_... 
And then when you actually sense things, instead of really perceiving anything _specific_ about them, you fall right back down to the hole of ideas. 
Instead of actually perceiving any particular sensory quality, you notice something very briefly and it just reminds you of some giant web of ideas that you'd previously been pondering. 

A Sensor might hear a song, or see a painting, or see a car go by, or whatever, and perceive many different dimensions of its sensory quality. They might have multiple different sensory experiences in relation to it. They might stay with it, and keep perceiving more and more sensory aspects of it. They may differentiate between very subtle things. They might remember the sensory aspects of something in detail. 
By contrast, my Sensing is just very brief; it's just like "oh a tree!" and then I'm gone. I'm in my own inner world again. I Sense the bare minimum to get by in the world. *Thing I sense are just representations, just symbols, just things that remind me of ideas. There's no complexity or specificity to my sensing. *


----------



## Ochi96 (Jun 5, 2017)

charlie.elliot said:


> As for _why_ I'm an Intuitive,
> it's because there's this whole complicated world inside of me that's really far removed from the outside world. I know that may sound like something I'm just repeating from a description, but I promise you, it's very very true and I mean it quite literally. I literally go off to a place that's completely my imagination, that's completely fueled by abstract ideas, and I literally cease to see or hear what's around me. It's not something happy and pleasant. I'm not like, I such a great ~inner world~ !~! I wonder every day why I keep getting lost in these thoughts, why I can't focus on the real world. It's really frustrating.
> You lose your reference point. Your reference point isn't anchored in the reality around you, but something you come up with yourself. You can't share your thoughts with others because you simply _don't have the language_.[/B]


I liked that, totally agree


----------



## Robert2928 (Apr 6, 2012)

*What makes you an intuitive?*
I'm an intuitive because I prefer Ni over Se in my cognitive stack. What this means is that I prefer to interact with my subjective possibilities of the world instead of interacting with the empirical world. How this typically comes across is how I take something physically in front of me and deconstruct it into a bunch of ideas searching for meaning. When you see a person you might just see physical appearance like their skin color, eye color, hair color, etc. When I see a person I typically ignore physical appearances and see a set of ideas be it their culture, beliefs, etc. 

A realistic way this might come across is if I were out with a sensor and we seen an attractive woman go by. For a sensor it would probably be something along the lines of "look at dat azz!" while for me I would be like "Look at that azz. I wonder why that appeals to me. Weird. I beat it's because her having an azz like that shows she is possibly a healthy weight and likely a fertile potential spouse and since my body is indistinctly seeking to reproduce and with that woman I would have a higher success rate for producing offspring." 

If you read that exchange and thought "this guy thinks too much" then probably a sensor. If you considered what I said and/or compared it with your own personal notes on the subject...probably an intuitive. 

*Why aren't you a sensor?*
I am not a sensor because I don't prefer to take things at surface value (aka purely empirically). I am intuitive because I instinctively seek deeper meaning (aka possibilities) beyond what is given to me. This causes sensors to say I "think too much" because they prefer to "just do" while in their eyes I overthink and/or overanaylze everything. This is to say if I were invited to the theater for a play I would likely pay more attention to what could be happening behind the curtains instead of the actual play itself...which would be a waste of money if you think about it? lol

*TL;DR:* In the "real world" you are learning something for practical application. If you spend a lot of time thinking about stuff that doesn't really matter in the "real world" (which comes across as learning for the sake of learning.) then you MIGHT be an intuitive. A little rough around the edges but I think this presents the basic concept well enough.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Here's how you can tell whether you're an Intuitive or a Sensor: You read the type descriptions and see which one you relate more with. If you get into cognitive functions and shit, get ready for poorly defined concepts and Barnum Effect. You'll never get out of that shithole. Just read the type descriptions and relate. That's all.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Turi said:


> Please, explain it to me.
> For the longest time, I thought I was an intuitive.
> 
> Now, I question whether such a thing even exists. I'd love for people to lay out, in clear terms, two things:
> ...




I acquired the predisposition towards (Ni)-function somewhere during my [developmental]-stages ranging from (brain-development via the womb) [enabling], then again _rehearsed _as soon as I gained strong enough self-awareness [around the age of 3], however, it could have been earlier -- if I recall.

(Ni) does nothing but [generated 'gaps' between inner links] via the global complex (general senses / observation unit); I understand (Ni) to have a fixation on "time lapse," and where attentions_ should be diverted to_ through hyper-subconscious patternization [or "what is coming to be, or how it came to be,"], which is distinguishable among (Ti) - which focuses on precise breakdown; while (Ni) simply 'generates' an irrational essence around state-of-affairs; or objects if (T)-preference, you often see (Ni-dom (Fe)) types mimicing the INTJ in similar affairs around "subjects" (re: 'Why are INFJ's so flaky / picky / idealistic / assumptive? "manipulative") - this gradually increases with (Ne)-users - to fixated on (the essence / construction) less so on the actuality of the case;

Below is my interpretation of what both (intuition/s) - appear as [especially that of Ne]; 








Consider my distinctions below of how I "recognize" the function(s) in a less technical sense * ::*


*(Ni)*-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending doom / possible collapse) - insight / *direction / warning.
* 


*(Ne)*-favoritism - will revolve around (positivity / hopefulness / can-happens / -lapsing) - suggestion * influence* / critique.


--

*(Si)*-favoritism - will revolve around (negativity / impending fluctuation / threats / possibility) - insight / *instruction / caution*.



*(Se)*-favoritism - will revolve around (positivity / impending connectivity / forcefulness / optimism / desire) - *movements / space / presentation*.

---

Utilize referents (e.g, conversational stimulus) to identify the function(s) of said humanoid - all are susceptible to delusions (biases (e.g., only seeing what they prefer to see) - due to cognitive-defects / perceptive favoritism.





> [*]Why aren't you a sensor?


There is not a "why" here - rather, why I am not a sensor is simply '_because nothing prevented me from not be intuitive_'; in the same way I received the (X)-chromosome; and not (Y) - the rest is rather arbitrary, I am not "100% certain," and do not intend to be of my type - it is possible I too, am ISTP.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

I just know intuitively that I'm an intuitive, lol!


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Paulie said:


> I just know intuitively that I'm an intuitive, lol!


Yeah, me too haha. Does make for a bit of a paradox.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Alright.

I'm an intuitive because I focus more on the connections that my mind makes between objects than the objects themselves. I might pay attention to my surroundings and I can certainly notice details in my enviroment since I'm not blind or deaf, but those "concrete" informations barely register in my mind because I'm more interested in their abstract meaning. For example, sometimes after watching a movie, I can't recall what actors were in it and if you ask me about a specific scene, I might not remember it at all, however, I can usually get and remember the movie's themes and message and how I interpreted them in my mind. It's like my mind is constantly seeking for the "essence" of things, to the point of forgetting what the actual thing is. In short, my mental world seems way more interesting to me than the real world, which I feel detached from.

I'm not a sensor because I have a very poor grasp of concrete information, I have a hard time focusing on it and remembering it. Living "in the moment" doesn't come easily to me at all as I get lost in my mind pretty often, and I miss on a lot of details in my enviroment, even the more obvious ones. I don't know if it's connected, but I have a terrible sequential memory too, it seems like I can't put events in the correct order in my mind because I wasn't paying attention to them while they were happening.

To me, the difference between Sensors and Intuitives is a rather big one since it's the one that seems more recurrent in my life. I'm surrounded by Sensors in my daily life, and they often think that my thought-process is "weird" or that I overthink things. I like to think in depth about the meaning of concepts that seem "obvious" to everyone else, like the meaning of "friendship" or "death", and how these relate to other topics, and what are the connections between them, etc., and my Sensor friends don't seem very interested in discussing things like this because it seems pointless to them. Well, it _is_ pointless, and it'll probably sound like I'm a pseudo-intellectual douche, but my mind thrives on this stuff.

I actually have a bit of a hard time imagining what goes on in a Sensor's head, since the ones that I know don't seem to understand what's going on in mine. I've asked them about this before, and they said that they mostly think about things that they have done, things that they have read/listened/watched, things that they need to do in the future, or just daydreaming about random stuff. Well, I think about those things too, I guess it's only human to do so, and just like Intuitives think about abstract stuff and make a lot of connections, Sensors must do it too, just to a lesser extent, they probably don't invest so much of their mental energy in those things because they prefer to remain more grounded in reality.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Because the trend is all there is.
Now, as I experience it, is already gone when my brain percieves it.
But even as I consider the implications of the sensory data,
the trend is unfolding.
Sometimes it surprises me through the data, but it is always there giving clues.
Hence the trend is more real than your fleeting moments.


----------



## Retrospectacles (May 11, 2017)

Why am I intuitive... Hmm... Where to start... 

First of all, I am positive that I am intuitive. I would be willing to doubt any other letter before I would believe I were not an intuitive. It is too much a part of me and how I see things. I would be at least "moderately" intuitive if there were a scale for it. 

When I initially read about the difference between intuitives and sensors, I was shocked at how my entire world clicked. It was the explanation I needed to further understand myself. Usually, I think that sensors and "borderline" intuitives have the hardest time figuring out what the difference is, but strong intuitives know without having to be told. Basically, it is a difference between my perception and other people's perceptions--not to get all special-snowflakey. I have never fit in being myself with most people. Not because of my interests or core values as one would expect, but because of my specific observations/thoughts/communication of them. So, to feel comfortable with myself around most people (Fe), over the course of about 4 years, I have adjusted my communication style completely and suppressed specific thoughts/observations around the average person. I only let myself loose (haha) around other intuitives that I trust that have gotten to know me. But the problem is that all I am describing to you is that I see a difference. That is where sensors go wrong and believe they are intuitive. Sensors believe they're intuitive often because:
1. They see themselves as being too creative.
2. They see themselves as being strange compared to their peers. 
3. They see themselves as "misunderstood" by people.
4. They see themselves as too smart to be sensing. (This is sad... Anyone can be intelligent.)
This is the problem. People often "diagnose" themselves as being intuitive because they side with the bullet points. Through studying MBTI, you will find that dichotomies/functions are much more than bullet points. Types that are most prone to this, in my opinion, are ISTJs, ISFPs, and ISTPs. ISTJs (bright ones especially) believe they're intuitive because they feel different due to their "unique" academic interests, success, and often alternate views compared to most other sensors; ISFPs because due to their often artistic interests, creativity, and unique outlook; ISTPs because they are often distinct from society, individually-minded, and complex. Basically: oddball sensors (especially introverts) often think they are intuitive because they fit into the bullet-pointed "archetype" of an intuitive rather than a sensor. But if you ask a mistyped sensor why they are intuitive, they will probably provide examples of how they fit into the archetype in a bullet-pointed way. True intuitives will describe a difference in communication, perception, and outlook. If they are INs especially, they will probably describe a time when they were surrounded by sensors and felt they could not contribute in any way because they could not in any way relate, and so they became the reserved, quiet, "weird" kid in a situation. Personally, I feel that I can fit in with a lot of sensors at this point, but I still find that when I am with xSFPs, I am no longer able to use any of my "social adaptations" and must drop them to become a weird, awkward mute. It's odd and frustrating. 

Honestly, I would describe sensors as being very "in the moment". They are as human as can be. I am often jealous of sensors because they often know how to "live life" perfectly, complete goals and tasks with great success, and often appear to me like something out of a movie. I think, and I'm trying not to be overly biased here, that intuitives have a way of not... being there completely. They don't fit into life the way other people do. Not to say they are necessarily weird or awkward, but they have trouble taking what they're given and running with it. They get stuck, think too much about who they are and what life is, and deeply question how they're meant to mesh with life. Intuitives have this awkward and uncomfortable way of looking past life. Unlike Si sensors, they find that they can't accept conventionality and tradition, and unlike Se sensors, they can't find happiness in pleasure (as counterintuitive as that sounds). Usually, they feel like they have to find happiness for themselves as an individual as the "usual" doesn't cut it, and have a long, drawn-out journey to discover what they really want for themselves, how to make the world fit for them. However, a side-note: I think an ENFJ could get through their whole life without knowing they were "different", oddly enough, because they fit in with and become "one" with sensing types very easily. But any other type, INs especially, will probably feel the difference hard.

TL;DR: Sensors often don't know the abstract difference between intuition/sensing but rather the archetypal difference, and this is where they get mistyped. Intuitives almost always know due to their faraway outlook on life, odd observations, and difficult time feeling themselves in a group of sensors. But they don't usually have to think about it--they've always known it, or at least by the time they were teenagers.

That's my very biased attempt at explaining how I know I'm an intuitive. Hopefully it helped, somehow.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

charlie.elliot said:


> Yeah, me too haha. Does make for a bit of a paradox.


I suppose it does present that way, but that's not necessarily a problem.....for us, at least. Anyhow, paradoxes seem to abound, especially if you've got a keen eye for them. They're like wrinkles in the universe that make life just a wee bit more interesting, no?


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

A real intuitive doesn't need to defend, much less glorify that they are intuitive (That's usually insecure sensors who will do that). That's why I always roll my eyes when I see comments such as _''As far as I remember I could always guess people's motives and thoughts''_ or _''I've always known I was different, because society doesn't understand the way I see things''_ Intuitive or not, that's just people with piss poor self-esteem trying to raise themselves up by pretending their brains are special. 

Intuition (just ike sensing) in an unconscious processing of perceiving information. Neither is better than the other as they both come with their pros and cons. And once you have read up on them and decided which one you are, at best your reaction should be _''Well, yeah....''_. If there's any shade of _''I'm kinda smarter/deeper than the average person, that's why I'm 100% sure I'm intuitive''_ then by all means stay away from functions theory/MBTI until you pull your head out of your ass. 

I made my ENTP and ENFP friend take an MBTI test and both scored as I expected. When they asked me what N meant, they were initially reluctant _''Nah, I'm a realist''_ but then I told them it's merely looking for abstract variations of things, they immediately agreed. No smugness or anything, it was a neutral response from them. When they asked me what was the difference between them and me, scoring as an S, I simply told them that I don't have their capacity to see multi-interpretations the same way they do, but that I'm usually much more reliable and practical in every day matters.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Stevester said:


> A real intuitive doesn't need to defend, much less glorify that they are intuitive (That's usually insecure sensors who will do that). That's why I always roll my eyes when I see comments such as _''As far as I remember I could always guess people's motives and thoughts''_ or _''I've always known I was different, because society doesn't understand the way I see things''_ Intuitive or not, that's just people with piss poor self-esteem trying to raise themselves up by pretending their brains are special.


Yeah, some people will do this (both real Intuitives and Sensor who want to be Intuitives). But sometimes what you say is just _true_ and we're just trying to describe what life is like. Don't assume that just because an Intuitive says those things, about being different and misunderstood and so forth, they're just trying to be special. Sometimes it's really _true_, and it's just how it is. It's frustrating when you genuinely describe what life is like for you, without any kind of pretense or agenda, and someone comes along and says "you're just trying to be special!" 
Now, I don't disagree with you that _some_ people do this. Some are Sensors who want to be Intuitives and some are Intuitives who are just really proud of being Intuitive. But don't make the cynical assumption and think that everyone who does this is just trying to be special. I _can_ often guess peoples' motivations and thoughts. I _do_ often feel misunderstood and different. It's just a fact. And even if I sometimes use it to feel special, so what? Everyone has something they like about themselves, something they use to feel special sometimes. Doesn't mean it's untrue. 



> Intuition (just ike sensing) in an *unconscious processing of perceiving information*. Neither is better than the other as they both come with their pros and cons. And once you have read up on them and decided which one you are, at best your reaction should be _''Well, yeah....''_. If there's any shade of _''I'm kinda smarter/deeper than the average person, that's why I'm 100% sure I'm intuitive''_ then by all means stay away from functions theory/MBTI until you pull your head out of your ass.


Yeah, agreed, 100%. I think often people don't realize how complex and unconscious Sensing can be. It's not just seeing things and hearing things... the brain regions responsible for sensing are incredibly complex. It's a really amazing skill. There is absolutely no reason to think Sensing is inferior to Intuition. If you do, you should really investigate your own sensing and your own talents that are based on it.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I've read the thread and will address the posts I think need addressing at a later date.

For now I'd like to say that I resonate with loads of Ni and Ne descriptors and some of the shit you people are spewing.
I am also a sensor.

Some of it is absolute complete and utter horseshit - and I feel like there needs to be some study on the correlation between "intuitives" and people who lose focus on things that don't interest them.

Because I know damn well, that if something piqued your interest, you guys would remember the 'concrete details' and definitely be in the moment, zoned IN and focusing.
I feel like people somehow link getting easily bored with things that aren't interesting, to being an intuitive.
Somehow linking being a social outcast to being "intuitive".


It is my opinion that saying people are sensors purely because they live "in the moment" is an absolute cop-out, and doesn't match Ne. Read any ENTP descriptor. These are people who are very much "in the moment" - they are on the ball and seek to put themselves up against other peoples arguments or statements etc - these are trolls - the people who disagree with everything even when they know they're on the wrong side, they can't help it.

This happens because they are IN the moment. They are active. Present.

It has sweet fuck all to do with being in your own head, or being a social outcast.
It has sweet fuck all to do with not feeling like you're like other people.


I also feel like I could directly link what other people spew about being in touch with peoples emotions, picking up on vibes, knowing what people are thinking or about to say, coming to instant conclusions etc, the whole lot, foreseeing possible implications.. etc.. all of that typical "N" shit to Se or Si. 


Feeling out of place doesn't = intuitive of any kind.


Anyway. Looking forward to addressing more later.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Mr.Tambourine Man said:


> I personally think intuition has a lot to do with imagination (or "ideas" as Jung puts it). To me the problem lies more in the fact that some people who type as intuitives seem to want to think that they possess some intangible thing no one else does (and certain sources enable them). It makes you wonder whether they're identifying with intuition for the right reason. I _think_ that's kind of what Turi is trying to get at (at least partly).
> 
> Somehow, even though everybody thinks and feels and senses, intuition is presumed to be this magical ability that only part of the human population has been gifted with.
> 
> ...


Ideas, yes. Imagination, no. The problem is you cannot assign imagination to intuition without first tailoring imagination to fit intuition. Imagination _in the realm of interpretation/perspective_. As an example, look at the lyrics to Jungleland by Bruce Springsteen (an overt ISFP).


* *




The Rangers had a homecoming 
In Harlem late last night 
And the Magic Rat drove his sleek machine 
Over the Jersey state line 
Barefoot girl sitting on the hood of a Dodge 
Drinking warm beer in the soft summer rain 
The Rat pulls into town rolls up his pants 
Together they take a stab at romance 
And disappear down Flamingo Lane 

Well the Maximum Lawmen run down Flamingo 
Chasing the Rat and the barefoot girl 
And the kids round here look just like shadows 
Always quiet, holding hands 
From the churches to the jails 
Tonight all is silence in the world 
As we take our stand 
Down in Jungleland 

The midnight gang's assembled 
And picked a rendezvous for the night 
They'll meet 'neath that giant Exxon sign 
That brings this fair city light 
Man there's an opera out on the Turnpike 
There's a ballet being fought out in the alley 
Until the local cops 
Cherry Tops 

Rips this holy night 
The street's alive 
As secret debts are paid 
Contacts made, they vanish unseen 
Kids flash guitars just like switch-blades 
Hustling for the record machine 
The hungry and the hunted 
Explode into rock'n'roll bands 
That face off against each other out in the street 
Down in Jungleland 

In the parking lot the visionaries 
Dress in the latest rage 
Inside the backstreet girls are dancing 
To the records that the DJ plays 
Lonely-hearted lovers 
Struggle in dark corners 
Desperate as the night moves on 
Just one look 
And a whisper, and they're gone 

Beneath the city two hearts beat 
Soul engines running through a night so tender 
In a bedroom locked 
In whispers of soft refusal 
And then surrender 
In the tunnels uptown 
The Rat's own dream guns him down 
As shots echo down them hallways in the night 
No one watches when the ambulance pulls away 
Or as the girl shuts out the bedroom light 
Outside the street's on fire 
In a real death waltz 
Between what's flesh and what's fantasy 
And the poets down here 
Don't write nothing at all 
They just stand back and let it all be 
And in the quick of the night 
They reach for their moment 
And try to make an honest stand 
But they wind up wounded 
Not even dead 
Tonight in Jungleland




You can see Se and Ni working in tandem with one another, but let's attempt to differentiate. The portraits Bruce draws are Se -- immersion into a reality-based world. However, he is using this world as a set for his own personal take on working class life. This take is Ni. Which part requires imagination? They both do! Hence why I don't think the concept of "imagination" can be assigned to N to the exclusion of S without serious tailoring.

I get what you mean by needing imagination as an energy source for conjuring perspectives, but because it can't be _excluded_ from S, I don't find it a particularly meaningful distinction. Otherwise imaginative sensors will identify as intuitive, which is largely what's happening now.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Off topic but *triggered*.



PenelopeS said:


> And once again: I'm new to these functions, so you might be right in that I'm not actually describing intuition. BUT I have one practical example of Ni, which is my friends dominant function: She says that at work during meetings, when they are going to come up with a new rule or thing, *she's always ahead of the S-types.* They will start discussing the basic practical ways they could handle a certain situation, and my friend (she prefers INFJ) has already come up with ideas during the introduction of the problem. She's seeing the bigger picture from the start. *Her S-type collegues prefer to "start from the ground" with the practical detailes and work towards a solution from there. And my friend is always starting with the big picture and later focuses on the practical.*


:angry:

Wow. Wow. Wow. I hate when people misuse the term "big picture". It's nothing to gloat about. 

She is _not_ ahead of them unless she has come up with the big picture and all its practicalities before they have. She is seriously up herself if she thinks she is always ahead of "S-types" when it comes to coming up with a new rule or thing.


----------



## PenelopeS (Jul 14, 2017)

Candy Apple said:


> Off topic but *triggered*.
> 
> :angry:
> 
> ...


Ha ha ha! I agree with you, she's not ahead of them but that's the way she sees it - because it takes them time to get to the point where she's already at! 

But of course it takes HER time to get to the practical stuff, where they started, so no one is actually ahead of anyone.

She's a bit full of herself, that's what I find most annoying about her, but she's a lovely person anyway :wink:


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

star tripper said:


> I get what you mean by needing imagination as an energy source for conjuring perspectives, but because it can't be _excluded_ from S, I don't find it a particularly meaningful distinction.


Case and point.

Herein lies the problem. Why do you need to _exclude_ S? You could just as easily argue that N types are capable of S-type behavior and therefore can't be N types. But nobody does because there's this misplaced "haves and have-nots" thing going on with intuition! What I would say to respond to your argument is that S-types too are very well capable of generating perspectives the same way N types do. I would also point out that what you're calling perspective here is a very elaborate mental model which has been imagined by the writer over time, not a perspective meaning a point of view, because everyone has a different point of view as well.

If you prefer the word perspective that's fine, I can actually get behind that, but what you're calling perspective is not all that different from imagination in my view and yes, everybody has both.

I actually agree with the rest of your post entirely!


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

This is a very good thread idea!

Why am I an intuitive? 

Because I'm caught up in imagination, theories and what could be to a much greater extent than what the mean of the population is. I have a strong tendency to generalize present occurrences into broad perspectives to the point where some people think I’m hardly talking about the subject any more. 
Many others are less imaginative, trust their experience more than theories, are much less intellectually curious and like to stay with what they're used to. I have it in me to find others insipid for having only 2-3 interests - often of which every detail is repeated every time I see them. 

It's important to note that (at least when talking MBTI) that being an N type has very little (at least directly) to do with what is colloquially connoted with intuition. I know the theory says Ns “prefer to gather information through intuition”, but that has little to do with the S/N question items and may or may not be meaningful in a neurological or phenomenological sense. I even have an inkling that researchers would be severely challenged if trying to find any sort of measure with which the two types would differ in terms of "ratio" between intuition and sensing - even with more knowledge and better equipment than what is available now. It’s one of those places where the MBTI deserves to be poked at by more rigorous thinkers. The intuition items are things like “thinking of possibilities”, “interested in new things”, “trust theories over experience”, and “starts with the big picture”. Why intuition is the best hat or cause of all these is beyond me. Abstract, conceptual, theoretical or intellectually curious would have been more meaningful and certainly less confusing.
You may notice that sensing and intuition aren’t opposites and don’t negate each other. Within MBT theory it is the preference that matters. This does lead to a lot of confusion and in my opinion is an impractical definition, but it is what we have to deal with nonetheless. 

How do I know I have a preference for intuition over sensing? I’m not even sure sometimes. If it comes down to the question “do you mostly perceive the world through sensing or intuition?” I’m completely lost and don’t even understand the question. If you give me an ordinary MB-like test, I would very comfortably score as an intuitive, and that has been consistently true when I’ve taken such tests – more so than any other letter. 

I am not of the belief that sensors are great at sports, memory and being practical while intuitives do poorly in these categories. I even fear it may in reality be the contrary. Personally I love playing sports, I exercise every day, do mindfulness (where a great deal of it is about just paying attention to the body), and kayaking and walking in the woods and mountains are among the best activities I know. My memory is probably above average, and while it would be a stretch to call me practical, calling me impractical would be even more misleading. 
Sensing as an MB concept seems to be more about being concerned with present, local and concrete things as opposed to what is abstract, general and in the future. Of course I am concerned with both, but if making a comparison with other people, I would fall more toward the “abstract” part.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Mr.Tambourine Man said:


> Case and point.
> 
> Herein lies the problem. Why do you need to _exclude_ S?


Because it isn't a good definition if it doesn't. The OP is literally asking for DIFFERENTIATION.



> You could just as easily argue that N types are capable of S-type behavior and therefore can't be N types.


I'm arguing about cognition not behavior. Couldn't give two shits about behavior.



> But nobody does because there's this misplaced "haves and have-nots" thing going on with intuition! What I would say to respond to your argument is that S-types too are very well capable of generating perspectives the same way N types do. I would also point out that what you're calling perspective here is a very elaborate mental model which has been imagined by the writer over time, not a perspective meaning a point of view, because everyone has a different point of view as well.


I get what you're trying to say but you didn't actually understand my post.

I'm not arguing that sensors have imagination. I am arguing that "S" itself also requires a particular imagination -- not the same imagination as "N" itself. Look at the song I posted again. The first few verses are ALL Se-style imagination. My ENFP friend is a published author and that one song is packed with more imagery than all of her books combined. She admits she isn't imaginative when it comes to that. I'm not either. I could never write the way Bruce Springsteen writes. It's why I regard him as a songwriting genius.

There's Ni in the song too and it actually ties the whole song together (the line "Outside the street's on fire" on). That's why I said they end up working in tandem. However we can still isolate the variables (this part is more Se, this part Ni) and see the Se parts require a specific type of imagination.



> If you prefer the word perspective that's fine, I can actually get behind that, but what you're calling perspective is not all that different from imagination in my view and yes, everybody has both.


Perspective differs from imagination in connotation and function. The two can overlap but they're not the same thing.

You can attribute perspective to the N function in a person's stacking. You can't attribute imagination to the N function in a person's stacking because S also has its own brand of imagination.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

@star tripper:
Hmm you've definitely given me something to think about, but I'm not totally convinced. 

I would argue that the generation of the imagery is heavily tied to both Se and Ni throughout the process and you can't separate out the images themselves from the underlying pattern/perspective and attribute them to separate functions. I see no objective reason to do that.

I write songs that often contain vivid Se-style imagery, but I wouldn't say that it's my Se generating them. I's rather argue that my Ni is using imagery fed to it over time by Se that it's gathered, stored, and associated with certain feelings and concepts. Then after this process of image generation Se might step in again to have a final veto on whether the imagery is potent or not.

Still, I'm definitely considering your perspective and I'm gonna let my Ni mull it over


----------



## umop 3pisdn (Apr 4, 2014)

No, and as a Ni dom I don't even really want to tbqh 

We have a thread like this pretty much every other week btw.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Mr.Tambourine Man said:


> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<b><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=64315" target="_blank">star tripper</a></b>
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->:
> Hmm you've definitely given me something to think about, but I'm not totally convinced.
> ...


Allow me to give you still more to mull over. Se is about creating experience while Ni tends to use bits of experience as a vehicle for a greater message. Ni isn't as concerned about creating an immersion experience as long as its main idea is communicated.

Se:





Ni:





I'm not arguing functions work in isolation, but Se definitely has a particular brand of imagination, one focused on immersion more so than ideal communication.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@star tripper thanks for your contributions, easy to follow along with.

I mostly just wanted to say BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN #1 and "Jungleland" is a masterpiece, maybe the greatest song of all time, from perhaps the greatest album of all time - Thunder Road, Tenth Ave. Freeze Out, Night, Backstreets, Born To Run, She's The One, Meeting Across The River, Jungleland.. this is genius level stuff.

On the same album. WTF. It's pure, raw, subtle and sweet in its beauty. 

I'm so tempted to turn this thread into a Bruce Springsteen thread but I'll try my best to hold it back.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Turi said:


> @star tripper thanks for your contributions, easy to follow along with.
> 
> I mostly just wanted to say BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN #1 and "Jungleland" is a masterpiece, maybe the greatest song of all time, from perhaps the greatest album of all time - Thunder Road, Tenth Ave. Freeze Out, Night, Backstreets, Born To Run, She's The One, Meeting Across The River, Jungleland.. this is genius level stuff.
> 
> ...


FUCK YEAH. Born to Run is my favorite Bruce Springsteen album (top 3 album overall... sometimes #1). I actually had to consider posting Jungleland or Backstreets. Went with Jungleland because it's so vivid not to mention the absolutely killer last verse (and Clarence's legendary sax solo).

Anything from Nebraska would've been fair game too. Bruce is a goddamn master at crafting immersive experiences that leave you feeling hollow. Atlantic City, Lost in the Flood, The River, Point Blank, It's Hard to Be a Saint in the City, Incident on 57th St, Prove It All Night, Racing in the Street...

Please turn this into a Bruce Springsteen thread.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

star tripper said:


> FUCK YEAH. Born to Run is my favorite Bruce Springsteen album (top 3 album overall... sometimes #1). I actually had to consider posting Jungleland or Backstreets. Went with Jungleland because it's so vivid not to mention the absolutely killer last verse (and Clarence's legendary sax solo).
> 
> Anything from Nebraska would've been fair game too. Bruce is a goddamn master at crafting immersive experiences that leave you feeling hollow. Atlantic City, Lost in the Flood, The River, Point Blank, It's Hard to Be a Saint in the City, Incident on 57th St, Prove It All Night, Racing in the Street...
> 
> Please turn this into a Bruce Springsteen thread.


That sax solo is ridiculous. It reaches into your soul and tears you apart. Love it.
Born To Run is also my fav Bruce album but tbh I love 'em all.. even the ones I wasn't keen on initially, like Ghost of Tom Joad and Devils and Dust, I warmed up to and came to love.

IMO, his run from _Greetings_.. all the way to _Tunnel of Love_ is flawless. 
There's not a single song I don't love on any of those albums. That's freaking.. 8 albums of perfection to me.
That isn't even including his live stuff from in amongst those years, which is all amazing and _obviously_, the best live music of all time.

That's the thing about Bruce, his writing style is so real and vivid, I can actually imagine myself being in the songs, I can picture myself tasting the rain in Jungleland, I can feel the wet streets, I could go on and on.
His music is just, I mean, it's the best. It doesn't get any better than Bruce IMO.

Also, he's my #1 guitar hero - loads of guitarists I know are like WTF when I say that, but I mean, he fuckin' rips.
His guitar playing is raw, it completely lacks any kind of finesse which is why I love it, you can feel it's all from the heart.
He's like the most gutsy guitarist out. It's just all balls. Not wannabe balls, but actual balls.
Powerful. Not in the "way too loud and too much distortion" powerful, but like.. powerful as in moving/raw and real.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Velett said:


> Yes.


Just keep in mind that that logic has nothing to do with your Ni. That comes straight from Fe.


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

Turi said:


> That sax solo is ridiculous. It reaches into your soul and tears you apart. Love it.
> Born To Run is also my fav Bruce album but tbh I love 'em all.. even the ones I wasn't keen on initially, like Ghost of Tom Joad and Devils and Dust, I warmed up to and came to love.
> 
> IMO, his run from _Greetings_.. all the way to _Tunnel of Love_ is flawless.
> ...


I'm with you on loving those first 8 albums... well, all his albums but particularly those + The Rising and Magic. Definitely my most played by him not to mention his B-sides. It's outrageous how even his unreleased stuff is stellar.

Bruce songs literally place you center stage in this world he builds, sitting on cars, kicking your bare feet while crushing stolen beer cans. Not only does he have this uncanny ability of casting you in a tragic or melancholy role (Downbound Train, Long Walk Home), but he can also cast you in a spiritually uplifting one (My City of Ruins). He just has this incredibly unique craftsmanship, the kind that gets up inside you, eviscerates you.

Bruce is one of my favorite guitarists too. I can pick his guitar out from anywhere. Raw is a good word for it. There's this distorted, anguished wail to it that twists up in you.

Clarence will always be my favorite saxophonist, and I'm actually a jazz fan. He had me from the first note of Spirit in the Night (another stunning example of Bruce's ability to drop you into his world). Christ. I wish I had gotten to see Clarence before he passed. :/


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

star tripper said:


> I'm with you on loving those first 8 albums... well, all his albums but particularly those + The Rising and Magic. Definitely my most played by him not to mention his B-sides. It's outrageous how even his unreleased stuff is stellar.
> 
> Bruce songs literally place you center stage in this world he builds, sitting on cars, kicking your bare feet while crushing stolen beer cans. Not only does he have this uncanny ability of casting you in a tragic or melancholy role (Downbound Train, Long Walk Home), but he can also cast you in a spiritually uplifting one (My City of Ruins). He just has this incredibly unique craftsmanship, the kind that gets up inside you, eviscerates you.
> 
> ...


Fuck it's good to hear someone else say this stuff haha

No one in my "real life" is as into him as me.
They dig the hits but bout it.

I'm like you're gonna NEED to hear the live version of "Because the Night" etc etc with like all of his discography.
Also is it just me or does the guitar in Adam Raised a Cain have some serious groove to it.

Dude owns.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

@Turi. I pondered this question for the longest as well, but I think I'm on to something. I totally agree with you everybody can "day dream, go into their own world, etc" and *prefer* it too. However, that doesn't make them an N. I think the key difference here is S users *naturally* process information using *experience first*. A lot of times, if an S user is asked to understand someone else's experience that is not their own (ie they never dealt with it before), it's not AS EASY for them to understand as it would be an N. They can still do it within time, but it's not a mental *preference*.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

I want to give everyone food for thought. Please consider not relying on stereotypes of each MBTI type to explain why we are the type that we are. Many times, they're not true...everybody can relate to some stuff...and not relate to other stuff...both in and outside of their types. The focus should be on your mind's natural preference of storing/processing information/reacting to your environment. S types can be in their inner world, N types can also be very grounded. Those aren't direct causation of why you're an N or S. Of course, I do believe some of you already know all this.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

@star tripper:
Eh, agree to disagree bud...
You say you're only "interested in cognition", but I fail to see how "creating experiences" constitutes its own separable form of cognition. I can certainly see how your definitions can be more useful than mine in practice though.

I look at the Jungleland and I see Ni generating a profound story from an arsenal of S-heavy interests and imagery. You see Se generating its own imagery altogether. It's gonna be nearly impossible to come to a conclusive answer.

(I also love and grew-up on Springsteen though! )


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

thoughtcatalog said:


> @Turi. I pondered this question for the longest as well, but I think I'm on to something. I totally agree with you everybody can "day dream, go into their own world, etc" and *prefer* it too. However, that doesn't make them an N. I think the key difference here is S users *naturally* process information using *experience first*. A lot of times, if an S user is asked to understand someone else's experience that is not their own (ie they never dealt with it before), it's not AS EASY for them to understand as it would be an N. They can still do it within time, but it's not a mental *preference*.


That's probably why Ns tend to play the devil's advocate even when they don't mean to.
I'm known as the person that will listen to someone vent and be like: So, X did N and now you're pissed, okay. Have you even considered that X probably did N because Y and Z?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

vhaydenlv said:


> That's probably why Ns tend to play the devil's advocate even when they don't mean to.
> I'm known as the person that will listen to someone vent and be like: So, X did N and now you're pissed, okay. Have you even considered that X probably did N because Y and Z?


Feels more like a T v F thing but not really a great example.

In those situations, which I've been in numerous times, I aim to solve the actual problem because all the smaller details (i.e.. emotions, haha) will fall into place once the actual issue is resolved.
I previously thought this was Ni looking ahead and connecting the dots, but it's not, it's my Ti problem-solving looking to fix the problem.

My wife is an ESFJ and she is more wanting to talk about it, let the other person vent, provide emotional support, maybe go out with her friend, you know, general sort of 'friend' stuff.

I'm more like well, you think he's been cheating on you because he doesn't take you out - mate, he's got no money - he needs a better job. All comes down to money. He's acting shady because he can't do what he wants to do, because, no money.

She's more emotional support, I'm more fix the problem. Eh. Just seems more T/F than S/N.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I haven't read everything in the thread, but isn't the problem rather that what intuitives talk about as being intuition actually has quite little to do with intuition (or at least is a strange upper category of what they tell)?
> Even when actual intuitions are mentioned, it seems like such an everyday and ubiquitous occurrence because a big part of our thoughts are intuitions, whether you're a sensor or intuitive. It would be like if I stated I were a sensor by saying I saw the colors of some leaves once. Hopefully that explanation would sound unsatisfactory.


Bang on.


----------



## Taciterse (Mar 31, 2017)

Everyone exhibits behaviors and functions of N, just as they do for S, T, F, and so on. Ultimately, a type is about preference. Which do you relatively prefer over the other. A heavy N-leaning individual will experience an enduring disconnect with the physical world and focus on intangible concepts than a heavy S-type. A heavy S-leaning individual will be highly in-tune with the natural world, and will pay less focus to imagined things than a heavy N-type. Both types can enjoy fantasy, for example, but typically a heavy-S will appreciate it by recognizing how it corresponds to actual experiences they (or others) can or have felt. A heavy-N will typically appreciate fantasy because of how it supports other conceptual frameworks. Everyone uses both. The dichotomy only addresses which you prefer _relative to others_.

Now, you may find that that's not a tight enough definition for you (your Ti, as you put it). But there is no perfect language to describe any of the functions. There's no single thing you can say that separates an F preference from a T preference, either. But for some reason, the one people like to interrogate most is S vs N. I think a lot of that has to do with the ridiculous stigma put on that dichotomy and how N is oft described with adjectives that people view as special or unique whereas S is described with adjectives people view as typical or mundane. And that is a problem, but it's not the problem you're addressing here.

Type isn't binary. It's perfectly plausible that as a self-identified S-type you use many of the functions, behaviors and preferences frequently associated with Ns. The MBTI is about preference, not aptitude. You could hypothetically use an N-function better than an N-dom type even as an S. Just because someone is an INxJ doesn't mean they will naturally be better and considering possibilities than an ISxJ, nor does it mean they will be inherently more respectful of theory than an ISxJ.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

@UnicornRainbowLove :
Ok. Yes. I get that this is what is happening. But what I'm trying to say is that for me personally (as an Ni-dom) it seems like giving an account that a sensor can't relate to will be very hard, partly _because_ I'm not a sensor. To me it makes a lot more sense to approach this problem conceptually, because it's very hard to share an _experience_ that is largely internal. Since Se and Si rely on experiences it only makes sense that you would find the things we're sharing relatable, because that's what you're working off of to begin with. It's a circular logic. I feel like I and others have done a pretty good job of exposing different thought processes here. In some cases I laid out my take on Se-dom type thinking (which i obviously don't relate to) and haven't seen it rebutted, which leads me to believe the S users in the chat might well have related to both!

Basically what I'm getting at is that intuitives are sharing experiences constructed of abstract memories or concepts which leaves room for the Ss to translate them into things they've experienced themselves and say "nah, not convincing". If I could give you a detailed S-style description of what I mean when I say I get caught up in my imagination I would, but the fact of the matter is that I can't, when I try it comes out vague enough to be easily relatable to most people. But I know from conversations with people I know and from contrasting relatable with non-relatable posts about Ni that I think in a way that is markedly different from any of the other functions: @Turi: I've read many descriptions of Ni that I find relatable, but the descriptions of Ni on the blog you shared are not. I wish that I could, in a similar way, share a description of Ni that you don't relate to, but evidently I can't.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

What makes you an intuitive?
"Intuitives" are just people who use their intuitive form of perception a bit more than just sensing. I tend to seek patterns and deeper meaning when I'm looking at reality. Sometimes, I'll see that there is no apparent pattern or hidden meaning in something and I'll get bored with that and move onto thinking about something wherein I can find such. 




Why aren't you a sensor?
Everyone is a "sensor" sometimes. Intuition doesn't live in a vacuum. My mind isn't made up of random ideas or just "a ha" moments. When I come to new realizations and conclusions about something, it's based on information that I took in via the senses. Sometimes I don't realize the things I saw and heard until after I saw and heard them. But "sensors" also use intuition, and will use it to draw conclusions about information, and determining what information, in the present is relevant for decisions and such.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Mr.Tambourine Man 



> But what I'm trying to say is that for me personally (as an Ni-dom) it seems like giving an account that a sensor can't relate to will be very hard, partly because I'm not a sensor. To me it makes a lot more sense to approach this problem conceptually, because it's very hard to share an experience that is largely internal


What's the problem though?

We're all speaking the same language.


See, I think I could explains my Se in a way that would make dominant and auxiliary intuitives be like oh.. that's definitely not me.


Why can't intuitives do it to me?


There has to be more to it. 
As a sensor, I should read things from dominant and auxiliary intuitives and not be able to immediately relate it to regular occurrences in every day life.


So far that hasn't happened.


Perhaps my issue is my Se-Ni might be pretty close together meaning I have a solid understanding and can relate to both really well.

But that doesn't cover how much I relate to "Ne" and can provide examples of in every day life.


I just feel like there should be things I can't link to me walking up the street, haha.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

Haha ok ready? I'm going to try to give it another go:

I've been thinking about mbti for days on end now, to the point where I _literally_ see the concepts (function abreviations, functional stacks, my different personal visualizations of all the functions, imagined interactions between different people whose types I know...) mixing and matching. These visualizations are _literally happening while I am actively trying to forget about them and focus on other things in the real world._ They practically block my field of vision, as if I was wearing a pair of those computer glasses you see in sci-fi movies and cartoons. This is a semi-regular occurrence for me and when it lasts long enough I start to wonder if I'm going crazy (especially if the subject of my fixation is something more troubling than mbti theory).

Maybe it'll help if I try to illustrate the visualizations I'm talking about in more detail: for example I'll be contemplating the ENFP functional stack by imagining a conversation at a cafe with my dad. I'll first think about some things he might say (from experience) and then try to put myself in his shoes and imagine the state of mind that would lead me to make similar statements. Often this sort of visualization is very colorful and abstract at first and then narrows down to something more concrete. Like in this case I eventually found myself in a state of mind where I was genuinely curious about the goings-on in the cafe and just having fun imagining what different designs the espresso machine could have had. Now that I feel like I have a good handle on Ne I'll try looking at another function, or maybe I'll try to imagine what implications that sort of Ne-based attitude would bring about in my use of the other functions in the stack. The whole visualization I described might take about 5 minutes.

Note: this is slightly more elaborate a visualization than the reality, but it was the closest I felt I could get to portraying it accurately. Also keep in mind that all the while I am washing dishes or doing laundry (slowly and clumsily no doubt) and trying to just move my focus on to something practical, but I can't bring myself to until this thought process has run its course.

I really hope you don't think I'm making this up or exaggerating anything. I've laid this experience out as clearly and honestly as I can. The truth is, I'm guessing Se users probably experience something similar but it only ever lasts for a short period (maybe a minute, that's what it's like for me when I'm not super invested in an idea). 

If you can relate to this experience then I'll be damned! Maybe I'm an ISTP too then! ;p

EDIT: One more note: I have no doubt that anyone reading this will be able to imagine the scenario I have described. But I highly doubt that any person without dominant Ni would come up with something this contrived not only without effort, but in spite of a genuine desire to drop the fantasy game and move the day along.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Mr.Tambourine Man - yes similar thoughts enter my head, only when I basically let them - when I'm doing boring things slowly (i.e washing the dishes or doing the laundry, like yourself) or if I just close my eyes and just let it happen.
In every day life, no, I don't let it. I'm conscious of that sort of behaviour in my head as well.
Also in every day life, I speed through mundane chores to get them out the way about 80% of the time.
Very rarely will I intentionally take my time - if I do, it will just be because I'm wasting time when I have other things to do, or things I'm looking to avoid - like putting off studying for my law degree..



Anyway, since you gave it a go - I'll provide an example or two of what I believe to be Se.
I don't think it's my dominant function, but I'm relatively sure that what I say won't resonate with 'intuitives'.


A couple of days ago, I walked up to the shops to get some milk - no biggie. I decided to actively try to engage with the 'real world' because tbh I've been in my own head way too much lately - see if I really am an "Se" user of sorts.

What happened was incredible (to me) and I've been tapping into this more and more over the last couple of days.

I was able to hone in the sounds of cars in the distance - not just cars, but I could tell how many cars were coming up the street, and what kind of cars they were - a 4WD and 3 'other cars' (all three wound up being sedans - I could probably work on this and get more accurate if I wanted to). I couldn't see up one street where I know the 4WD and 2 other cars were coming - they passed by at an intersection and I was like O_O because I was accurate.

At the same time I honed in on those sounds - I could also hear the other car off in the background, behind me, and in my head - I envisioned a comic-book style tornado of sorts. Really vivid and I know it was because I could hear multiple cars driving up the road at different locations, so in my head it was like.. multi-directional noises - just made me think of a cyclone being created by wind travelling around in a circle.

Super weird, super cool - and at the time, I was about 90% immersed in the actual 'real world' - there was mind-chatter in my head, but most of it was relevant to what was happening - it wasn't random musings etc - it was like "4wd.. 2 other cars.. 1 car pretty far behind me.." as well as a smaller part which was focused on what I was physically seeing - big, blue, beautiful sky, not a cloud in sight - brought to mind a thought that I wish we could get some more rain soon because the farmers need it.. other things were in my head too, I was taking in other information as well - but it all seemed pretty relevant to what I was actually taking in.

Wasn't random thoughts for once. Which felt amazing.



Another example, this one maybe a little weird - I was in line at K-mart yesterday, and zoned in wayyyy too far on some conversation a couple of women were having a few people behind me (btw I never even looked behind me, I could just tell because of distance, like anyone else - but I also could just 'feel' that there was a couple of people between me and the voices) - I zoned so far in on the conversation, that their voices actually felt louder to me than anything else that was going on - the shop was busy, cashier was chatting away to someone etc, but I managed to hone in on this conversation, to the point where I could picture their mouths speaking - to the point that I could tell from how one of them was speaking that she had a large gap in her front teeth and was quite overweight.



What function would that be attributed to? I can only imagine it would be Se.
I was accurate too. The women did have a big gap in her teeth, and she was overweight - how the hell could I tell she was overweight?

I can't actually explain this very well, my best guess is that perhaps subconsciously, I could pick up on like the size of her diaphram or something. Sounds fucked up, I know. But eh, what can I say.



I've been getting into whatever zone that is, quite a bit lately, and it's just insane.
Feels like a whole new me. Feels healthy. Feels normal. Makes me feel alive and in-tune with my surroundings.
I feel so much better when I'm doing that, than I do when I'm stuck in my head.
Being stuck in my head makes me feel lethargic.



Another example of Se, pretty sure it'd be Se anyway - is yesterday I was out at the park with my daughter - I need to work out and get into better shape.. wanna lose like 10kg.. anyway, we were at the park and my daughter was just playing on the slide, I decided for kicks to give some of the big-kids equipment a shot, nobody was around, had the whole place to ourselves.

I was able to destroy the whole thing, easily rock-climbed up the wall (it goes about twice my height, I'm 180cm), easily maneuvered my way through all the chains and whatnot they had there. Whole thing felt natural and a complete cinch, even though I'm not in the shape I want to be in.

Had a total blast too. Again, it felt like 'me'. Real. Happy. 


It's been feeling amazing to not be stuck in my own head.


Can you relate to my examples of Se?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@Mr.Tambourine Man in response to your last quote of mine, and also addressing the issue of Intuitives describing things that don't always related to Intuition, but trying to use them to describe Intuition...

The fact that we're Intuitives influences a lot of other things about ourselves. That's why type descriptions don't start with "This person first uses Ni to..." Rather, they start with general descriptions about the person. That's because Intuition influences us to act in a variety of ways that are laid out in the type description. When we read the type description, we recognize ourselves in those behavior patterns. They might not describe in vivid precise detail exactly what Intuition actually is, but they still describe how Intuition influences you to behave. How can we possibly describe in precise detail what Intuition _actually is_? Is that even _possible_? Yeah, it's worth trying to really dissect what Ne and Ni --* and the CF descriptions already do that* -- but you're still asking for _more information_. But is it possible? It seems like the only way to explain it completely would be to swap brains for a while.

I think you all are overestimating our ability to understand how our own brains work. 

Also, when I say I "see myself" in the type descriptions, it's not just this banal list of traits that could apply to anyone like "uses imagination", "understands concepts", etc. It's actually this complex web of thoughts, feelings, and behavior, that I relate to.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

@charlie.elliot :
I hear you, but I can see why many people would find that method unreliable. Also, many of the INFJ descriptions I've seen don't really resonate, but I'm convinced that it's because they were not written from experience but based on theory alone.

@Turi :
It sounds like there are a few things going on that make the difference between your use of Ni and mine:

Whereas I naturally fall into this state of mind almost constantly (I would say it's more the norm, with my focus going to the external only occasionally when and it's required), you seem to experience it mostly when you're under-stimulated (doing menial chores, walking down a calm street...).

Next, as a general rule I value Ni a lot and I find my own imagination more stimulating and more gratifying than most things I could physically experience, whereas from your account you "don't let it" and consider it a "waste of time" so you speed through chores. I relish mundane tasks because they allow me to dedicate most of my focus to my Ni.

Lastly, this one's just a hunch, but since I spend so much time in this state of mind it seems like I've acquired a pretty good handle on it and my "intuitions" (I think the word is misleading) are guided towards an end goal and there's structure in the apparent chaos. It seems from the way you describe your Ni moments that they are kind of random and irrelevant to your usual thought process so you're inclined to brush them aside.

***

Now reading your descriptions of Se, I can understand a little better why you weren't satisfied with descriptions of Ni.

I definitely experience moments when I pay close attention to my senses and think about what I'm experiencing. These moments also have a similar feel to the ones you described, but there are some differences.

Aptitude: No way in HELL I could guess even a single type of four-wheeled vehicle from the sound alone! (I literally have trouble telling a motorcycle from a bus sometimes!) Also, have a very hard time focusing in on a single sound, the way you listened in on that conversation. When I'm driving on the high-way I'm incapable of drowning out the sound of the engine so I'm constantly asking people to speak louder.

Second, I wouldn't describe my Se experiences as feeling "normal". They take a lot of effort and focus and can't be sustained very long. But they're often worthwhile because they get me out of my own head (something I'm sure most introverts can sympathize with).

Lastly, I would actually describe these Se experiences as making me feel almost "lethargic" in the way you experience Ni. I think it's because they rip me away from my usual train of thought and I don't really know what to do with them, so I just experience them very passively until I snap back into active "Ni-mode".

In case you're interested in reading a description of my experience with inferior Se, here's the link to the new thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/1106866-wonder-blunder-best-worst-moments-inferior-s-n.html


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

inregardstomyself said:


> Now see this *this* is _ironic_ because this is exactly what an INFP on the ESFJ forum complained that the ESFJs in her life did that pissed her off about *those darn sensors*.
> She *hated* that ESFJs always try to present the other person's perspective when they are venting about how Person A did x, y, z to wrong them.
> You see how contradictory all this N vs S thing is? Which is really why the more I think about it the more I think it really doesn't exist, or at least not _objectively_, and certainly not to the extent that people make it out to be.
> 
> ...


I still can see why a Fe-Si would do that. It's all about the intent behind it.
Well, you're practically saying you think you're not a sensor, maybe you aren't?


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

Mr.Tambourine Man said:


> So after days of reading forums and articles on an off (including my participation in ths thread) I had this "aha!" moment with mbti where I suddenly felt like I had a handle on the perceptions functions. No new information had come up, and I would not have been able to tell you what exactly was the deciding factor that made it click, but suddenly my conceptualization just felt right.
> 
> I then spent the rest of the day almost exclusively thinking about all of the implications for mbti and thus for my life and for my relationships. I was on this high and it suddenly felt like all of the different aspects of mbti that I'd ever learned just clicked miraculously. I went on extrapolating from my thoughts for hours on end leaving pretty much all my other plans on the wayside.


I don't really have something to add to this, but I think this is pretty funny because I had the same moment, at 3AM. Didn't sleep all night.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Mr.Tambourine Man - the Ni stuff doesn't make me lethargic, being stuck in my head for too long does.

I speed through mundane tasks most of the time because I want them out the way so I can do shit I want to do.

I really love my Ni, or at least my understanding of it.
The more I read, the clearer it becomes that it is a part of my psyche, not to the extent of Ti or Se.

I believe it is my Ni, even in tertiary position, that gives me insights etc.

I resonate with Ni so much I thought it was my dominant function for a while (except like FUCK Fe or Te are aux).
Very good relationship with Ni.

I enjoy getting into "Ni" mode by just camping out in a dark room and letting my mind go to town sometimes too.
I also feel like these jogs I'm doing put me in Ni mode to some degree as well.


It's definitely not how I live my life.

If anything, from what I read about Ni it's almost something I think I do for fun.

I have been in my own head too much lately and have been loving getting out of it but I think that's actually just being stuck in Ti-Ni because when I feed my Se my brain feels less clogged. More on the ball.
Really seems to be helping me out.


But yeah definitely don't want you thinking Ni stuff makes me feel lethargic. It's not feeding my Se that does that, imo.

Ni for me in real life might be like..

..say I'm fixing the fridge door because it keeps fucking dropping a bit which puts too much pressure on one side - I'll just start removing the bolts etc and out of nowhere I'll just have a better solution in mind - OR it could be something I've forgot - i.e you need to take the freezer door off first.

That wasn't on my mind. I'm just taking the fridge door off and then boom - freezer door first insight. 

Sort of like it skips ahead of "real life" and solves a problem that isn't even an issue yet. But will be.

That's one way I'd explain Ni in me.


I'm also curious as to whether Ni is what sums people up and tells me if they're dodgy or not. Obviously Se perceives this but is Ni giving me an insight or is Ti putting the pieces together?

Or is it all 3? Se perceives, Ni insight, Ti piecing all the information together and telling me, in an instant, this dude is dodgyyyyyyy.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

@Turi:
All of that makes a whole lot of sense!

I was actually thinking earlier today about how my tertiary Ti seems to pop-up kind of at random too (which is a pretty wild coincidence!). It's kind of like, when I'm in a situation where I'm kind of unsure about something and I'm not satisfied with my understanding of it and it's eating at me, eventually I'll just start reasoning things out step by step in my head, but kind of randomly. Like: A->B->C... a minute later Q-> R->S... another minute F-> G-> H... And this just goes on until I start to feel comfortable with my Ni-Fe perspective again.
@vhaydenlv
Haha right? Great feeling! But also sometimes over the top and kind of frustrating.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

EDIT: removed post because I'm paranoid the person it was about is a forum member.


----------



## Pisces_infp (Jul 27, 2017)

just what feels right depending on the situation or person


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

inregardstomyself said:


> By what other posters on this very thread have said, I should be an intuitive and probably an INFJ at that.


Not _this_ poster. The thoughts you described don't seem particularly intuitive to me. 

But even if they were textbook cases of Intuition, that doesn't make you an Intuitive! It seems you still do not grasp the concept of preferences. Sensors use their Intuition and Intuitives use Sensing. The difference is that only one of the two has Intuition as a dominant or auxiliary function. Only one of the two is defaulting to Intuition as a Perceiving function over the course of a lifetime. So one or two situations in which a person is using Intuition are nowhere near enough to determine whether that person as an Intuitive.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Turi said:


> Thanks in advance to anyone who helps clear this up for me.


If you're looking for a concrete example, I can more times than not, spot sock puppet accounts sometimes in one post. It begins with knowing it's a sock and then out of nowhere, know whose sock it is and finally (the part that takes the longest), find sufficient proof for moderation. This last part takes the longest unless they're stupid socks.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Duo said:


> If you're looking for a concrete example, I can more times than not, spot sock puppet accounts sometimes in one post. It begins with knowing it's a sock and then out of nowhere, know whose sock it is and finally (the part that takes the longest), find sufficient proof for moderation. This last part takes the longest unless they're stupid socks.


What?


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Turi said:


> What?


You read it. S'truth. It's all about patterns.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@Turi

To you (and my other sensor friends) it just looks like I'm making impulsive guesses that turn out to be right more often than wrong. I have found that most non-intuitives don't trust their first impulses, whereas intuitives tend to naturally do this. Sensors always tend to want to collect more information before they act. They want more details about potential consequences as well. Intuitives tend to act and trust that whatever the consequences are, they can make adjustments on the fly.


----------



## Retrospectacles (May 11, 2017)

Turi said:


> I'll chuck this in spoilers because it goes on for a while and doesn't really contribute to the thread.
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Based off of that description, INFJ _sounds_ right, but to me it doesn't _feel_ right because you seem very Fi in the way you speak and respond to people, the way you describe yourself... Even the way you fight, funny enough. Also, the fact that a lot of people were afraid of you doesn't make you sound like a Fe-aux. You just seem to call people out very frankly and authentically. You strike me as someone who would hold their ground in an argument, and would be consistently honest and blunt in addressing an issue. 

I think Fi-types can be very considerate. That's the problem--Fi-types are seen as selfish/self-involved and Fe-types are seen as kind/considerate. I think this clouds what Fe and Fi really are a little bit. I don't think Fe/Fi comes into play with consideration and kindness. Fe vs Fi to me has to do more with the social/emotional environment. 

Fe wants to keep people comfortable/happy in their environment, so may try to be flattering/charming/gentle (and expect the same)--however, someone can be a total jerk with Fe and talk behind that same person's back to someone else, so long as the other person they're talking to feels flattered and trusted and doesn't have a negative opinion of gossiping. And Fe can feel good making a big decision that _isn't_ considerate to their family/peers so long as they're able to convince them that it's the right decision that will benefit them most. 

Fi, meanwhile, doesn't care so much about feeling good in the moment as everyone being honest with themselves and each other and all of their values, and then rolling with the punches. But a strong Fi moral/value can easily be to be kind to others and consider them in major decisions. That being said, there are a lot of "selfish" Fis that don't have kindness as a value, and "considerate" Fes that are genuine in wanting people to feel comfortable/happy always.

Anyway, none of that is to say you're absolutely not an INFJ function-wise. I don't see how you are in real life and you obviously know yourself better. After all I'm just a random stranger on the internet. But to me you don't seem like someone who softens your opinions for comfort, at least on here. So that's just something to consider, I suppose.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Retrospectacles said:


> Based off of that description, INFJ _sounds_ right, but to me it doesn't _feel_ right because you seem very Fi in the way you speak and respond to people, the way you describe yourself... Even the way you fight, funny enough. Also, the fact that a lot of people were afraid of you doesn't make you sound like a Fe-aux. You just seem to call people out very frankly and authentically. You strike me as someone who would hold their ground in an argument, and would be consistently honest and blunt in addressing an issue.
> 
> I think Fi-types can be very considerate. That's the problem--Fi-types are seen as selfish/self-involved and Fe-types are seen as kind/considerate. I think this clouds what Fe and Fi really are a little bit. I don't think Fe/Fi comes into play with consideration and kindness. Fe vs Fi to me has to do more with the social/emotional environment.
> 
> ...


Something for you to consider, is most high school bullies are likely Fe doms.
Fe isn't about being upbeat or wanting a happy environment.

Fe to me, is a sheep function. It is a herd mentality. It is about making decisions based off your own and other peoples values and principles. It follows the leader. Of course, it can be the leader, as can anyone/type/function. I'm just trying to express how I see Fe.
It is Fe, not Se as some might imagine, that makes your generic "jock" type character beat up a little kid - because it knows it's friends will approve - it's 'what the people want' so to speak.

A more positive spin on Fe, is it is brilliant at gauging for lack of a better word - the 'feeling' or 'vibe' of a room - a real life example of this, would be playing in a band.
Fe will seek to play songs that it believes will go down great for everyone there, at that moment, it makes it's decisions based off of how it thinks other people will react.
Fi on the other hand, will be more inclined to play whatever the fuck song it wants to play, who gives a shit what other people want - Fi might think I want to play some Green Day, and then play some Green Day.
Fe might think I want to play some Green Day, then realise it's not the best choice given the general age of the room, and play something more appropriate.

My Fe is very strong and very positive.
There's no chance Fi, or Te for that matter, make up a part of my top 4 functions.
They are there, in my subconscious.

Have a read of this:
https://www.stellarmaze.com/fi-in-infjs/
I can't speak to it's accuracy nor verify the author is in any way credible, but that hits home for me.

I know nothing about socionics, but read this too:
Powerful 6th Function of Introverts + Visual Reading – Leon Tsao

BTW, I've read a fair few of your posts, and although we obviously have vastly different ways of communicating (you're way more airy-fairy, probably because you're a female), we're very alike.
I've noticed that we tend to share the same point of view from an ever so slightly different angle, and you made a post in the "write 5 things about yourself and type the person above" thread that was lifted straight out of my life and rephrased in a feminine way.

Eerily similar.

EDIT: re holding my own in an argument and being blunt/honest - yeah, who knows, I've never been in an argument.


----------



## Retrospectacles (May 11, 2017)

Turi said:


> Something for you to consider, is most high school bullies are likely Fe doms.
> Fe isn't about being upbeat or wanting a happy environment.
> 
> Fe to me, is a sheep function. It is a herd mentality. It is about making decisions based off your own and other peoples values and principles. It follows the leader. Of course, it can be the leader, as can anyone/type/function. I'm just trying to express how I see Fe.
> ...


Hmmm... I agree with you there. I was thinking about that as I was writing it, that just describing it as wanting comfort/happiness wasn't... _quite_ right. I think it manifests itself through comfort/happiness most of the time but mostly, it looks for an emotionally/socially consistent environment--consistent with their own opinions/feelings, specifically. This can work by either the individual altering themselves for consistency or altering the environment/others around them. So bullies generally want to "fit in" with their environment and convince others to agree with feeling negative about someone, also consequently taking the negative light off of themselves. Solid point. 

Another good point. Although Fi musicians are very popular--but they tend to gain a following by being accepted as an individual, and having people encourage Fi expression from them. Both feeling types make great performers for different reasons. 

I read your link and I am also of the opinion that INFJs are high in Fi. If one were to look into the socionics explanation, it would be that Fi is a 4d function for INFJs but unvalued. Honestly though, I mostly just pick up bits and pieces of socionics and see if they fit with my interpretation of the functions/how I see them in people. If I were to theorize though, it would go something like this for INFJ function use:
Ni-Fe-Ne-Fi-Ti-Se-Te-Si. So, pretty close to the original but not quite. I'm also of the opinion that people use more functions on an everyday basis than people think. Usually I only see the last two functions as "blocked off" for someone who fits their type well and is healthy.

Yes, here's the socionics part I was talking about (I usually reply as I read a post, so it may seem a little disjointed, haha...). I agree with this. I once thought my Fi was too high to be an INFJ because I have strong values etc., but I actually joined a socionics discord app once and learned that I was actually quite a textbook IEI. So socionics works perfectly to explain me--but I'm extremely hesitant to become a full-on "socionics supporter" especially as I have troubles with such practices as visual typing. Sometimes I can't remember what I've come up with and what I've read at this point. It's all a big jumble now.

Huh, yeah.. I've noticed that too. The slightly different opinion on forums thing almost everywhere I see you. That could be an enneagram difference, if you're into enneagram. That's another one I've dabbled in a good bit but am not entirely confident in. Yeahhh, airy-fairy. That's probably a good descriptor for me a lot of the time. I'm the same on the internet and irl--I'm either really serious or really nice/cheerful just about all the time. I guess that's Fe all over again, the social-chameleon-ness or whatever. Anyway, that's interesting. 

I've thought about it... I'm more open-minded about you being INFJ, definitely. I knew there was a lot of room for it because of how different people can be on the internet vs real life (Fe gets more Fi, Te gets more Ti, and Si catches itself more generally--giving a looot of ISTJs the proper chance to try to convince people they're INTJs, for those less accepting of themselves). But cultural differences. I skipped that part. Being raised as male/female does a lot to encourage specific ways of presenting yourself etc. I do think that Fe is a female cultural value and Fi is a male cultural value in a lot of ways. Anyway, yeah... Like I said, you know yourself better. I just like asking questions.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Intuition to me is like I'm never really "there" physically. I have to kind of remind myself to be, that it's healthier that way. I'm focused on some general end result and not so much how to get there (in fact I can either be impatient about the latter or hindered if I think too much about it). So like let's say I'm waiting for a train. I am probably thinking about something that's only loosely related to my surroundings, like how much pollution was created by coal burning engines and how people came up with the idea of a train. How it's evolved from where it began. Someone who knows me might be trying to get my attention, or maybe something was recently renovated and looks noticeably different, but I will be oblivious. Maybe I already missed my train or I got on the wrong one... 

So, I often don't notice small aspects of my surroundings that were obvious to others and can come off as a space cadet (though that's more if I'm tired, bored, or stressed out/overstimulated). It amazes me sometimes how people can remember so many details about another person's appearance, body language, etc. even if it's recent (what they wore, what they said, how they said it, etc). It has made me self-conscious over the years...I was less self-conscious in high school about that than I am now :tongue: I don't notice these things unless I'm in a situation that's somehow emotionally heightened. By default my mind decides there are more important things to pay attention to (like steam engine pollution from centuries ago, lol).


----------



## twistedblade056 (Oct 26, 2014)

Retrospectacles said:


> Hmm... I think your argument is logically/technically sound but it's very much semantics/detail-focused. Yes, our entire understanding of ourselves and others as humans is based off of actions. Even in saying "I am extroverted" is a simplified way of saying "I have noticed that I have a tendency to be energized by social stimulation, which I've discovered by noticing specific actions I do that indicate an increase in energy.". However I think the key here is that it's better to focus on the themes between the actions, as you could call it. Instead of "Person X likes video games. This suggests a Se-dom. ESTP", one might look at the fact that they like video games, chess, problem-solving, love challenges, etc. And then consider the theme between these traits to find a greater and more meaningful trait which could be consistently applied to X's personality. Then they would come up with Ti maybe as they realized that video games fit in with the theme of wanting to figure things out inside and out especially through strategy, and decide on INTP. So, the point is to use actions to determine type, yes, but by looking at what themes are found in the actions and what that theme tells about the person exactly. So it's not just the actions themselves--it's through and beyond them.


These themes will represent a certain behavioral correlate.

yeah, but let's leave it at that. I think we're going in circles, lol.



Mr.Tambourine Man said:


> @dragonhead66:
> I don't think anyone is arguing that thoughts and behavior are not correlated. There is obviously a relationship there. The problem is that there are a lot of confounding elements that come in (situations, education, relationships, information available) that will affect the actions a person takes and their overall behavioral patterns. So there isn't a 1:1 relationship between thought at behavior (even though there is a correlation, as you pointed out). Therefore looking at behavior alone won't always lead to the right type.
> 
> I agree that the dichotomies are useful at a surface level, but the end goal shouldn't be to work off dichotomies and behavior alone. In my view, that strategy essentially amounts to working off stereotypes and gives very little real insight into people. It runs the risk of over simplifying (in reference to your Einstein quote). I actually think that is the main reason so many people take issue with mbti.


My argument is that cognition will always lead to behavior. I don't focus on the dichotomies, I focus on the cognitive functions which will, whether we like to admit to or not, be "function-attitudes"(behaviors). So yeah. That's how I see the entire cake.



Mr.Tambourine Man said:


> As I'm sure most people here do, I often question my type. I've gone through identifying as INTJ, INTP, and finally settled on INFJ (I hope!). But just to clarify, I'm going to lay out what I see as the main difference between Ni-Je and Ti-Pe combinations:
> 
> Ni perceives internally, that essentially means that it feeds the judging function internal imagery, memories, concepts, etc. most of which are drawn from a semi-conscious process (hence N). N can therefore build concepts on top of concepts and abstract very far from the starting point towards some imagined representation that it sees as underlying all of the details of reality. The Je function just comes to validate or deny Ni's work based on external information. I view my Fe kind of like a black-smith hammering all of the impurities out of a bar of iron. At the end, all you're left with is the iron. Ni often has trouble working backwards from a conclusion and is really good at synthesizing. It's reductionist.
> 
> ...


I think you're right on mark.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@Turi when I first read your OP, my first thought was "well here's an idea, what if you _are_ Intuitive?" But I didn't say it because your writing style seem to fit with ISTP to me, or ISFP. But reading your previous post about your life, you come from such a different background and life experience than I do, so I can't really compare the way you express yourself. Plus, you're a guy and I think that can make a big difference. 

If I were you, I wouldn't completely settle in your typing journey just yet, keep an open mind. Keep learning about the functions and how they manifest in real life. Keep refining your understanding. I say this just because your understanding of MBTI seemed to be relatively crude in your OP and that wasn't that long ago. It can take years to truly_ get it_ with MBTI (I say that looking back on 8 years of learning about MBTI. My understanding of it was very dismal during the first couple years. My understanding of it may _still_ be dismal, but it's certainly way better than it was 8 years ago). 
Also to be honest I got a lot of Fi vibes and Perceiving-type vibes as I was reading your posts. Have you considered ISFP? All the ISFPs I know are pretty imaginative and have a well-developed Intuitive side.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

@*Turi*


* *




I still think you're an ISTP but I totally respect your decision of whatever type you go with. xD


Here's a nice post about Ni. #23 The thread also contains useful information about Ti. 

I know this doesn't actually address your OP but... thought it might be useful. I found it pretty comprehensive.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Intuition to me is like I'm never really "there" physically. I have to kind of remind myself to be, that it's healthier that way. I'm focused on some general end result and not so much how to get there (in fact I can either be impatient about the latter or hindered if I think too much about it). So like let's say I'm waiting for a train. I am probably thinking about something that's only loosely related to my surroundings, like how much pollution was created by coal burning engines and how people came up with the idea of a train. How it's evolved from where it began. Someone who knows me might be trying to get my attention, or maybe something was recently renovated and looks noticeably different, but I will be oblivious. Maybe I already missed my train or I got on the wrong one...
> 
> So, I often don't notice small aspects of my surroundings that were obvious to others and can come off as a space cadet (though that's more if I'm tired, bored, or stressed out/overstimulated). It amazes me sometimes how people can remember so many details about another person's appearance, body language, etc. even if it's recent (what they wore, what they said, how they said it, etc). It has made me self-conscious over the years...I was less self-conscious in high school about that than I am now :tongue: I don't notice these things unless I'm in a situation that's somehow emotionally heightened. By default my mind decides there are more important things to pay attention to (like steam engine pollution from centuries ago, lol).


I'm not arguing that you're not an intuitive, but I must say that I "space out" and let my mind wander all the time too. If I'm waiting for the train, taking a walk or sitting in a car (not driving), I'm not really observing as much as I am daydreaming/letting my mind float to different thoughts. A lot of times people will ask me if I noticed something or someone, and I'm like huh? Oh I didn't see. It's just not very interesting to me to observe I think, so I believe that's why my mind wanders off to a more interesting "world" inside of me. Like I'm not really interested in observing who's walking around outside or making a mental road map basically...I just let my mind drift to wherever it wants, related or unrelated to the situation at hand. However, I've been told by many sources irl and some on these forums that I'm definitely an Si user. Which I can agree with. So is letting your mind naturally wander specifically an "N" trait after all?


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Turi said:


> What makes you an intuitive?
> Why aren't you a sensor?


What makes you?




> Another thing - the 'aha' moments - everyone gets these. It's how your brain works.
> It's not exclusive to any function. It's just human. It's not some Ni thing. Everyone has "intuition" in this sense.
> Everyone is capable of seeing the 'deeper meanings' of things.
> Zoning out and not being 'present' has sweet jack all to do with intuition of any kind, imo, it's more like you're not interested, so you mentally check out. How does that relate to intuition?


dodododo


----------



## gyogul (Jan 26, 2014)

Turi said:


> Please, explain it to me.
> ...
> 
> I need to read, in clear terms, why you believe you are an intuitive, and not a sensor.
> ...


This doesn't seem like a healthy approach to seeking information. You say you want an explanation, but yet come with a long-winded explanation as to why you already don't believe the information you're seeking in a rather aggressive manner and then state how any forthcoming information will be met with intense speculation as if they're the perjurer on trial. 

Anyway, intuition to me seems like a random use of information collected over a period of time. Instead of using information that is present in the moment, you source information from past experiences/experiences unrelated to the relevant subject and tie them into reality. Both are not necessarily on opposite ends of each other, but I reckon they both have differences. A sensor would be more aware of his surroundings in that present moment whereas an intuitive probably wouldn't be. I suppose this is where the typical pragmatism versus theoretical contrasts come in; in thinking/perception, a sensor would use what is available to them in real time whereas an intuitive would tie in information from multiple experiences and perhaps think of things that may not be warranted/relevant at that moment.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Candy Apple said:


> @*Turi*
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Hey cheers for the link, yeah I fit Ni (dom) perfectly, rather than Ti, going by that link, but I don't know who they are or how accurate it is. The whole 'core concept' thing is dead-on. 

Ti, based on that thread, is my go-to when I'm tripping over my words and realise I'm not making much sense to whoever I'm talking with.
Then it's like I take a second to gather my thoughts and go A-B-C-D just to get the (simplified) message across, kinda irks me because that version won't really be what was in my head but I don't have a choice.

My Ti matches how you said tertiary functions were. It isn't as developed or intricate as people with higher Ti, and for some reason I always kid myself and put on some kind of Ti front, which is pretty much just flawed logic.
And then I get all butthurt when people point that out.

I know you and others see Se - I think this is for good reason, it's next in line under Fe as what people spot and funnily enough, probably ties into the inferior function stress-relief idea in some way - I pop up here online to just chill out and get out of my head sometimes, kinda is a stress-relief for me. I'm probably in an Se mode half the time I'm talking personality theory on here haha.


I'd love to find out how any Ti tertiary people view their Ti, and how it comes out in every day life for them so I can sorta gauge where it is for me.

To me, it's almost comical in hindsight. It's kinda a supporting role to Ni arrogance.
It's a bit like a "tough guy" mode - when I'm trying to get a point across and the other person isn't getting it.. I don't come across as a dick, but in my head I'll be thinking.. how much further do I need to break it down for this guy..
There's more to it, obviously. I'd be keen to hear what people think of their own tertiary functions.

It's hard to siphon through the bad information because some people talk about how they use a function, and you know they aren't actually the type they say they are, so it's like.. do I take this in, or what..


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

gyogul said:


> This doesn't seem like a healthy approach to seeking information. You say you want an explanation, but yet come with a long-winded explanation as to why you already don't believe the information you're seeking in a rather aggressive manner and then state how any forthcoming information will be met with intense speculation as if they're the perjurer on trial.


OP was deliberately put forth in a way to extract the strongest arguments from any respondents, in order to get the best information possible.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Turi said:


> OP was deliberately put forth in a way to extract the strongest arguments from any respondents, in order to get the best information possible.


You do know that's a classic "Artisan type" (e.g. SP type) thing to do, right? I feel like NTs do that as well. Are you INTP??

Also I would reccomend the book "Please Understand Me" by Keirsey, if you haven't already read it. I think he describes how SP types like to provoke people just to get a good response.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

charlie.elliot said:


> You do know that's a classic "Artisan type" (e.g. SP type) thing to do, right? I feel like NTs do that as well. Are you INTP??
> 
> Also I would reccomend the book "Please Understand Me" by Keirsey, if you haven't already read it. I think he describes how SP types like to provoke people just to get a good response.



Or is it some of that tasty NiFe manipulation? 

We will never know.

Ti dom and inferior Fe don't fit.
Words can't express how much I'd love to be an ENTP but I'm not cool enough.

I've been told I'm an ENTP before.

https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6ifp01/get_typed_rdwier_comprehensive_writing_exam_long/dj7225q/


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Turi said:


> Or is it some of that tasty NiFe manipulation?
> 
> We will never know.
> 
> Ti dom and inferior Fe don't fit.


So leaving ISFP off the table, we're working with four functions, Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se, and we're just not sure what order they go in. What are you working off of that you're so sure Ti isn't first or Fe isn't fourth or whichever? i.e. what is your understanding of dom/ aux/ tertiary/ fourth place, etc? You seem certain, but does anyone really know how 3rd/ 4th functions show up? 

I ask because the 3rd and 4th function position are a very nebulous area of MBTI to begin with. There's far from a consensus about them, really. Personally, I don't really know how Ti or Se manifest in my life ,but I keep an open mind about it and just consider it. The entire order of your cognitive functions-- beyond the first and second-- is one of those points in the typology system where the whole thing gets so complex that it really strains its own credibility. I believe cognitive functions are real and I believe everyone uses 2 of them pretty often, but when you start talking about 3rd and 4th... you have to ask yourself, is this all BS? But, it's still interesting to think about. (And I guess I do see how Ni requires Se in order to function, so there's that).


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

@charlie.elliot:
I kind of think the functions are confusing at all levels tbh. The dominant is hard to identify because you're so fully immersed in it, the aux can be under-developed supposedly due to dom-tert loops...

I think determining the exact order of the functions in your stack is tricky because functions can be mistaken for one another. That's when you have to resort to the dichotomies and then come back to the functions and see if they match-up.

Although I have to say, the Ti-Se combo is quite different from Ni-Fe. I would think that an ISTP would be far more practical and exactingly logical whereas an INFJ is obviously more distraught and abstract in their thinking. 

An ISTP would be more inclined to say things like "that's stupid" or "the answer is obvious" or again "if you want Z just do X and Y". An INFJ would more say "that's interesting..." or "I think ___ what do you think?" or "you say you want Z, but are you sure about that?" lol

I'm exaggerating for effect, but the point is they're two very different personality types


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

To tie it all back to the OP though,

I'd say dominant Ni manifests as an incessant reflection on a handful of core concepts. A lot of it has to do with the intention/end goal implicit in my thought process. I'm constantly trying to tie everything I do back to a set of core beliefs, concepts, images. So every experience is taken in as either a confirmation or a correction of some mental construct. There's a repetitiveness to it that borders on ridiculous and I have a facination and extreme detail-orientedness for my abstract visualizations that is so far from my attitude towards physical reality. Basically, in my head I'm painting a masterpiece and yet I'm not even remotely interested in adding aesthetic or practical value to my house.

I would think that a Ti-dom would revisit these core concepts less as all they're looking for is a set of logical explanations and not a vivid 360 picture. So Ti would probably be more interested in understanding how things work. That is, encountering something new and trying to explain it with Ti's stored knowledge and rulebook. Ni won't look for an in depth explanation of the day to day manifestations of things, as long as they appear to fit within Ni's model.

Summary: Ni-Fe would take a more abstract approach to reality and focus on the concepts themselves where as Ti-Se is focused on explaining/evaluating the reality (objects, events, arguments) and takes the core concepts as given (once they've been settled on)

To put it another way, Ni is interested in concepts in and of themselves (it finds them aesthetically pleasing), whereas Ti is interested in concepts only insofar as they can explain things. At first glance this seems to contradict my last post, but it doesn't. Ti is always learning, but with the focus being on describing external things. Ni is always focused on the concept, but eventually learning gives way to action.

Of course, everything else I've said about Ni (google glasses, foggy senses, abstraction, reasoning through imagination) all holds, but I thought this might distinguish it better from Ti (as opposed to distinguishing it from Se/Si)


----------



## gyogul (Jan 26, 2014)

Turi said:


> OP was deliberately put forth in a way to extract the strongest arguments from any respondents, in order to get the best information possible.


Well, the transparency was definitely visible, but I don't know about it attracting the strongest arguments. If anything, it did the exact opposite for me as you came across as hard-headed and unwilling to listen and thus I didn't feel the need to make a detail argument as you seemed to have already had your mind made up from the get-go. A normal post would've worked better


----------



## Falsify Honestly (Jan 6, 2017)

Saying that everyone can see a tree and then spring into different ideas is true. So is saying that anyone can have an Eureka moment.
No one is saying that sensors can't think like this. 

It helps to use an example. If you show a group of sensors a picture of a ruined, abandoned room, then ask them to describe it, they are more likely to give you concrete answers. How many windows, the number of pillars, the ivy growing up the walls, etc. Give the same question to a group of iNtuitives, and they'll be more likely to tell you what they thought the room was used for, and not really think about things like the number of windows. (If I am wrong on this, feel free to let me know. This is how I've thought about N's vs S's).

I tend to live more in my head than, for example, my sensing grandfather. This doesn't mean he doesn't ever get lost in thought, or I never think of things in a less abstract, more concrete way. It's about preferences. I enjoy topics like Philosophy, Psychology, and Theology. I enjoy anything that relates to ideas, the more abstract the better. For example, I started writing this, then went out to vacuum the car. I would guess around 80% of my thoughts were still thinking through this while I was vacuuming. I was so distracted, I ended up breaking part of the tube on the vacuum because I stretched it too much. 

To explain the process is tricky. I often do have to sleep on it, or just wait before making a decision. I think less A=B, and B=C, so A=C, and more like how I've noticed CS Lewis writes. He'll start with something, then provide evidence. For example, Natural Law is a thing. Then he'll go on to define it, argue for its existence, then counter counterarguments. I sometimes have to work backwards from something to find out how I reached the conclusion. This doesn't mean I try to force things to fit my ideas. I put my thoughts through a lot before I'm satisfied. 

I got a little off track, but hopefully I made some cogent point somewhere in here.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Falsify Honestly said:


> Saying that everyone can see a tree and then spring into different ideas is true. So is saying that anyone can have an Eureka moment.
> No one is saying that sensors can't think like this.
> 
> It helps to use an example. If you show a group of sensors a picture of a ruined, abandoned room, then ask them to describe it, they are more likely to give you concrete answers. How many windows, the number of pillars, the ivy growing up the walls, etc. Give the same question to a group of iNtuitives, and they'll be more likely to tell you what they thought the room was used for, and not really think about things like the number of windows. (If I am wrong on this, feel free to let me know. This is how I've thought about N's vs S's).


Sounds like a science experiment. xD

[HR][/HR]
Si's initial reaction will either be agreeable or disagreeable to the picture. They may express discomfort at what they see, but overall they will probably keep their description very detailed if they're not sure what exactly you want to know.

Se will want to explore it (be there) / Se will describe it objectively (even if describing the conditions in terms of weather/atmosphere). 

Ne will tell you all the related things the abandoned room sprung to their mind. In the end you'll end up somewhere completely different.

This is a thinker's Ni response (actually from an ISTP):









I chose this photo, because when I look at it, I can feel like I'm in another century, another era where the one I'm currently in has no standing anymore. I really like how the photo just bleeds in its modernism, and I really like how it just inspires me to just look into the future. Analyzing it further, I can see an optimistic sort of future, a future that somehow aligns with my current sense of self and how if I keep going, that future will become a reality. <<< This response emphasises the point: "No one is saying that sensors can't think like this."

Ni feeler responses are much more vibey. They tend not to give you a lot of details or will speak more from the possible perspective of the photographer. 

Te Ni users tend to talk about use or if something they see in the picture is useless. Ni-Te has _much less focus_ on use. They will describe time-oriented things, a bit like the ISTP example.

Te-Ni
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rez-/34020053226/in/explore-2017-04-16/ 
Looks like an abandoned building. Could be a school or hotel or something similar that has a lot of rooms. Could be located anywhere in the world. Looking outside the window, it is impossible to tell where this could be located. I don't have much knowledge about building materials to help me deduce much more. I wonder why this building was abandoned. The reason I chose this picture was because it had a mysterious vibe to it. It was unlike all the other pictures to choose from which were mostly just pictures of sunsets and flowers and such. This one really caught my eye. It really makes me wonder about the truth behind why this building has become the way it currently is. What does the future hold in store? It clearly just looks wrecked but it hasn't been taken down yet which means this can still be turned into a new building. We can turn this into a school or something helpful. It is likely that this building was abandoned in the first place due to reasons such as war, natural disaster or drops in population. It is still possible to recreate a new building here that is better and stronger than the original. It kind of acts a symbol of strength in the way that it was beat down, but it is still standing which means there still lies the potential for it to become something much better.

Te-Ni-Se
This is a picture of the White Temple in Chiang Rai, Thailand. Initially, I wondered how this thing was built. Then I wondered if this is even a real thing. I searched it up online and found out that this is a real building. It is used as an art exhibit, which would not have been my first guess, although I am not quite sure what my first guess would have been. It is also not very old as it only opened in 1997. Definitely aesthetically pleasing. It is likely to catch the attention for many tourists. Since it is both a Buddhist architecture, and a Hindu architecture, I am going to guess that most of the artwork found inside are related to religion. I think this is a place that I would want to visit if I were to ever visit Chiang Rai, Thailand.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

@Candy Apple Hmmm actually now that I think about it more, in my opinion using pictures and asking users to choose one and describe it in detail might just be a much better method than asking questions and seeking a specific answer to figure out what type someone is. It just allows for more room for the person to express themselves, more free of certain constraints that aren't truly them being themselves. I always felt questions can be loaded in a way, not intentionally, but can lead to certain biased or misleading answers as they're just so situational and circumstantial. However, choosing and looking at an image and describing it...you're really in control of what goes on through your own mind and comes out of your own mouth/keyboard.

Sorry for the derailing! Just an interesting thought.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

thoughtcatalog said:


> @Candy Apple Hmmm actually now that I think about it more, in my opinion using pictures and asking users to choose one and describe it in detail might just be a much better method than asking questions and seeking a specific answer to figure out what type someone is. It just allows for more room for the person to express themselves, more free of certain constraints that aren't truly them being themselves. I always felt questions can be loaded in a way, not intentionally, but can lead to certain biased or misleading answers as they're just so situational and circumstantial. However, choosing and looking at an image and describing it...you're really in control of what goes on through your own mind and comes out of your own mouth/keyboard.


Spades' questionnaire is useful. It starts off with a picture description and the following questions evidently help to weigh out the function positions.

The picture description helps people to get a hold of what perceiving function is in use, but the judging functions will come through in their description too. I do not feel as though the picture description is aimed at working out the judging functions, or what need be the other questions, but you can definitely tell when the person has a dominant judging function, and by feel or content of their writing, what eludes to T/F and i/e.

The problem with typing someone from a singular picture, is that the person being typed will want more evidence as to why you think they're that type. They most likely do not have a proper understanding of the functions because they have asked you to type them in the first place. If you give them a simple explanation according to the picture description, they're still going to be lost. It's the same reaction they have to answering a full questionnaire, receiving explanations, and still being lost. The only difference is that they feel more reassured that you've heard and seen enough information. They of course, might also view an analysis based solely on a picture, far too subjective because they do not grasp the concept of it; just like people do not grasp the concept of personality theory.

Another reason why a questionnaire beginning with a picture description is so useful, is that the person being typed is quite unaware of the purpose of that picture description; therefore less likely to intentionally/unintentionally manipulate the answer; the picture question is very revealing. If the picture description and the rest of their answers do not add up, you've got someone who's trying to manipulate something, someone who has biases, someone who is influenced by stereotypes, someone who is giving cookie cutter responses, etc. Of course all of this is still evident to an experienced typer, even if the typee is only describing one picture, but to someone who is lacking in experience, this births trouble.

Following on, a person who is new to typing, or wants to try their hand at it and does not have a solid understanding of functions and how they play out in their order, are most likely going to butcher the whole experience for _everyone_. They're going to be an annoyance to experienced typers because their bs is going to get in the way of the clarity for the typee, and a picture description is hardly going to help them learn, overtime, how to relate the typee's response to the functions in their respective orders.

The whole set up of Spades' questionnaire is ideal, but I find it does not necessarily need question 0, as I've found it to be useless 99% of the time. This questionnaire helps the typee feel secure to know that they've given enough information about themselves to gain an accurate typing, but also helps unexperienced typers gain knowledge into how functions are weighed. A lot of people do not understand the reason behind certain questions and trail off into rabbit holes, divulging their whole history, personal experience abounds, and thinking processes are left behind. It goes both ways. Unexperienced people will make questionnaires where the questions are not weighed against each other, therefore encouraging long-winded and useless responses from others. Spades' questionnaire allows a perfect amount of freedom of expression, yet restraint where it is needed. The set up distracts the user away from the importance of the picture question, to the questions below it, thus allowing better detection for manipulated answers.

There's more but I'll stop here.



> questions can be loaded in a way, not intentionally, but can lead to certain biased or misleading answers as they're just so situational and circumstantial


Totally agree. Loaded questions are so silly, especially in the hands of unexperienced typers. They fall into tunnel vision and think everything that person has said relates to that one specific "predetermined" function.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

charlie.elliot said:


> So leaving ISFP off the table, we're working with four functions, Ni, Fe, Ti, and Se, and we're just not sure what order they go in. What are you working off of that you're so sure Ti isn't first or Fe isn't fourth or whichever? i.e. what is your understanding of dom/ aux/ tertiary/ fourth place, etc? You seem certain, but does anyone really know how 3rd/ 4th functions show up?
> 
> I ask because the 3rd and 4th function position are a very nebulous area of MBTI to begin with. There's far from a consensus about them, really. Personally, I don't really know how Ti or Se manifest in my life ,but I keep an open mind about it and just consider it. The entire order of your cognitive functions-- beyond the first and second-- is one of those points in the typology system where the whole thing gets so complex that it really strains its own credibility. I believe cognitive functions are real and I believe everyone uses 2 of them pretty often, but when you start talking about 3rd and 4th... you have to ask yourself, is this all BS? But, it's still interesting to think about. (And I guess I do see how Ni requires Se in order to function, so there's that).


For inferior functions, I'm basing it off of the book "Was That Really Me?" by Naomi Quenck. This book lays out how the inferior functions manifest brilliantly in a way that is more than "this is what you're shit at" - so much more to it.
In this book it is clear Fe is not my inferior function. It also has a fair amount of into on Ti doms and Ti dom doesn't feel right either.
My Fe is higher than my Ti "irl". When I'm not being internet tough-guy.


For dominant functions, pretty much everything I read everywhere, and I've read a fair bit, I'm not content with just rolling with type descriptors (complete horseshit imo).. so I've read a loads of books on Amazon as well, I've read Gifts Differing, fair bit of Psychological Types, I've read Dario Nardis 8 Keys to Self-Leadership, amongst a plethora of other books.
I've probably read way too much in too little time.
Also the official MBTI website lays it all down dichotomy wise for me in a way that makes anything besides INFJ a lie for me, but eh that's dichotomy, not cognitive functions.

Consider this as well:
https://thoughtcatalog.com/heidi-pr...fests-based-on-its-position-in-your-stacking/
Lines up great for me when I match it to Ni Fe Ti Se. 
I've gone through my post history here and on a music forum I go on where I've mentioned MBTI results, and my results are all over the freaking shop. Mostly INFJ but I mean the results vary so much. Unreliable.

I don't believe tertiary and inferior functions are a nebulous area, and it makes no sense to type yourself or others if you don't feel like you've got a solid grasp of the whole thing. I don't "have to ask myself" if this is all bullshit because I'm talking about tertiary and inferior functions.
They've all got a place in a persons psyche.

I can't for the life of me comprehend only getting into something for as long as you have, and stopping at dominant and auxiliary functions. Makes no sense to me. I want to understand the entire thing. The whole concept. 
I want to understand how each function manifests in each position.

This kind of approach I have, is something I take with me to everything - I want to understand the ins and outs of basically everything, and I take this to the workplace as well.
This could be mistaken for Ti, but I'm understanding more and more that mine is Ni, the link @Candy Apple provided has a pretty solid run-down on this, and there's a guy there who lays out that Ti isn't the only function that wants to break things down into smaller parts.
I don't know who he is or what his qualifications are etc, but it makes sense to me and what I read and know about Ni.



If I had to give my own super brief run-down of each position, it'd be a bit like this - only for introverts, since I'm an introvert:

*Dominant *(introverted) - the air you breathe. More difficult to pin-point in yourself than you think, since all of your thoughts are filtered through it. This is pretty much 75% of a persons persona. 

*Auxiliary *(extraverted) - how you face the world. The front you put on. Aux Fe users will be introverts, stand-offish, reserved etc, but will probably be talkative etc when interacting with people unless in a shitty mood for example. This is what people see. Since it's the auxiliary function, people won't see this unless in conversation.

*Tertiary *(introverted) - this is what you think you're good at, but aren't. This is what makes INFJs think they're logical and mistype themselves as high Ti or Te users, when in actual fact, they're but a shadow of a true higher T user. This is what trips people up when typing themselves, as they place so much emphasis on this function, they value it so much, that they think this is them. When they are met with someone who has this function as a dominant (i.e an INFJ conversing with an INTP) - the INFJ will feel dumb and of less worth - it's almost an introverts 'pride' so to speak. Go tell an INTJ he has no morals. Good luck. Then the INTJ converses with an ISFP and finds himself irritated at the Fi doms inflexibility with regards to his values and principles - and actually feels a little hurt that his own ideals aren't so solid. You get the idea.

*Inferior *(extraverted) - essentially a trigger function. This is what will piss people off. For an Ni dom, this will be things like being required to be "present" for too long. Being forced to pay attention to smaller, insignificant (to the Ni dom) details. Crowded places. Busy environments. When an introvert is forced to use their inferior function, it will irritate them and they will find themselves using it in a bad way - i.e the Ni dom might find themselves hyper-critical of other peoples "Se" mistakes (such as forgetting to bring something etc)... even though the Ni dom is terrible at this anyway. It's a soft-spot. A pain-point. It's the thing you get butthurt about even though you suck at it. When someone calls out an Ni dom on an "Se" mistake i.e, them being the one who forgot something, the Ni dom will get all pissed off and shitty. It's a trigger.

Introverted types find using their inferior function on their own terms, to be absolute bliss, and thoroughly enjoyable - a place for stress relief. The Ni dom might enjoy walks, going for a jog, doing some gardening, cooking etc, to get out of their own head and experience their Se as they see fit.
Being forced to use their inferior function isn't a pleasant experience for introverts. Using it on their own terms in a no-pressure, no-stress manner is great. 


I'm also of the belief, that when in 'real life' everyday kind of activities - conversing with people, whether it's verbal, or written etc, what you see is the extraverted functions.
Reading my posts you should see Fe and Se. Talking with me in person, you will see Fe and Se.
You can't see Ni and you can't see Ti, although they influence the context of Fe and Se.

You don't speak to someone and see Ni dom. You see Fe + Se, or Te + Se.


Some people might think.. when you talk to someone, and they drift into their own world - what you're seeing is Ni or Ne - this is a falsity, what you're seeing is someone who has likely lost interest in the conversation.
I believe that this is different to Ne - an introverted Ne user (INFP and INTP) will probably not be looking you in the eye, but you can tell they're listening to every word you say and are processing it all, so you feel like.. they're still present, even though they're not really interacting.

At least that's how my I see it. I also believe N types will make less eye-contact than S types but that's just from my own experience and self-typing people. I've got an INFP friend who barely looks people in the eye (much like myself, just feels too intense and that's awkward for me), and I've got an ESFJ wife, and an ESTP and ISTJ friend who are all big on eye-contact and looking at you when talking, and when you're talking to them.

I find myself not looking at people when they talk, and also not looking at them when I talk, but I'm processing it all, and rather than the aux Ne users who might not interact much - I'll say things like "geez!" "wow" "really?" "haha" "yeah mate" etc.. Fe-Se dynamics in an introvert.



This is a lot of typing to say that I find much more truth to be found in my own system of understandings with regards to cognitive functions.

I think the dominant function is the hardest for people to identify in themselves.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName (Nov 25, 2015)

Ne.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Turi said:


> how the inferior functions manifest brilliantly in a way that is more than "this is what you're shit at" - so much more to it.


Until very recently I viewed my use of inferior Ne as "shit" because I compared it to an Ne dom. More and more I'm beginning to understand how it has nothing to do with being "shit" at the inferior function (though behaviours are easily explained that way), that the whole thing is best viewed in terms of dynamic and preference. I know we hear "preference" all the time, but every term in typology reveals greater meaning the more you take time to understand what it's all about.

I'm solidifying my understanding in terms of it being dynamic and preference, that I use my functions differently to those of other types purely based on the innate order (preference) of the function. I look at Si-Te vs Te-Si, safe to say no one (ISTJ, ESTJ) is "shit" at those functions, that they just process and act on information differently because of the order.

The reason I used to say I was "shit" at Ne was because I found it so hard to identify how I used it according to function descriptions, which btw, tend to describe use as a dominant function. You see, even with the dominant function, it takes time to identify your own thought processes and resulting actions _to fit the function description_ to realise that you use that function. This happens with _all_ of the functions. It is easier to _identify_ within yourself, your use of the dom-tert functions, with a particularity for the 6th function, and much later, the inferior function in terms of how you use it in a *healthy* manner. The other functions take longer to realise because they're not "particular" to you, they're "so unvalued" to you, that you overlook them _because_ of the scope that you _have._ Because you are so much more aware, or become so much more aware of how you use your dom-tert functions as that is the 'primary focus' when you first link yourself up to the theory, that you don't realise how much you actually use the other functions and how they're 'serving the dominant function'.

So, we just use functions in a different way. A piece of wood is still a piece of wood and we can do with it what we like. It does not get shitter just because someone else uses that piece of wood.

In everything we do, we're still incorporating all of our functions _in some sense_ (that we begin to realise later). We just have different drivers. Each of those functions are just serving the dominant function, or even the aux if you want to include that. When we do things we can choose to incorporate more or less effort, which will make different functions more or less 'visible', but innately it's all there and none of them are shit.

The theory is just a 'definition'. It's just a classification. It's just like medical conditions plus 'hope' to explain something. Every little ____/'symptom' is called a certain thing and by that name acquires stigma. 'Turning something into something.' We always just have to do this, don't we. A fish has fins so it swims a certain way. A person has legs so it walks. Gees. I mean everything is really just amazing, isn't it? Then we define the heck out of it... I mean I haven't really looked into socionics, I just use terms here and there that suit what I have seen but don't care to go deeply into its roots or areas but from what I have seen, whoa man look at the terms that socionics uses. The words are so negative! More so than "inferior" function. Can we just stop? 

I am not being exacting in my words or logic, I'm trying to convey meaning. If you pick apart this post because of the logic, there will be many holes and idc about that right now. I don't know if people will view my thoughts as inconsistent to the fact that people 'have' certain strengths and "weaknesses", as even I myself think so, but I just wanted to say that I no longer view one function in its order as shitter than the other, that we just 'prefer' to do different things, and that I'm so alskfjalskfj over personality theory. xD I'm sick of viewing things in this way, with the definitions. Personally I feel more 'limited' with its knowledge now, though I once found it useful.

We are so much more than what we can define ourselves as. Our thoughts, actions, and behaviours have no limit unless we to hold onto that mentality. We grow and grow in knowledge yet are we so constrained?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Candy Apple said:


> Until very recently I viewed my use of inferior Ne as "shit" because I compared it to an Ne dom. More and more I'm beginning to understand how it has nothing to do with being "shit" at the inferior function (though behaviours are easily explained that way), that the whole thing is best viewed in terms of dynamic and preference. I know we hear "preference" all the time, but every term in typology reveals greater meaning the more you take time to understand what it's all about.
> 
> I'm solidifying my understanding in terms of it being dynamic and preference, that I use my functions differently to those of other types purely based on the innate order (preference) of the function. I look at Si-Te vs Te-Si, safe to say no one (ISTJ, ESTJ) is "shit" at those functions, that they just process and act on information differently because of the order.
> 
> ...


Brilliant post, I totally agree.

Each function is different depending on where it is, doesn't make it better or worse, and I'd love to spend some time exploring the auxiliary-tertiary dynamic because I think right there we have 2 functions that are generally referred to as opposites, working basically side by side - like your Te and Fi.

Would you feel there's some kinda imbalance happening when you make a decision that is in line with your Fi values and principles, and ignores what your Te says is the logical choice according to whatever external sources etc you'd use to make a conclusion with?

Or do the two work together? I.E your Fi values and principles are reflective of whatever your Te sees and accepts/makes decisions with?

Te is totally foreign to me so you'll have to excuse my lack of.. proper terms and words to use, I'm just hoping you get what I'm asking.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@Turi, wow you know so much more about the theory then you let on initially! Your initial posts were the MBTI equivalent of smashing logs with a sledgehammer, but clearly you actually know what you're talking about. I kind of take back my last post then (except for the part about having ISTP vibes). 
Also, you misunderstood me, I didn't "stop at" the third and fourth function, I'm well aware of the theory (though it's been a while and I appreciated your well-written descriptions) and was fascinated by it as well, I'm just not fully convinced it's all as neat and orderly as they'd have us believe. It's all a bit hard to swallow. I'd certainly _like_ it to be true, and what you said about Ti and Se rings true to me. I definitely think I'm better at logical thinking than I really am. I also getting highly irritated when asked to learn Se-oriented activities (my mind immediately flashed back to sixth grade when my friend's dad came to our school to teach us some kind of martial art and I was the absolute worst at it and he kept patiently insisting I try again and I was too polite to just say "I really don't care about doing this"). 
Anyway, there's another dimension to the fourth function as I recall, something to do with aspiration, wanting to improve that function because you think it will improve you as a person. That, I definitely relate to in terms of Se. Also, when left alone with no pressure, I have pretty decent Se, and I greatly enjoy it. 

Anyway that was a bit of a tangent, sorry!


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

@Candy Apple:
When it comes to inferior and tertiary functions, I'm of the opinion that they affect our behavior in many ways we don't want to consciously acknowledge owing to the fact that they're a necessary corollary to our dom-aux pair, but represent the opposite end of the spectrum and are therefore hard to actively focus on.

I think that doing activities which stimulate the lower functions is helpful for blowing off steam and that's why we enjoy it so much, but I think that even then these functions are given a dom-aux spin.

To give an example, I love recreational activities that make use of Se and Ti such as nature hikes, painting, playing music, reading philosophy, watching/engaging in debates, going out for a nice meal... But I think that I go about these things in a way that's still very Ni-Fe-heavy and so my attitude towards them is very different from that of an ESTP for example. When I'm at a debate I spend a lot of time focusing on the people and visualizing the concepts and my logic is usually rough and unsatisfying, when I play music I'm way more focused on vibes than on specific sounds or structures and I can play the same song over 5 times if I feel like I get something slightly different out of it each time. When I'm cooking or enjoying a meal, Se is active, but I feel like I also enter this very abstract mind-space of flavors and textures that borders on theoretical... Take me out of these contexts that I'm used to and, although my Se might be very active, I will have absolutely no control over it.

Essentially, my point is this: we can engage our lower functions indirectly by taking-on certain hobbies, etc. so it may appear like we have a good handle on them, but in reality we're still sort of caught in our leading functions. Feel free to disagree.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

Another thing, and I know I'm gonna get a lot of cocked heads from this, but I don't really think it makes sense to talk about using all 8 functions.

I think that if each of the 4 base functions has an attitude attached to it that implies a strong bias towards thought processes pertaining to that function, making it very hard to use it in the opposite attitude.

Said another way, I think that any function that is not in the 4 function stack can more easily be replicated (in terms of practice and behavior) by combining other functions than by trying to use the function itself.

Example: If you have Ti and Se in your stack and you're faced with a problem that is Te-heavy. I think you're far more likely to use your Ti knowledge of how things work and Se assessment of the situation to piece things together in a roundabout way, rather than, say, putting aside all of your Ti logical framework and Se experience and suddenly trying to follow a Te-Si mode of thinking where you're looking for facts and structures in the present and comparing things to past experiences.

I just think there's no situation that could cause you to make a complete 180 in your internal thought process.

I still think it's helpful to talk about the "super-ego" and "super-id" blocks (as they refer to them in socionics), but more as ideals (or situations) that we have a predictable attitude towards rather than as a separate part of the psyche that we tap into.


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Wait, was that an add on to what I was saying or a disagreement or? xD

Oh nvm, you wrote another post.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

It's both lol I agree when you say that the inferior function isn't "shitty" but I still think we have way less control over it than our dominant and that many times when we think we're actively using the inferior the dominant is still running the show.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Candy Apple said:


> *The problem with typing someone from a singular picture, is that the person being typed will want more evidence as to why you think they're that type. They of course, might also view an analysis based solely on a picture, far too subjective because they do not grasp the concept of it; just like people do not grasp the concept of personality theory.*
> 
> *Another reason why a questionnaire beginning with a picture description is so useful, is that the person being typed is quite unaware of the purpose of that picture description; therefore less likely to intentionally/unintentionally manipulate the answer; the picture question is very revealing.* *Of course all of this is still evident to an experienced typer, even if the typee is only describing one picture, but to someone who is lacking in experience, this births trouble.*
> 
> Inexperienced people will make questionnaires where the questions are not weighed against each other, therefore encouraging long-winded and useless responses from others. Spades' questionnaire allows a perfect amount of freedom of expression, yet restraint where it is needed. The set up distracts the user away from the importance of the picture question, to the questions below it, thus allowing better detection for manipulated answers.


You make very good points. After I wrote my response, I was thinking about how great picture typing is in theory but at the same time how impractical it really is, in terms of typer experience and providing supporting evidence. I don't think the Spades questionnaire is bad at all, but I still see very situational type of questions. Although I understand its purpose is to combine both an objective and subjective basis for getting a grasp of how someone thinks/behaves and then narrow down their personality type on a weighted response method. Which makes a lot of sense in terms of practicality. Just not completely satisfied with its effectiveness, although of course I can't come up with anything better currently anyway so maybe this is as good as it gets for now. I don't know anything about socionics, but I believe it was created to better take care of some of these discrepancies. I'll look into it when I have time.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

> Brilliant post, I totally agree.
> 
> Each function is different depending on where it is, doesn't make it better or worse, and I'd love to spend some time exploring the auxiliary-tertiary dynamic because I think right there we have 2 functions that are generally referred to as opposites, working basically side by side - like your Te and Fi.





> Would you feel there's some kinda imbalance happening when you make a decision that is in line with your Fi values and principles, and ignores what your Te says is the logical choice according to whatever external sources etc you'd use to make a conclusion with?
> 
> Or do the two work together? I.E your Fi values and principles are reflective of whatever your Te sees and accepts/makes decisions with?
> 
> Te is totally foreign to me so you'll have to excuse my lack of.. proper terms and words to use, I'm just hoping you get what I'm asking.


 @Candy Apple and @Turi

I agree with Candy Apple's perspective on type descriptors and how they suggest your inferior function is shitty, and how they make it seem like you have to use your functions in kind of a "specific order", and that's just how "you work". I'll use ISTJ as an example because I think that's what I am. People would say I'm pretty balanced between Te and Fi. I basically use both at the same time, all the time. I'll definitely look at issues/topics from a logical, analytical perspective and try to find the bottom line and what will be the best decision to make for the specific situation at hand. However, I'm also constantly weighing the emotion/value based pros and cons against this at the same time. Yes, the decision has to make sense but at the same time, will you be happy/satisfied/at peace with this decision at the end of the day? This is constantly going through my head in a never ending cycle. This is why I also contemplate INFP at times (but purely due to cognitive functions, not dichotomy because I just can't see myself as a P). I've also ruled out INFP somewhat, because there's a general consensus that feeler types consistently weigh other feelings in conjunction with their own, and I'm not really good at putting myself in others emotional shoes in a lot of cases. Anyway, this pretty much is my view on the preferences and order issue of the functions, and whether there is more of an order to them or if they work hand in hand majority of the time.


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

@Candy Apple @thoughtcatalog

This Spades questionnaire yall are talking about sounds useful, but to me the picture approach seems a little biased towards sensing. If someone shows me a picture and asks me to talk about it I'm not gonna go off on some nebulous tirade about it. Instead my Se will kick in and I'll start talking about what's most striking in the picture, how the elements fit together... aesthetics basically. Just because that's what I assume I'm being asked about. Likewise if you asked an Se dom to explain a concept they would do it much the same way an Ni-dom would in my opinion.

Also, sorry if I don't address your posts with quotes and break down your arguments. I'm using my phone and my internet sucks so that's just not feasible. Also, I just prefer rephrasing things to move the discussion forward rather than dissecting an argument.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Mr.Tambourine Man said:


> @Candy Apple @thoughtcatalog
> 
> This Spades questionnaire yall are talking about sounds useful, but to me the picture approach seems a little biased towards sensing. If someone shows me a picture and asks me to talk about it I'm not gonna go off on some nebulous tirade about it. Instead my Se will kick in and I'll start talking about what's most striking in the picture, how the elements fit together... aesthetics basically. Just because that's what I assume I'm being asked about. Likewise if you asked an Se dom to explain a concept they would do it much the same way an Ni-dom would in my opinion.
> 
> Also, sorry if I don't address your posts with quotes and break down your arguments. I'm using my phone and my internet sucks so that's just not feasible. Also, I just prefer rephrasing things to move the discussion forward rather than dissecting an argument.


I've considered this as well, but I think for picture typing, you need to offer the person a choice between different photos. The image they choose should be able to give the typer some support for what types the typer would categorize them in. From there, their responses should enable the typer to zoom in on details and draw more conclusions from there. Of course, I can see how there would still be a lot of discrepancies and inconsistencies which would make this whole plan not feasible or reasonable. I believe this is why the combination of picture/question typing is used. Even then, there isn't going to be an agreement on whether this combination method is truly effective either. Also, yes I can see how someone can still be biased in choosing the picture/describing it but in terms of user bias, there's not much we can do. That's out of our control. I would like to hope in the future there will be some kind of fool proof typing method, and I know there will be improvements along the way, but as for now, I'm not sure if there could actually be a solution to this. Perhaps lie detector test and even then, I've heard people find ways to trick the system :laughing:


----------



## Candy Apple (Sep 10, 2015)

Mr.Tambourine Man said:


> @Candy Apple Essentially, my point is this: we can engage our lower functions indirectly by taking-on certain hobbies, etc. so it may appear like we have a good handle on them, but in reality we're still sort of caught in our leading functions. Feel free to disagree.


Perhaps you have misunderstood my intention?

Besides what we agree on, that the inferior function isn't "shit", what I was trying to say is that we are humans and we have formed a theory to define/explain how we process information. So now we have this theory, and now the people who have not created it are thinking about how they fit into it. But the more we stay on the surface of the theory, the more we think quite black and white. The more you get into it, the more you realise how every function plays a part (that is of my opinion if we're talking about having eight functions). Now if we're talking theory, it is of my opinion, from what I have experienced, that we use all our functions in a the sense that even the unvalued functions have an influence on us. We make decisions by our valued functions, yes, but I do not believe it means we cannot consider things with the other functions. I see a particularity with the 6th function and how it influences my thoughts and behaviour, and the behaviours of others - again, if we're talking about this theory. Yet I also question, how is it that I _wouldn't_ be able to use Fe? What I'm trying to say is... these are like labels, definitions, who are we to say how we function? How are we contained within this theory? I have only pulled up parts of the theory and linked them up with personal experiences; I have gone with what I see works. I see how people use Fe and I know what they're concerned about, yet I know how to use Te, so how would it be impossible for me to use Fe? When thinking about it, Te is about productivity and logistics, affecting a collective in the external world, and Fe is about interpersonal feelings, social ambiance, affecting a collective in the external world. So how is it, that someone who has emotional intelligence, is not able to also gauge these things and affect Fe concerns in a positive way? Say I were to put aside Fi concerns for the sake of putting Fe into the picture, how would it be impossible for me to survey what is going on and affect it? It's not. It's just a label to explain what certain humans are concerned with but it does not limit a person to only thinking a certain way and behaving a certain way. So I remain of my opinion that the functions are as dynamics and preferences and this is my explanation of that.



> but I still think we have way less control over it than our dominant and that many times when we think we're actively using the inferior the dominant is still running the show.


I don't see it as a control thing. We simply function as we do and we have a theory to backtrack to see how it fits. I do use my inferior function just fine, and I did not say that my dominant function was not running the show. I have said many times in this forum that in my case, Ne is serving Si. Ne operates under the view of Si. Therefore it is like its own brand of Ne, we shall call it Ne4. I can still see possibilities and connect them but they run according to how I perceive the world through Si. I have no need to switch it on and switch it off, I just function as a human. It is what I was trying to get at when I said, depending on how much effort we put into something, certain functions become more 'visible' to us, in that when we backtrack with the theory, we can see how certain thoughts link up with certain definitions. Thus we become much more aware of using said functions. Yet I believe (in theory world) that the function is always there; innate. It's not like I'm going to use Si at some time and Ne is not creating some kind of counter-balance, though I do not actively perceive its use. When I mentioned dynamics, I was actually talking about how all the different "pairs" are tied together, but not only that, how the dom and aux function will create a dynamic with every other function. Everything is stuck together.

The reason I wrote that post was because I'm fed up with thinking within this theory. There's more to us than this theory and I want to put this stuff aside and move on.



> This Spades questionnaire yall are talking about sounds useful, but to me the picture approach seems a little biased towards sensing. If someone shows me a picture and asks me to talk about it I'm not gonna go off on some nebulous tirade about it. Instead my Se will kick in and I'll start talking about what's most striking in the picture, how the elements fit together... aesthetics basically.


I've been reading peoples answers to that questionnaire for nearly 2 years, and I can tell you that the intuitives have no qualms about describing the picture in ways that actually include evidence of Ni or Ne. 



> Just because that's what I assume I'm being asked about.


I've actually always thought that the picture has more possibility to trip up an Si dom. When I see that question, I'm always thinking... what exactly about the picture do you want me to describe? We could be here forever. Si doms go into detail about things so we want to know exactly what you want. Especially Si-Te, we don't want to waste our time describing something that you don't actually need us to describe. That said, Si doms have not shown, by their answers, difficulties with describing the picture, and I assume they have also looked at other people's answers so they know what they should do.

The following questions, however, have tripped up ISTJs because the questions are not specific enough for them. There are of course, others who have issues with some of the questions but it is a rare occurrence and doesn't affect the typing overall. No matter how they react to the questions, it always tells me something about them.



> Likewise if you asked an Se dom to explain a concept they would do it much the same way an Ni-dom would in my opinion.


Anyone can explain a concept. We're all going to explain it differently though. I don't see why an Se dom would necessarily explain it in much the same way as an Ni dom. In fact, unless they were given a script and were told to stick to it, I don't see why they would even go about it in the same way.



> Also, sorry if I don't address your posts with quotes and break down your arguments. I'm using my phone and my internet sucks so that's just not feasible. Also, I just prefer rephrasing things to move the discussion forward rather than dissecting an argument.


Yeah, I switched over to reply to you.  It's okay hey.




thoughtcatalog said:


> @Candy Apple and @Turi
> 
> I agree with Candy Apple's perspective on type descriptors and how they suggest your inferior function is shitty, and how they make it seem like you have to use your functions in kind of a "specific order", and that's just how "you work". I'll use ISTJ as an example because I think that's what I am. People would say I'm pretty balanced between Te and Fi. I basically use both at the same time, all the time. I'll definitely look at issues/topics from a logical, analytical perspective and try to find the bottom line and what will be the best decision to make for the specific situation at hand. However, I'm also constantly weighing the emotion/value based pros and cons against this at the same time. Yes, the decision has to make sense but at the same time, will you be happy/satisfied/at peace with this decision at the end of the day? This is constantly going through my head in a never ending cycle. This is why I also contemplate INFP at times (but purely due to cognitive functions, not dichotomy because I just can't see myself as a P). I've also ruled out INFP somewhat, because there's a general consensus that feeler types consistently weigh other feelings in conjunction with their own, and I'm not really good at putting myself in others emotional shoes in a lot of cases. Anyway, this pretty much is my view on the preferences and order issue of the functions, and whether there is more of an order to them or if they work hand in hand majority of the time.


Yep! 



thoughtcatalog said:


> I don't think the Spades questionnaire is bad at all, but I still see very situational type of questions. Although I understand its purpose is to combine both an objective and subjective basis for getting a grasp of how someone thinks/behaves and then narrow down their personality type on a weighted response method. Which makes a lot of sense in terms of practicality. Just not completely satisfied with its effectiveness, although of course I can't come up with anything better currently anyway so maybe this is as good as it gets for now. I don't know anything about socionics, but I believe it was created to better take care of some of these discrepancies. I'll look into it when I have time.


Haha, yeah. I know what you mean. I'm not coming up with a questionnaire because Spades' works fine for me. I'm using it as a method because I see it doesn't have any major flaws which would stuff up the typing process. Anyway, a lot of different people have different methods to type others but I won't get into that here! xD


----------



## Mr.Tambourine Man (May 26, 2016)

@Candy Apple:
Thanks for your detailed response.
There's a lot to unpack there and, like I said, I'm not really able to right now unfortunately.

Ultimately I 100% agree with you that the functions are just a useful abstraction from a process that's a lot more messy and individualized in reality. In a sense you're right to say that many (if not all) functions are active at any given time.

I think the disagreement (in the way we phrase things and in the 4 vs. 8 function models) simply comes from a slightly different understanding of the nature of the functions. To me, a function represents a fundamentally distinct way of processing information in the brain (i.e. T and F must correspond to distinct fundamental neurological/psychological patterns) so that it's not necessary to "have Fe" in order to deal with a situation that is commonly associated with Fe. When you say


> Fe is about interpersonal feelings, social ambiance, affecting a collective in the external world.


I agree, because I see this as the most common manifestation of Fe, but in my view, someone without Fe in their functional stack could assess these same things in a very indirect way using other cognitive functions (e.g. Fi+Ne/Se, or Te+Si+Fi...)

What I can say though, is that if the functions do not correspond to an identifiable thought pattern in the brain/psyche then they have to be defined in terms of situations and behaviors, in which case it doesn't really make sense to exclude any functions from a type.

Like you, I'm getting to the point where I need some space from this theory. It's starting to become more of a barrier to understanding than anything.

As for the Spades test, I haven't taken it or seen anyone else fill it out, so I'll take your word that intuitives are easy to pick out. I think, despite what I said previously, I would be sure to slip into abstraction at some point in my description of a picture.


----------



## Empathic (Jul 5, 2016)

star tripper said:


> Sometimes someone says something innocuous in a conversation and I home in on it and go hog wild. Perhaps somebody uses the word "spitfire" and I just start thinking about everything pertaining to that word. Maybe I think of the marriage of the word spit + fire, the creation of the ME-109 and the bombing in Europe during WWII, the phrase "spitting fire verses," and then I end up connecting all the contexts.


How did your Ne connect up all the contexts here relating to "spitfire" and what did that look like?



star tripper said:


> I read a stupidly popular Batman comic called Knightfall in which Bane breaks Batman's back and renders Bruce paraplegic. I immediately started thinking about the concept of "chairs" lmao. Like my VERY FIRST THOUGHT (process) was, "Wow. Good money put Bruce in an electric wheelchair -- AN ELECTRIC CHAIR. Bane and money sentencing Bruce to death. He wants to kick the chair. Kicking the chair can actually be positive and negative here. Kick the chair means killing yourself but in Bruce's case he wants to kick his disability. Kick the addiction before he kicks the bucket." I waxed on and on about fucking chairs. I was inspired by an external source and then I just kept myself going.


When you pondered about the concept of chairs, seems like you also played around with expressions and phrases with "kick" as well. When you say Bruce should kick the addiction, you mean his wanting to resume being Batman before he recovers?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

thoughtcatalog said:


> I'm not arguing that you're not an intuitive, but I must say that I "space out" and let my mind wander all the time too. If I'm waiting for the train, taking a walk or sitting in a car (not driving), I'm not really observing as much as I am daydreaming/letting my mind float to different thoughts. A lot of times people will ask me if I noticed something or someone, and I'm like huh? Oh I didn't see. It's just not very interesting to me to observe I think, so I believe that's why my mind wanders off to a more interesting "world" inside of me. Like I'm not really interested in observing who's walking around outside or making a mental road map basically...I just let my mind drift to wherever it wants, related or unrelated to the situation at hand. However, I've been told by many sources irl and some on these forums that I'm definitely an Si user. Which I can agree with. So is letting your mind naturally wander specifically an "N" trait after all?


I don't "let it" wander. My mind seems to assume (unconsciously) that it's inherently more interesting than whatever is going on outside of it. This is my default. Everything in the external world is inherently meaningless (and therefore has no value) if you cannot mentally contextualize it in a broader scope. What I have to give permission to "let" my mind do is the opposite --- convince myself that some particular person/event etc is worth putting aside the wandering, paying attention to, and spending the extra effort to go outside myself. It's always an investment to some degree.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I don't "let it" wander. My mind seems to assume (unconsciously) that it's inherently more interesting than whatever is going on outside of it. This is my default. Everything in the external world is inherently meaningless (and therefore has no value) if you cannot mentally contextualize it in a broader scope. What I have to give permission to "let" my mind do is the opposite --- convince myself that some particular person/event etc is worth putting aside the wandering, paying attention to, and spending the extra effort to go outside myself. It's always an investment to some degree.



Same here.


----------



## Windblownhair (Aug 12, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I don't "let it" wander. My mind seems to assume (unconsciously) that it's inherently more interesting than whatever is going on outside of it. This is my default. Everything in the external world is inherently meaningless (and therefore has no value) if you cannot mentally contextualize it in a broader scope. What I have to give permission to "let" my mind do is the opposite --- convince myself that some particular person/event etc is worth putting aside the wandering, paying attention to, and spending the extra effort to go outside myself. It's always an investment to some degree.


Your explanation reminded me of one of the alternative ways I've heard to explain the introversion/extroversion dichotomy (typically I see the energy gathering explanation): for an extrovert, the external world in the 'real world.' For an introvert, their internal world is the 'real world.' It was an explanation that resounded with me, although I don't think I've processed it enough to explain it properly. But when I think of my head as the place I can comfortably retreat to, the place I'm most myself, and my most consistent source of entertainment, it all fits.


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

I believe, if I were to explain what the intuition is about, I'd say it is about seeing connections. Broadly speaking, introverted intuition connects dots within inner worlds (such as underlying implications, gestures etc etc) - it does so in a very subtle way which, in fact, is often seen as unconscious. Instead Ne looks for connections in the external world. From the way I have interacted with many Ne-dom, extroverted intuition feels much more bright and sunny if compared to Ni. My introverted intuition feels like it is always lingering around, engulfing me like some ethereal entity. It is always there, working even when I am not aware.

Here is a description of Introverted Intuition, by Nietzsche in Ecce **** (he calls it "revelation"):


> Suddenly, with indescribable certainty and sublety, something becomes audible, visible, something that shakes one to the last depths and throws one down, that merely describes the facts. One hears, does not seek; one accepts, does not ask who gives; like lightning, a thought flashes up, with necessity and without hesitation regarding its form - I never had any choice. A rapture whose tension discharges itself in a flood of tears, now the pace quickens involuntarily, now it becomes slow; [...]even what is most painful and gloomy does not seem something opposite but rather conditioned, provoked, a necessary color in such a superabundance of light; an istinct for rythmic relationships with wide arches is almost the measure of the force of inspiration, a kind of compensation for its pressure and tension. [...] Everything happens involuntarily to the highest degree but as in a gale of feeling of freedom, of absoluteness, of power, of divinity [...]


I'm also looking for a similar passage with Wittgenstein. 
For now, I have found this one:


> "The inexpressible (what appears to be full of mistery and that I am unable to express) is perhaps the background upon which what I have expressed acquires meaning."


Here again we see how introverted intuition looks 'subterrean' in its nature; a part of it works behind the conscious process and acts as a background where only a few elements come to the surface.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I don't "let it" wander. My mind seems to assume (unconsciously) that it's inherently more interesting than whatever is going on outside of it. This is my default. Everything in the external world is inherently meaningless (and therefore has no value) if you cannot mentally contextualize it in a broader scope. What I have to give permission to "let" my mind do is the opposite --- convince myself that some particular person/event etc is worth putting aside the wandering, paying attention to, and spending the extra effort to go outside myself. It's always an investment to some degree.


Maybe I phrased that wrong. If you put it in that context, I don't let it wander either. After I space out, I'm like "shit I should have paid attention ughhh" so it's pretty much involuntary lol. Wonder if any other S users do this too. I'm genuinely curious if this very common description/trait is specific to N users or is just out of the scope altogether.


----------



## navi__x3 (May 20, 2017)

From what i've seen most responses here are from Ni users.

As an Ne user it comes off exactly like ADD/ADHD. (I was also diagnosed with ADHD at an early age. But I find it more manageable with caffeine and staying healthy rather than by medicating.) (Also my doctor told me ADD isn't a real disorder so what's up.)

If anything it manifest more as a lack of common sense or having to fully focus in order to do things that are considered normal (like doing the dishes or generally cleaning up for myself.. I have to use Te and come up with full attack plans or I'm useless) but an exceptionally easy time connecting patterns or coming up with "Aha!" ideas. (I know that's associated with Ni but we do it too)

Also a disconnect from conversations that are complete sensory. When I hear people's drunk stories where they say things like, "Man did you see me last night I had 3 shots of ____ and two _____ and I ____! Did you see ____ he had ___ _F_F_F_A___Afjdskfjkslfjksfjklf" *is already bored thinking about it*


----------



## navi__x3 (May 20, 2017)

thoughtcatalog said:


> Maybe I phrased that wrong. If you put it in that context, I don't let it wander either. After I space out, I'm like "shit I should have paid attention ughhh" so it's pretty much involuntary lol. Wonder if any other S users do this too. I'm genuinely curious if this very common description/trait is specific to N users or is just out of the scope altogether.


Well yeah! ISTJ has Ne, they just use it less. So those moments you're thinking of are probably when you're using Ne.

Kinda like how my Si is last, so I even though i'm not very sentimental, every now and then I'll think of memories from the past. I also quite like and need routine I just really suck at implementing it or remembering and my days always end up being different. :laughing:

Like.. Idk. My Te is very good at coming up with routines but my Si never follows through with them because I'm always chasing Ne ideas lol. 

Everyone has Sensing and everyone has iNtuition we all just prefer one more?


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

navi__x3 said:


> Well yeah! ISTJ has Ne, they just use it less. So those moments you're thinking of are probably when you're using Ne.
> 
> Kinda like how my Si is last, so I even though i'm not very sentimental, every now and then I'll think of memories from the past. I also quite like and need routine I just really suck at implementing it or remembering and my days always end up being different. :laughing:
> 
> ...


I totally get what you're saying about preferences. What I'm saying is this is my default too LOL. I do it so much that it becomes pretty problematic in life when I need to do something. I went to get groceries with hubby. I drifted off again and didn't realize until we got to our car and I'm like oh that's our car. LOL. And I felt bad afterwards cuz I'm like I need to pay attention to where my damn car is lol.


----------



## navi__x3 (May 20, 2017)

thoughtcatalog said:


> I totally get what you're saying about preferences. What I'm saying is this is my default too LOL. I do it so much that it becomes pretty problematic in life when I need to do something. I went to get groceries with hubby. I drifted off again and didn't realize until we got to our car and I'm like oh that's our car. LOL. And I felt bad afterwards cuz I'm like I need to pay attention to where my damn car is lol.


Are you sure you aren't an ENFP?

What are you thinking about during these moments? 

I mean I could see Si doing this if they're thinking about memories or something. But Ne is going to be thinking about more abstract subjects. If you relate to the former maybe you are an ISTJ with ADHD?


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

navi__x3 said:


> Are you sure you aren't an ENFP?
> 
> What are you thinking about during these moments?
> 
> I mean I could see Si doing this if they're thinking about memories or something. But Ne is going to be thinking about more abstract subjects.


INFP maybe but not E. I know I'm an introvert at least lol.

I was thinking about MBTI and all these discussions I've been taking part in, and the meaning behind them. And just thinking how it compares with others in my life and such. I don't remember everything but I think this was the gist of it. I find myself thinking about MBTI and how it applies to people, a lot these days.

Yeah I see what you're saying. It could just be a weird trip Si goes on for its own interest. Well whatever this is, I just have to say I involuntarily do not notice my surrounding A LOT. Like do not ask me for directions, if I noticed something, to remember something for you like getting gas. I probably will forget or not know and be like oops sorry after lol.


----------



## navi__x3 (May 20, 2017)

thoughtcatalog said:


> INFP maybe but not E. I know I'm an introvert at least lol.
> 
> I was thinking about MBTI and all these discussions I've been taking part in, and the meaning behind them. And just thinking how it compares with others in my life and such. I don't remember everything but I think this was the gist of it. I find myself thinking about MBTI and how it applies to people, a lot these days.
> 
> Yeah I see what you're saying. It could just be a weird trip Si goes on for its own interest. Well whatever this is, I just have to say I involuntarily do not notice my surrounding A LOT. Like do not ask me for directions, if I noticed something, to remember something for you like getting gas. I probably will forget or not know and be like oops sorry after lol.


No that doesn't mean you're an INFP and in fact that's why I mistyped myself for so long. I'm a shy ENFP myself. ENFP's are the most introverted "extroverts".
I'll send you a video that really helped me out. 



Please tell me if you relate.
And how old are you? We develop different functions during different parts of our life.

Also I don't know if you noticed but I asked if you were possibly an ISTJ with ADHD.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

navi__x3 said:


> From what i've seen most responses here are from Ni users.
> 
> As an Ne user it comes off exactly like ADD/ADHD. (I was also diagnosed with ADHD at an early age. But I find it more manageable with caffeine and staying healthy rather than by medicating.) (Also my doctor told me ADD isn't a real disorder so what's up.)
> 
> ...



This is extremely similar to me, I've also been told I have some kind of attention deficit disorder, but I've ignored that my entire life because I know it's not true. I zone out on shit that is useless or doesn't interest me.

That part about hearing drunk peoples stories.. man, yes. Any story, really.
I really do try to listen and be present in the conversation but it's almost impossible to keep it up for long.

I wind up with people talking at me, and in my head I'll actually think to myself "holy shit I can't remember a word he's saying.. what if he asks me a question? how can my memory be this bad? I _KNOW _Conor McGregor is gonna come out swingin' and go for that early KO on Floyd, bet this guy knows it too" then I might even cut the guy off, and ask him "hey, have you seen the first Karate Kid?" :/

For whatever reason, I've never been called out on this BS.
It's rude as hell when I think about it.

I zone so far out I honestly couldn't tell you what people said, seconds after they said it, unless it's interesting to me - and even then sometimes I'll ask someone a question, get the answer, and they'll keep elaborating - but I'll notice I'm pretty much *gone *after I've got what I was after.


Is this similar to you at all?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

thoughtcatalog said:


> INFP maybe but not E. I know I'm an introvert at least lol.
> 
> I was thinking about MBTI and all these discussions I've been taking part in, and the meaning behind them. And just thinking how it compares with others in my life and such. I don't remember everything but I think this was the gist of it. I find myself thinking about MBTI and how it applies to people, a lot these days.
> 
> Yeah I see what you're saying. It could just be a weird trip Si goes on for its own interest. Well whatever this is, I just have to say I involuntarily do not notice my surrounding A LOT. Like do not ask me for directions, if I noticed something, to remember something for you like getting gas. I probably will forget or not know and be like oops sorry after lol.


Funnily enough, I remember when you did a type me thread.. not all that long ago.. a couple of weeks?
I had a little reply up that you were an INFP or ENFP to me, but something happened and I didn't get a chance to post it.

I clearly remember thinking whoever said you were an ISTJ was way off the mark - almost completely off the mark - like, polar opposites of the mark. 

There's a book on Amazon called The Complete Guide to INFP by Heidi Priebe (or something similar), it's amazing and worth a read.
Check it out.


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

Yes, it's fuuuuu*cked up.

No, I can't.

No, basicly, I live more in a dream world than in the present world, or most I live in the past. 

Instead of focussing well on whatever I am doing/or should be focussing on I am mostly with my thoughts somewhere else to the point it brings me nowhere in my actual life.

Yeah, sad... very very sad.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

navi__x3 said:


> Well yeah! ISTJ has Ne, they just use it less. So those moments you're thinking of are probably when you're using Ne.
> 
> Kinda like how my Si is last, so I even though i'm not very sentimental, every now and then I'll think of memories from the past. I also quite like and need routine I just really suck at implementing it or remembering and my days always end up being different. :laughing:
> 
> ...


With Si.. how does it appear in your life? Like specifically, what sort of things does it make you do, or like, or want to do etc.. how does it influence your life?


In some weird warped way, I think I've been confusing some general "F" feelings - either Fe or Fi.. with Si.

Every now and then - pretty regularly - I'll get a flashback of a moment in my life, that will just about choke me up - then my mind will run off it and turn it into a movie of sorts, not really reflective - more like alternate outcomes.. but those moments, I always figured were Fe. I thought this before I started understanding Fe more.

On the same token, I'll sometimes think of my wife and daughter while at work, or driving around, and get this sinking feeling in my gut that makes me want to run home to them and just be there.. not out doing any other shit.. also figured this would be Fe (or just loving your family - I've been trying to connect things to functions lately though).. but I think it's probably Si in some way.

I'm understanding Si is less about recalling specific details, as it is recalling 'vibes' etc. 
This is how my memory seems to work - I would have figured this was some kind of combination of Ni+Fe or something, but it's not, it's Si.

I just think I've written off the Ne-Si axis prematurely. Keen to hear your thoughts on Si and what it is to you.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

navi__x3 said:


> No that doesn't mean you're an INFP and in fact that's why I mistyped myself for so long. I'm a shy ENFP myself. ENFP's are the most introverted "extroverts".
> I'll send you a video that really helped me out.
> 
> 
> ...


Oh I just read the ADHD part lol. Could be, but I don't think so because I am able to focus if I force myself to like at work.

I started watching a few mins of the video, and did somewhat relate especially the part that ENFP wants the world to be a better place, but then I stopped because I had to run. I will watch the whole thing when I have time and get back to you. Thanks!!


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Turi said:


> Funnily enough, I remember when you did a type me thread.. not all that long ago.. a couple of weeks?
> I had a little reply up that you were an INFP or ENFP to me, but something happened and I didn't get a chance to post it.
> 
> I clearly remember thinking whoever said you were an ISTJ was way off the mark - almost completely off the mark - like, polar opposites of the mark.
> ...


Oh yeah I remember that lol. I felt like what he said made sense and I can relate, and I have a good friend that typed me as ISTJ too, so I went with it. However, the more I read and experience in this "MBTI world", the more I'm second guessing everything and it's making me re-think the way/meaning behind certain things. It's making everything more muddled.

Oh okay, sure I'll check it out sometime. Thanks!!


----------



## roseflower217 (Sep 13, 2016)

When something gets my attention I always look about 5 layers deeper into what something could mean or what could be connected to it. Something can always mean something else. Everything is magically connected. My thoughts kind of blossom and get more and more complex. 

My sensor sister usually can only go about 2 layers because she feels happy with the thought and moves on...


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

thoughtcatalog said:


> Maybe I phrased that wrong. If you put it in that context, I don't let it wander either. After I space out, I'm like "shit I should have paid attention ughhh" so it's pretty much involuntary lol. Wonder if any other S users do this too. I'm genuinely curious if this very common description/trait is specific to N users or is just out of the scope altogether.


It's perhaps a matter of content and not just the fact that you do it... though ISTJ's aren't known to be space cadets. 



navi__x3 said:


> From what i've seen most responses here are from Ni users.
> 
> As an Ne user it comes off exactly like ADD/ADHD. (I was also diagnosed with ADHD at an early age. But I find it more manageable with caffeine and staying healthy rather than by medicating.) (Also my doctor told me ADD isn't a real disorder so what's up.)


Now that you mention it I think the difference between Ne and Ni is more obvious than Si vs Ni. Ne makes more scattered/spontaneous connections. I think the difference is Ni wanders in a familiar place, if that makes sense.... kinda like picking an unexplored plot of land to wander around vs wandering around somewhere unknown to figure out where you are. 




> If anything it manifest more as a lack of common sense or having to fully focus in order to do things that are considered normal (like doing the dishes or generally cleaning up for myself.. I have to use Te and come up with full attack plans or I'm useless) but an exceptionally easy time connecting patterns or coming up with "Aha!" ideas. (I know that's associated with Ni but we do it too)


This is definitely one of the most obvious characteristics of N users (aux as well), and the younger they are the more obvious it is lol. The more they integrate their S function, I think it starts to look more like avoiding something boring rather than completely failing haha.



navi__x3 said:


> Also I don't know if you noticed but I asked if you were possibly an ISTJ with ADHD.


^lol the irony



roseflower217 said:


> When something gets my attention I always look about 5 layers deeper into what something could mean or what could be connected to it. Something can always mean something else. Everything is magically connected. My thoughts kind of blossom and get more and more complex.
> 
> My sensor sister usually can only go about 2 layers because she feels happy with the thought and moves on...


do you ever get frustrated at humanity in general, like, "why do people not care about important things?!"


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

roseflower217 said:


> When something gets my attention I always look about 5 layers deeper into what something could mean or what could be connected to it. Something can always mean something else. Everything is magically connected. My thoughts kind of blossom and get more and more complex.
> 
> My sensor sister usually can only go about 2 layers because she feels happy with the thought and moves on...



Brilliant - is there any way you can explain those 5 layers of depth - surely there's more to it than "everything is magically connected" and "complex thoughts".
If you're able to elaborate on the 2 layers your sister would reach, that would be much appreciated too.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> It's perhaps a matter of content and not just the fact that you do it... though ISTJ's aren't known to be space cadets.
> 
> ^lol the irony


LOL that's pretty sad. Being an ISTJ with ADHD must be very frustrating.


----------



## Falsify Honestly (Jan 6, 2017)

I wanna take another shot at describing my thought process as an N after having read some more replies. 

I relate to those saying they make deep connections between things. I'll even find connections between two apparently disparate things. I have thought of Martin Luther, a reformed theologian, while reading the atheist philosopher Nietzsche. After reading a book, I'll often recall something from it while doing something else. It could be connecting an event that happened to me, another book, or just general thoughts. I'm exaggerating when I say this, but sometimes it helps to make it better to understand: "Everything is connected."

I'll use another personal anecdote. I was writing, trying to find the perfect simile or metaphor for a cataclysmic event that had just been revealed in the story. I would start writing something, then backspace it. My mind was jumping from place to place trying to find something. Among those thoughts while trying to find the simile: US presidents, religion, and, ultimately, I settled on two philosophers to use in my simile. It's really hard to describe how I came to this. I was less making my brain think through what I needed, and more coaxing my brain into the right state of mind for it to give me what I wanted. It popped into my head pretty much fully formed then, even though it took me fifteen minutes to get to that sudden idea.

Thoughts can be disorienting if you spend your time up there too often. I'll often go down this rabbit trail of thought, then laugh at myself for departing so far from where I started. Another example I can think of is another INTX friend of mine. We were talking about AI, and the conversation ended up discussing directors for the Wall-E sequel we had dreamed up, where Wall-E hunted humans for sport.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Falsify Honestly said:


> I wanna take another shot at describing my thought process as an N after having read some more replies.
> 
> I relate to those saying they make deep connections between things. I'll even find connections between two apparently disparate things. I have thought of Martin Luther, a reformed theologian, while reading the atheist philosopher Nietzsche. After reading a book, I'll often recall something from it while doing something else. It could be connecting an event that happened to me, another book, or just general thoughts. I'm exaggerating when I say this, but sometimes it helps to make it better to understand: "Everything is connected."
> 
> ...



Yeah this is exactly me. It's interesting because your description looks like a blend of Ne and Ni descriptors - which is how I feel, and is a part of my confusion.
If I get a chance tonight I might write up how what I believe, is Ni, manifests in my song-writing and every day life.

I can relate to the lot of this.


BTW - how much fun do you have doing taxes and finances etc?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

thoughtcatalog said:


> LOL that's pretty sad. Being an ISTJ with ADHD must be very frustrating.


I was pointing out the irony that you either didn't notice that she asked you that question or just forgot to answer it. :tongue:


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I was pointing out the irony that you either didn't notice that she asked you that question or just forgot to answer it. :tongue:


Ohh lol I thought it was added in after I read it but maybe I really did miss it. I wouldn't be surprised. I vaguely remember someone here asking me my age but now I can't remember who...oh well lol.


----------



## leictreon (Jan 4, 2016)

I'll be frank: I don't know. 

Like, I could say "hey, people tell me I'm "airy" or "gone" but that doesn't necessarily make you an N type, or getting hunches. Everyone does that. I can't really explain what intuition it. It just happens.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I'm pretty certain of my type now, I'll give a brief explanation of what I think it's about.


I truly believe it's as simple as preferring to search for meanings, or think in abstracts, VS preferring to perceive things as they are, in reality. The end.


For me the easiest way to define Ni is to say, of course we all perceive things through our senses initially - but in the same moment I do this, I'm thinking - and preferring to think - in abstracts/meanings/intangibles.. i.e I'll see an apple and obviously realise it is an apple - but I'll think about what it means immediately after perceiving - i.e what it represents (biblical) or what it must mean for farmers etc to have their produce so good etc etc you get the idea.

Someone who prefers sensing, of either kind, I would imagine would perceive the apple and think of real things it can be used for, things they can do with it - make an apple crumble, eat it etc and notice the colour and texture more than I do.


I am capable of also thinking in the sensory fashion but it's not my default and if forced to think in that manner I'll get a bit pissed off. I enjoy it on my own terms i.e brainstorming.

Sensors would likely feel the same way about how I think, they prefer to think in a real world fashion, and would get irritated if forced to think in abstracts for too long, though they're more than capable of it.

When S/N is aux/tert I imagine the divided is far less apparent and you'll find for instance that an INTP will prefer to think in abstracts and ideas but will be comfortable dealing with the finer details too if needs be.
It won't be as much of a stress trigger.

Same for say an ISFP, they'll prefer to think in real world terms but won't have much of an issue with exploring the meaning of things or diving deeper into their thoughts because their Se-Ni is intricately linked.


Another thing I'd like to mention is details - this is what it's really all about here, and to me N types will see say, a fruit platter and hone in on one particular thing and their mind will run rampant from there.
If asked to recall the event they'll probably ramble on about their thoughts etc - Ni in the fashion above - zoning on meanings "yeah I was thinking about how good it must be for the farmers to finally be getting some rain to produce such great fruit" and Ne in a broader sense "yea the apple made me think of an apple crumble, then I had thoughts of grandmas house and a building crumbling to the ground at the same time - imagine if there was an apple crumble shaped like a house that actually crumbled on to the plate when you dig your spoon in - kinda like how the Colosseum looks now".

An S type will be more likely to take in all of the fruit and will recall the event in those more real-life details.. Si might recall all of the different fruits "2 apples, a banana, an orange and some grapes I think", Se might recall it in a more broad manner i.e "loads of tasty fruit, some apples, bananas, some other shit, looked good".



I could go on but I feel this is enough.
It's just about preferences.
There's no reason an Ni dom wouldn't produce an Se style response - but it wouldn't be there preferred response. It'd come out a little sarcastic.
Same for an Se Dom giving an Ni style response.

More than capable of each other it's literally just preferences.


If I'm off the mark can someone correct me please.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I want to add I don't think there's any reason an Ni user can't think like an Ne user either.

I don't believe if you use Ni you can't use Ne, or if you use Si you can't use Se. I think that's a crock of shit.

Again I think it's simply preferences - an Ni dom just prefers to think that way, why can't they go into Ne mode if they want? There's no reason. It's just they prefer to be in Ni mode, that's default. Switching to an Ne style would be conscious, active, intentionally seeking to spot patterns and connect ideas - allowing their mind to expand in this fashion.
It's just not their natural preference.


Same deal for Si and Se.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Turi said:


> I want to add I don't think there's any reason an Ni user can't think like an Ne user either.
> 
> I don't believe if you use Ni you can't use Ne, or if you use Si you can't use Se.


Of course you can. MBTI is not about what you can't but about what you prefer.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

jetser said:


> Of course you can. MBTI is not about what you can't but about what you prefer.


Yeah, exactly. 

I've obviously fallen too far into this cognitive function shit and was under the impression of either/ors which isn't the case and doesn't really make sense.

Seeing it as something as simple as preferences makes more sense. 

Everything you read says you're either on this axis or that axis - i.e Ni-Se or Ne-Si - gotta be one or the other.

I don't believe this is true. I believe sure it might be your natural preference/default but it doesn't exclude you from being able to use the other functions/axis.

It will just be a conscious effort, not your natural state.


I also think all extraverted functions and introverted functions of the same type (Fe and Fi etc) are very closely linked and not as separate from each other as a lot of cognitive descriptors make out.

I notice people with strong N like myself score high in Ne and Ni. Same with people with high T - high Ti and Te usually.

Not a coincidence. Which supports my theory of being able to be on any axis regardless of your preferences.


----------



## navi__x3 (May 20, 2017)

Turi said:


> This is extremely similar to me, I've also been told I have some kind of attention deficit disorder, but I've ignored that my entire life because I know it's not true. I zone out on shit that is useless or doesn't interest me.
> 
> That part about hearing drunk peoples stories.. man, yes. Any story, really.
> I really do try to listen and be present in the conversation but it's almost impossible to keep it up for long.
> ...


Yes. Well. If someone is talking to me about sports I'll literally tell them, (while laughing) "Haha, sorry I know nothing about sports! At least I'm honest right?" or if it's anything i'm uninterested in, I literally just say it but yes I think I'm quite similar.

Ne usually knows _exactly_ what bores it. ENTPs are like this a bit more than ENFPs though. 



Turi said:


> With Si.. how does it appear in your life? Like specifically, what sort of things does it make you do, or like, or want to do etc.. how does it influence your life?
> 
> 
> In some weird warped way, I think I've been confusing some general "F" feelings - either Fe or Fi.. with Si.
> ...


WHOA. About that bolded portion, that's literally me every single time I leave the house. I feel guilty all the time like my family needs me or can't function without me. But to be honest I think with me it's more because my parents guilted me every time I left the house growing up moreso than a type thing hahaha.

It's hard to say since it's my last function, I actually thought I had Se for a long time myself because I use Si so rarely.

Things I do that might be Si related:
-Every now and then I get the urge to look at old pictures and I can do that for an hour or so happily. (happens a couple times a year) 
-Sometimes I reminisce about how I used to be, since it was quite different than who I am now!
-It's easier for me to go back and listen to old songs/soundtracks I know I like rather than find new ones I will like
-I get a tiny bit *sentimental* about certain moments, but this is such a crap way to tell because I don't consider myself to be that sentimental.
-(Rarely) will watch a show or episode that I like a second time just to get a feeling from it. ENTPs do this a LOT. (At least the ones I've met.)
-Brain functions by brainstorming (that's where this bullet list came from!)
-Find it easier to choose something if I've done it before
-I like the idea of routine.. It shows up in my gym schedule (which I still suck at keeping) or other small things.

I think inferior Si has a hard time remembering things and loses things a lot but I bed inferior Se does that too.


Also I think i'd describe Ne-Si as good at coming up with new ideas but needing external structure, and Ni-Se as creating structure but having a hard time deviating from their chosen path?

Like I could see Ne-Si making a bunch of different classes of characters in an RPG even though some of them are unfinished, and Ni-Se taking one and playing them into the ground xD (this is actually the difference between my INFJ friend and I lol!)

I don't know though 

ETA: OH! I forgot, I once read (on this website: http://infjorinfp.com/) that good way to describe Si is as a "social rehersal" 
Si types more than Se types are very likely to imagine a moment happening and practice what it would do in that situation... Like acting out a conversation that they might have to do later. Even if it's a moment that may never happen lol.


----------



## navi__x3 (May 20, 2017)

Turi said:


> Yeah this is exactly me. It's interesting because your description looks like a blend of Ne and Ni descriptors - which is how I feel, and is a part of my confusion.
> If I get a chance tonight I might write up how what I believe, is Ni, manifests in my song-writing and every day life.
> 
> I can relate to the lot of this.
> ...


I entirely relate to Falsify Honesty's post and I'm Ne Dom.

I think your open-ness to other's ideas/logic actually looks like an indicator of Te.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Turi said:


> Yeah, exactly.
> 
> I've obviously fallen too far into this cognitive function shit and was under the impression of either/ors which isn't the case and doesn't really make sense.
> 
> ...


If you read other theories (such as socionics) it will give you a much clearer picture about how functions work.
For example: for a Ni dominant Ne is just as easily accessible, but you almost never use it on your own. However you can easily follow other Ne users (Ne dominants) concepts or ideas and this can make you think that you're an Ne user yourself.
However you won't be able to use it on the same level for a longer period of time; you will get headache and such things but you can still use one or two ideas of theirs and turn it into something special that a Ne user doesn't have the patience for.


----------



## navi__x3 (May 20, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> It's perhaps a matter of content and not just the fact that you do it... though ISTJ's aren't known to be space cadets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually. I think that's pretty accurate seeing as Ne is sort of like a hacker trying every code until unlocking the right one, so we're taking in all the information from anywhere to what we think is correct, yeah! I mean, at least for me it makes sense.

I'd add to your Ne definition that I have a handful of plots of land I readily return to. I have a Religion plot, a Duality plot, Holistic world view plot (all these plots cross over) etc. This is probably based in my Fi-Si dynamic. But yes I think I am much more willing to take a look at new and unexplored plots but i've always related this open-ness to Te rather than Ne. 

I like to think of it like.. there's an unlimited number of platforms in front of you, Ni will walk down a straight path deviating occasionally, and Ne will wander off the path more often and their path may look like a zig zag.


----------



## KillinIt (Jul 27, 2015)

For me, I was unsure for a long time. I'm aesthetically oriented and have a fantastic memory, both things which would suggest I'm an S type. However I'm usually more focused on the future or the past, either looking at possibilities or reflecting on experiences, rather than just living in the present moment which I actually find really difficult to do. Even when I'm trying to be 'in the moment' I'm constantly generating scenarios and thinking what could happen next. S's are strongly associated with the here and now and actualities rather than possibilities whereas my natural inclination is towards the opposite. That led to me concluding I was an N type, INFP (although I have very well developed Si to make matters confusing).


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

KillinIt said:


> For me, I was unsure for a long time. I'm aesthetically oriented and have a fantastic memory, both things which would suggest I'm an S type. However I'm usually more focused on the future or the past, either looking at possibilities or reflecting on experiences, rather than just living in the present moment which I actually find really difficult to do. Even when I'm trying to be 'in the moment' I'm constantly generating scenarios and thinking what could happen next. S's are strongly associated with the here and now and actualities rather than possibilities whereas my natural inclination is towards the opposite. That led to me concluding I was an N type, INFP (although I have very well developed Si to make matters confusing).


Theoretically, when two functions are next to each other in the stack (as N and S are in INFP), it could be a source of confusion.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Theoretically, when two functions are next to each other in the stack (as N and S are in INFP), it could be a source of confusion.


Lucky ISTJ/INFP, this makes it so much easier :dry:

The weirdest thing is even though that is true, the two types are so far apart in terms of dichotomy.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

thoughtcatalog said:


> Lucky ISTJ/INFP, this makes it so much easier :dry:
> 
> The weirdest thing is even though that is true, the two types are so far apart in terms of dichotomy.


What do you mean? ISTJs are S-dom N-inferior.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> What do you mean? ISTJs are S-dom N-inferior.


I kind of went on a tangent, never mind me. I was trying to say ISTJ have T and F next to each other, and INFP have N and S next to each other. I don't even know if I'm explaining my relation to what you said coherently. In any case, nevermind lol.


----------

