# What the F is Ni & Ne and what does Carl Jung say?



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

I thought I knew what Ni Ne is, but I'm just reevaluating and trying to be open to new info on the matter.

*Questions I have:*

What is Ni & Ne?
What does Carl Jung actually say about it?
Why is there a discrepancy between current "popular" discourse and what Carl Jung says?
Has everyone simply improved what Jung started.
Is Carl Jung's understanding of cognitive functions been bastardised?


@Antiparticle @Llyralen

*MODERN DAY, POPULAR DISCOURSE SAYS:*





An In-depth Look at the Cognitive Functions of Personality Types


Personality types are more than their abbreviations. Ever heard of cognitive functions? You can learn more from our deep dive into the topic here.




personalitymax.com












An Introduction to the Cognitive Functions in Myers-Briggs® Theory


Here at Psychology Junkie, I spend a LOT of time talking about the cognitive functions, and I realized just recently that I don’t have a post that really goes into each of those functions very clearly. That’s about to change as of today! There are so many misconceptions about the cognitive...



www.psychologyjunkie.com








 (Frank James on cognitive functions)




 (Love Who on Ni vs Ne)








The 8 Jungian Cognitive Functions: Overview & Career Implications


A Glance into the History of the 8 Jungian Functions Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, proposed his model of the eight (8) functions in his work,




www.thecareerproject.org












The 8 Cognitive Functions | Personality Junkie


Introverted Feeling Reflects on personal feelings & values; champions authenticity & individuality; drawn to nature, children & animals. Learn more → Extraverted Feeling Emotionally connects…




personalityjunkie.com












The 8 Functions: Roles, Images & Characteristics | Personality Junkie


Contents I. Analytic Approach to the 8 Functions II. Holistic Approach: "Function Roles" Fi: "Valuing" Fe: "Connecting" Ti: "Reasoning" Te: "Structuring" Ni: "Knowing" Ne: "Ideating"…




personalityjunkie.com






Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10










 What is Introverted Intuition?


It doesn’t matter if you’ve just taken the TypeFinder Personality Test or you’ve known about the 16-type system for some time—there’s always something new to learn. One of the least understood details of the 16-type system is type dynamics. Each personality type is made up of four type dynamics...




www.truity.com





__
https://www.reddit.com/r/intj/comments/57rixo
 (How Jung describes Ni)

*CARL JUNG SAYS:*
*Chapter 10 of Carl Gustav Jung's work "Psychological Types" (1921):*
The Introverted Intuitive Type

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


If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels.

Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely Ã¦sthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its Ã¦sthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its Ã¦sthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further aesthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that
*[p. 510] *


it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.

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


_“The introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious.”...

“(Extraverted) Intuition tries to apprehend the widest range of possibilities, since only through envisioning possibilities is intuition fully satisfied.”
"Although this [extraverted]intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities"_

*– Carl Jung, Psychological Types*


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

I like what you mentioned about knowledge vs ideas. Knowledge is usually structured information (connections between the dots). Not sure how to define new idea in this framework. Both new dots and new connections?


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

Antiparticle said:


> Not sure how to define new idea in this framework. Both new dots and new connections?


New ways of connecting dots? Is there one way to connect the dots or many ways?

Anyway, there's Jung's entire explanation in all its glory!


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Joe Black said:


> New ways of connecting dots? Is there one way to connect the dots or many ways?


Wisdom = best way to connect the dots, or, why even connect them? 😅


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

Antiparticle said:


> why even connect them?


There are no dots!


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

@Red Panda do you care to answer ? Sorry for tagging you but I have a feeling that you’re best at explaining this 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Wait. In MBTI, isn't the "INFJ" an Ni dominant? 
You are an Ni dom and you don't know what Ni is?
Even if you are not Ni1, INFJ, in Jungian terms = FiNiSeTe. Still, conscious Ni. 

To be very honest with you, you are looking at the wrong places.
None of the Ni descriptions in pop typology is correct.
Only Jung is right.
And, introverted intuitives (aka, Ni dominants or Ni1s or INPs) are real. They exist in modern society.

Jungian psychology itself is one of the most typical examples of two conscious functions - Dominant Ti and Secondary Ni. Jung himself is a true INTJ - TiNiSeFe.

"NiTeFiSe" does not exist. 

I plan to write a piece on introverted intuitives specifically, but not now.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

lww23 said:


> Wait. In MBTI, isn't the "INFJ" an Ni dominant?
> You are an Ni dom and you don't know what Ni is?
> Even if you are not Ni1, INFJ, in Jungian terms = FiNiSeTe. Still, conscious Ni.
> 
> ...


It took a long time for humans to be able to describe what air is though we breathe it. Intuition and how it works is by definition occluded from consciousness.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Joe Black said:


> It's also difficult because every possibility for introverted intuition and widest possibility for extraverted intuition sounds like the same thing.


We have similar understanding of new information (but not the same past knowledge); this can be because we are both Ni dom users.

Ni users offered their views of Ne. Maybe if we can hear several Ne-dom descriptions of Ni we would be smarter regarding this thread. 😸

Ne users narrow down Ni in description, and Ni users can’t see the difference between Ni and Ne.

Because of this seems Ni > Ne both in depth and width, so it would be informative to hear the real difference from Ne point of view. But I think for this we need ENTP.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

Antiparticle said:


> We have similar understanding of new information (but not the same past knowledge); this can be because we are both Ni dom users.
> 
> Ni users offered their views of Ne. Maybe if we can hear several Ne-dom descriptions of Ni we would be smarter regarding this thread. 😸


I have a very limited interest in function theory outsides of bits and pieces that help me in other, more important (to me) endeavors. But Ni-doms always make sense to me when I understand that, as Mr. JB noted, Ni is a convergent process. I can sense that in them, new information is used to fortify existing structures, though what it is converging on exactly and why is something that I have zero insight to. There's a pushback, denial, on things that don't fit, while I immediately am attracted to attempting to integrate things that don't fit, Ne-novelty seeking, they call it.

I associate Ni with mysticism, internal unexplained insight. I've known many a INFJ whom God talks to, and often note things like INTJ analytical geniuses that seem to be a bit, eh, woowoo when explaining the existence of things like Math. Not that I dislike woowoo, I do not. I also get mystical like insights, but only later in life, and in my interpretation it's just a lifetime of pattern recognition partially distilled in Si. I say, I've seen this pattern before. Or actually, I feel the pattern and its shape, it is familiar.

I have some idiosyncratic knowledge of my introverted function, Fi, and I can only guess it's of a kind with Ni in some ways. I feel like Fi crystalizes into a shape, it grows into a value structure. Perhaps the Ni structure also grows like a crystal, or maybe it starts as an amorphous blob, and bits are blown out of it until a shape is revealed. Yes, I am just babbling now.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

I feel like an important piece to understanding Intuitive function expression is the paired function, my Ne is always influenced by Fi. My interests are about human experience and human possibility. EDIT: Perhaps NiFe is about a particular Utopia.

EDIT: More off the cuff rambling, I feel like Ne for me creates a map, and I navigate it, or imagine new places to go given what I know of the world it's mapping. Perhaps Ni is a blueprint.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

I don't know if MBTI names should be interspersed in Jungian types. Isn't just INF and ENF? Then one denotes which is the dominant? When one adds the J/P at the end, most people are going to either assume you're talking straight MBTI or Grant stacks.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

lww23 said:


> Wait. In MBTI, isn't the "INFJ" an Ni dominant?
> You are an Ni dom and you don't know what Ni is?


Nice to meet you too. You must be an INTJ?

I thought I knew everything (adhering to what all them interwebs and PerC folk say about the matter) and would explain it confidently, but from another thread on PerC, I'm second guessing myself and reevaluating. Normally I would strongly defend what I already know. But this time, just trying to be open to the possibility that I'm wrong and learn something new.

And noticing what Jung says is not quite how everyone else articulates. How did things progress? Is the understanding of Jungian cognitive functions being bastardized? Or has everyone transcended and improved what Jung started.
(I take it you adhere to the former, and that you are perhaps a Jungian purist?)


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Whippit said:


> It took a long time for humans to be able to describe what air is though we breathe it.


Good example. And, it is true. It took a while before humans came to understand air better.
However, the lack of direct observation is not the same as the lack of experience. Although we cannot directly see air with our naked eyes, we experience its existence every moment. It is through such experience that we know the existence of air. The lack of a term or description is a separate issue.
You may know something but find it somewhat difficult to put it into words. That applies to intuition. 



Whippit said:


> Intuition and how it works is by definition occluded from consciousness.


This basically suggests unconscious intuition. Those with conscious intuition may not be able to describe it in specific terms, but they experience the existence of their conscious intuition on a daily basis. Similar to the air example.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Whippit said:


> EDIT: More off the cuff rambling, I feel like Ne for me creates a map, and I navigate it, or imagine new places to go given what I know of the world it's mapping. Perhaps Ni is a blueprint.


Very nice description of Ne as a map. I would have a feeling my Ni map is not good because it will change every minute, so it won’t be accurate. I wouldn’t feel confident in navigating the world using (only) Ni map.


----------



## CountZero (Sep 28, 2012)

INFP here, reporting for Ne duty. There are two primary ways I experience what is typically thought of extroverted intuition. One is sort of a machine gun of ideas, being able to generate a rapid stream of different, but tangentially related ideas. Some of these ideas may be bad, and some good. It usually takes some experience or discretion to pick out the gems. One way this manifests for me is my sense of humor. Someone will say something that spawns 3 or 4 potential jokes in my mind, out of which one *might* be good material for a laugh.

The other way is an ability to pivot off one idea onto other ideas, sometimes in seemingly random ways. I might see a sparrow on the road to work, which will trigger a memory about the migratory patterns of birds, which will then draw a comparison to traffic patterns and then to the difficulties of civic planning. This may or may not be useful/productive depending on the context, but it is rarely boring.

Since my knowledge of cognitive functions is limited, take the above with a grain (_cough_ large dose _cough_) of salt.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

lww23 said:


> Good example. And, it is true. It took a while before humans came to understand air better.
> However, the lack of direct observation is not the same as the lack of experience. Although we cannot directly see air with our naked eyes, we experience its existence every moment. It is through such experience that we know the existence of air. The lack of a term or description is a separate issue.
> You may know something but find it somewhat difficult to put it into words. That applies to intuition.
> 
> ...


Can you say more about unconscious intuition vs conscious intuition. I've never heard of such a delineation.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

Antiparticle said:


> Very nice description of Ne as a map. I would have a feeling my Ni map is not good because it will change every minute, so it won’t be accurate. I wouldn’t feel confident in navigating the world using (only) Ni map.


That is very difficult for me to imagine, do you perceive it as being very situational, responding to the moment?


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

@Antiparticle I found something that sounds like what you thought on Ni/Ne








The Personality Type Theory That Nobody Can Agree On: Part I


In the world of personality type enthusiasts, there are three main camps: those who believe that type dynamics are an essential part of understanding personality types, those who think type dynamics lack legitimate support, and those who are sitting there right now wondering “What in the heck...




www.truity.com





Extraverted iNtuition (Ne) – Notices patterns and connections, generates possibilities.
Introverted iNtuition (Ni) – Identifies probable outcomes, conceptualizes new ways of seeing.
It also talks about the 3 main positions on personality theory. I'll have to read this later.
Also this Grand Brown-Sword guy is new to me, so will have to check him out too.

After all this, I might say.... "Screw it... I'll just go back home to what I initially thought - where it's comfy, and most people speak that language." 🤣 

I'm already studying business and other self development! Priorities...😬


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Whippit said:


> That is very difficult for me to imagine, do you perceive it as being very situational, responding to the moment?


Yes, like it changes or erases constantly, not solid/fixed paths (like in a map). It’s usually better and more stable without many inputs from others, just while exploring ideas and concepts.


----------



## maximum danger (4 mo ago)

Consider Frederick II who Nietzsche considers a "marvelous, inexplicable, enigmatic man" close to an übermensch, who was "predestined for conquering and circumventing others." Frederick II when he was young, was more interested in music and philosophy than the art of war and then ends up as one of the greatest tacticians of war. It is this sublimation of this drive, to elevate the drive into the conscious mental plain while still retaining the original character and the overcoming of suffering from that which becomes achievement. That makes someone like Frederick II. Similarly, the case is for Nietzsche himself. Though Salomé was not convinced: "He fell back upon himself, instead of an outer life force. And so, he achieved precisely the opposite of his goal: not a higher unity of his own being but its innermost division, not the fusion of all stirrings and drives (into an individuum) but a split and divided self (a dividuum)."


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Antiparticle said:


> I like what you mentioned about knowledge vs ideas. Knowledge is usually structured information (connections between the dots). Not sure how to define new idea in this framework. Both new dots and new connections?








What Is Constructivism?


Constructivism is an important learning theory based on the idea that learners build on their existing foundation to learn new information. Learn more about constructivism and how it impacts education.




www.wgu.edu













Learning Theory Connections - Constructivism







sites.google.com


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Squirt said:


> You cite his inventions as fantastic, yet he believed Einstein’s theory of relativity was malarky and considered it mathematical fantasy-making with no basis in reality, and so not worth pursuing. He thought that application of physics was madness because it didn’t rely on tangibles and what was (at the time) conventionally accepted as true. None of his inventions relied on creating anything new in terms of theory, but harnessing what was already there in clever ways with clear thinking and superior spatial/material reasoning. He even described his own process as a focus on “apparatus and method” rather than theory/novelty of ideas.
> 
> The thing is, Tesla is not very abstract in any sophisticated sense, and most of that spin comes from associations in how he was presented (calling him a magician and genius, for instance). I read over “My Inventions” again, and it really does come off as more of a sensing-oriented perspective - very matter of fact in how he explains things, with lots of particular, concrete details. Here is his description of his first “invention” - a hook to catch frogs:
> 
> ...


Not sure if it’s more important what he says about himself and his inventions (probably to a point it’s important), but his level of innovativeness is very similar to Einstein’s from my perspective.



> None of his inventions relied on creating anything new in terms of theory, but harnessing what was already there in clever ways with clear thinking and superior spatial/material reasoning. He even described his own process as a focus on “apparatus and method” rather than theory/novelty of ideas.


This is almost crazy to use as description of Tesla 😂😂😂 Inventing remote control when it doesn’t exist as a concept is Sci Fi - not science, it’s science fiction out-of-the-box thinking.

“Inventors” have different mindset compared to “theorists”, yes. It’s not a good argument to say inventors are not innovative in inventing theories, because they are not theorists. It’s true that in mathematical descriptions of theories often nothing really “new” is created.

However, for Einstein this is not true; he created new concepts, because he took concept A and connected it with B.

A = spacetime curvature, geometry; B = gravity, force. It was a new way of thinking:

A = B.

Type that is superior in creating new concepts and implementing/verifying them is INTP. Ti-Ne would explain Tesla’s thinking very good, i.e. dominant Ti. INTPs are modest, he usually speaks about himself and his inventions like this. Although ENTP is also difficult to exclude (Ne-Ti). But given that Tesla had problems with others stealing his ideas, and his lifestyle, most likely introverted type.

Also, fundamental physics IS mathematical fantasy until experiments are possible to verify it. For string theory this is currently still mathematical fantasy using this definition. (Doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s not worth to do it.)


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Antiparticle said:


> Not sure if it’s more important what he says about himself and his inventions (probably to a point it’s important), but his level of innovativeness is very similar to Einstein’s from my perspective.


Again, are you saying a sensing preference means someone can’t be innovative? I don’t hold this view.



Antiparticle said:


> “Inventors” have different mindset compared to “theorists”, yes. It’s not a good argument to say inventors are not innovative in inventing theories, because they are not theorists.


Then you understood the distinction I was making. Einstein is pretty clearly an N-type, focused on developing theory which may someday provide an application, though that isn’t what most interested him.



Antiparticle said:


> Type that is superior in creating new concepts and implementing/verifying them is INTP. Ti-Ne would explain Tesla’s thinking very good, i.e. dominant Ti.


He might be a T-dom. Not ruling that out. But it seems more supported by sensing if so, like already stated, ISTP. He clearly is not high F. That actually appears the weakest, which lends some support to T-dom.

Yet, like lww23 mentioned, intuitive types tend to stay in the realm of ideas or apply them in the form of creating new forms of meaning or changes of perspective, and are not as driven to manifest something tangible and may even struggle with doing so. It’s not impossible for intuitive types or anything, but Tesla as an inventor put a huge emphasis on it and was particularly successful to that end. (He was also into designing fountains for a spell, lol.)


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Squirt said:


> Again, are you saying a sensing preference means someone can’t be innovative? I don’t hold this view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do you actually “sense” how to implement teleportation? You don’t have to use intuition for this?

I am interested in innovation in all aspects, but S types will probably display some visual creativity/innovation. More standard engineering career seems ISTP.

INTPs care about implementation and verification of ideas, but this is Ne-aux, not dom.

Btw, wasn’t Einstein INTP? If both are Ti-Ne that is very interesting for Ni vs Ne discussion. 😸 Or if Tesla is Ni (INTJ) and Einstein Ti (INTP). (To me these are both high intuitives.)


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> How do you actually “sense” how to implement teleportation? You don’t have to use intuition for this?
> 
> I am interested in innovation in all aspects, but S types will probably display some visual creativity/innovation. More standard engineering career seems ISTP.
> 
> ...


Einstein was ENTP. It seems like most your conclusions are built on those key beliefs :

introversion is about using your own brain and "deeply", having some kind of focus of special caliber and intensity.
extraversion is about jumping from one thing to another with minimal working memory/attention span, only grasping surfaces and mostly exploiting products of introverts, no capacity for anything long-term or meaningful with lots of stereotypical ADHD symptoms. Any brilliance is limited to short-term low-scale results.
sensing is about being a car mechanic at best, only using known stuff since they are too dull for doing something new. Innovations are only about something boring and unimportant like cute paintings or whatever sensory nonsense.
deep insights, innovation, intellectual creativity is something that only N is capable of. And Ni, more specifically. Ne is brilliant enough only to appreciate the superior brilliance of Ni. Sensing is about being stuck in the past and doing something boring.

None of that is accurate, which, I think, is imperative to accept for any kind of constructive discussion and learning to progress further.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

lww23 said:


> Ss have unconscious intuition, N3 or N4, but it does not mean they always reject intuition. S types do not engage with their N only as the last option. In fact, many of them frequently experience the interactions between conscious sensation and unconscious intuition, especially when they have S2 > N3. Many ISJs (Si2) find possibilities through experiences and realize improvement gradually*. They transform what is intangible into what is experienceable. *With Ne4, ISP can perceive all the possibilities but ultimately, those possibilities need to be verified by experience to be real, hence, Tesla's case. He wants to make sure that the inventions already embody all the possibilities. Information from unconscious Ne is not something he wants to deal with directly, so he tried to include it in his own vision (Si1).


This is exactly what intuitives do, they see things in ways most others don't and bring them to realization which results (whether they intend or not) for everyone else to experience. Jung characteristically says that in the description of the NE as well, they move on while everyone else gets to enjoy their labour. It's how society progresses scientifically and technologically through intuitive peoples' work. Favoring intuition means you have the drive to leave the beaten path because you perceive the world in ways most others don't. Tesla did exactly that, he found new ways to see, understand and harness electromagnetism at a point in time it was viewed more like magic than science.



> It really depends on each case.
> My argument suggests that it is a misconception to assume anyone creative and intelligent to be N.
> There are creative S types and they are different from Ns. Tesla's case can help us distinguish a creative S from Ns.


There's no question that sensors can be creative or intelligent, but your argument is that creating anything make someone not an intuitive.



> Ns naturally perceive the unconscious and the intangible. Anything inaccessible to the senses is consciously perceived by Ns. Ns are generally fine with the absences, such as meanings. When Ns perceive meanings, they get them without necessarily turning them into concrete objects, external or internal.
> 
> INPs are especially known for their detachment from the world (Se4) and the physical self (Si8). INJs, with Ni2 > Se3, interpret reality as manifestations of meanings only.


What intuition perceives isn't inaccessible to the senses, our senses are fundamental to our ability to perceive. Intuitives just notice the subtleties in them, the stuff that don't overwhelm the senses.
I honestly have no idea what you're saying here though. You're not explaining a "meaning" is, you're just repeating that Ns perceive meanings...


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Allostasis said:


> Einstein was ENTP. It seems like most your conclusions are built on those key beliefs :
> 
> introversion is about using your own brain and "deeply", having some kind of focus of special caliber and intensity.
> extraversion is about jumping from one thing to another with minimal working memory/attention span, only grasping surfaces and mostly exploiting products of introverts, no capacity for anything long-term or meaningful with lots of stereotypical ADHD symptoms. Any brilliance is limited to short-term low-scale results.
> ...


No, I think these points are not a correct summary of my thinking. Engineering is another visual example to illustrate different category from Tesla’s creativity (although I think he is 1 of its kind, so not the easiest course of this discussion to compare anyone with him).

It takes a big leap of faith (in terms of thinking) to implement teleportation or remote control in some engineering device. Device here is less important. This big step is usually combining abstract concepts, using intuition. (Both Ne and Ni do it.) In case of Tesla, I can easily imagine INTP doing it (Ti-Ne), just not ISTP for these discoveries.

Ni/Ne: The main difference is extroversion vs introversion, I think I wrote this conclusion somewhere earlier.

From the perspective of Ni, Ne can look like it jumps to different courses of imagination more easily/likely, yes. But all Ni dominants know they are also guilty of this (in their own heads). So the main difference is still extraversion/introversion.

Note that this discussion started as a (subtle) difference between dominant Ni and dominant Ne, isolated from other functions. The other context was Ne in ENFPs, which is again different from Ne in thinkers (ENTP/INTPs).


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> This is exactly what intuitives do, they see things in ways most others don't and bring them to realization which results (whether they intend or not) for everyone else to experience. Jung characteristically says that in the description of the NE as well, they move on while everyone else gets to enjoy their labour. It's how society progresses scientifically and technologically through intuitive peoples' work. Favoring intuition means you have the drive to leave the beaten path because you perceive the world in ways most others don't. Tesla did exactly that, he found new ways to see, understand and harness electromagnetism at a point in time it was viewed more like magic than science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Meaning -> I think the same as symbolic thinking. Numbers 1,2,3 are symbols (with meaning 3 = |||), “person” is a symbol. Adding between the lines something that is not there?

It’s a big research direction in AI (symbolic AI):









What AI Can Tell Us About Intelligence | NOEMA


Can deep learning systems learn to manipulate symbols? The answers might change our understanding of how intelligence works and what makes humans unique.




www.noemamag.com


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Squirt said:


> “One of my playmates had come into the posession of a hook and fishing-tackle which created quite an excitement in the village, and the next morning all started out to catch frogs. I was left alone and deserted owing to a quarrel with this boy. I had never seen a real hook and pictured it as something wonderful, endowed with peculiar qualities, and was despairing not to be one of the party. Urged by necessity, I somehow got hold of a piece of soft iron wire, hammered the end to a sharp point between two stones, bent it into shape, and fastened it to a strong string. I then cut a rod, gathered some bait, and went down to the brook where there were frogs in abundance. But I could not catch any and was almost discouraged when it occurred to me to dangle the empty hook in front of a frog sitting on a stump. At first he collapsed but by and by his eyes bulged out and became bloodshot, he swelled to twice his normal size and made a vicious snap at the hook. Immediately I pulled him up. I tried the same thing again and again and the method proved infallible...”
> 
> His entire autobiography reads like this. I can see ISTP as a possible MBTI type here, rather than N-dom.


in this case @ai.tran.75 may be right that he was an extravert intuitive, I'm 50-50 on it now


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Antiparticle said:


> Meaning -> I think the same as symbolic thinking. Numbers 1,2,3 are symbols (with meaning 3 = |||), “person” is a symbol. Adding between the lines something that is not there?
> 
> It’s a big research direction in AI (symbolic AI):
> 
> ...


I'm just asking for how he uses the word really, because people use that word in very subjective ways often and often it reflects their own way of thinking about things. Which honestly is a common problem when talking about typology and functions, we describe our own using the language we have in our disposal but to the other person the words we use can often mean a different process.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Squirt said:


> You cite his inventions as fantastic, yet he believed Einstein’s theory of relativity was malarky and considered it mathematical fantasy-making with no basis in reality, and so not worth pursuing. He thought that application of physics was madness because it didn’t rely on tangibles and what was (at the time) conventionally accepted as true. None of his inventions relied on creating anything new in terms of theory, but harnessing what was already there in clever ways with clear thinking and superior spatial/material reasoning. He even described his own process as a focus on “apparatus and method” rather than theory/novelty of ideas.
> 
> The thing is, Tesla is not very abstract in any sophisticated sense, and most of that spin comes from associations in how he was presented (calling him a magician and genius, for instance). I read over “My Inventions” again, and it really does come off as more of a sensing-oriented perspective - very matter of fact in how he explains things, with lots of particular, concrete details. Here is his description of his first “invention” - a hook to catch frogs:
> 
> ...


Agree.


Red Panda said:


> This is exactly what intuitives do, they see things in ways most others don't and bring them to realization which results (whether they intend or not) for everyone else to experience. Jung characteristically says that in the description of the NE as well, they move on while everyone else gets to enjoy their labour. It's how society progresses scientifically and technologically through intuitive peoples' work.


What he seems to suggest is that other people do at least half of the labour.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> This is exactly what intuitives do, they see things in ways most others don't and bring them to realization which results (whether they intend or not) for everyone else to experience.


Including many conflicted opinions on “how exactly they did it??” 😂

or: “This is simple. Everyone can do it.”

It’s usually simple after its done, before is not that obvious.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

DOGSOUP said:


> What he seems to suggest is that other people do at least half of the labour.


_Naturally this attitude holds great dangers, for all too easily the intuitive may fritter away his life on things and people, spreading about him an abundance of life which others live and not he himself. If only he could stay put, he would reap the fruits of his labours; but always he must be running after a new possibility, quitting his newly planted fields while others gather in the harvest. In the end he goes away empty._


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> _Naturally this attitude holds great dangers, for all too easily the intuitive may fritter away his life on things and people, spreading about him an abundance of life which others live and not he himself. If only he could stay put, he would reap the fruits of his labours; but always he must be running after a new possibility, quitting his newly planted fields while others gather in the harvest. In the end he goes away empty._


This is for Ne dom? Or Ne in general.

INTPs are relatively long-term in this focus, at least the INTPs I know (scientists). I noticed some build concepts in the same direction for 10 years - I consider this very long time.

They also have mentor-attitude for younger people who learn directly from them, to pass the exact same skill/knowledge further, and the same way of concept building is continued. Like in old times when you take 1-2 persons to teach them your specific way of work.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Antiparticle said:


> This is for Ne dom?


yea


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> yea


So we kind of agreed on shorter term timescale for Ne-dom vs Ni-dom (this was much earlier in discussion).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Antiparticle said:


> So we kind of agreed on shorter term timescale for Ne-dom vs Ni-dom (this was much earlier in discussion).


no it's not about this, but how the N(E) will not sit down with what they created to turn it into a stable condition and view it as a success the way the rest do
building concepts for long usually happens because there's new information that can be incorporated or that can change the whole thing, which NEs excel at 
take a look at Dr. David Sinclair or Ido Portal, both ENTPs who have dedicated their lives to studying specific things but do so in a very NE way. It's not about the singular concept but what shape it can take.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> _Naturally this attitude holds great dangers, for all too easily the intuitive may fritter away his life on things and people, spreading about him an abundance of life which others live and not he himself. If only he could stay put, he would reap the fruits of his labours; but always he must be running after a new possibility, quitting his newly planted fields while others gather in the harvest. In the end he goes away empty._


I know the quote, thank you. So without others, the fruits would rot.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> no it's not about this, but how the N(E) will not sit down with what they created to turn it into a stable condition and view it as a success the way the rest do
> building concepts for long usually happens because there's new information that can be incorporated or that can change the whole thing, which NEs excel at
> take a look at Dr. David Sinclair or Ido Portal, both ENTPs who have dedicated their lives to studying specific things but do so in a very NE way. It's not about the singular concept but what shape it can take.


You mean like it’s never the feeling of finished process/product?


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

skyboy said:


> From what I get, it sounds brilliant.
> 
> I have to admit I relate 100& to Ne and 0% to Ni in what you say, while for a few Ni-doms I can think of, the picture seems to match. I wonder if your being Ne-dom gives Ne a more attractive form or if it's simply because I am a Ne-user that I perceive it as such.
> 
> ...


By definition, what is fundamentally different in function N except it’s domain I/E? How is this different from any (mathematical) function that operates on different domains? The only difference is private/inner world (I) vs external/outside. Why add different properties to N other than domain?

This is the only part that is confusing for me when I read subjective descriptions - they should be subjective - however when moving on to make the analogy for I/E, why change the function N? It’s like changing T in Ti/Te. If it’s hidden (I) it’s still there.

The difference is in different types of possibilities, not in numbers. This is for N-doms, others definitely have much more control over their Ni/Ne, especially aux users.



> Looking at Ni-users, it feels knowledge comes from them as much as from external sources.


This looks like this from Ne perspective. From Ni perspective, they feel like knowledge is 99% inner. It’s like you try get PhD every day. Not possible. Something gets discarded. But you can brainstorm new ideas every day with people who have PhDs, right?

Maybe this explains @Joe Black why you “cannot” learn both deeply and widely at the same time (our earlier discussions). You can, but it’s maybe crazy. 😸 It’s not easy to tell Ni users what should learn (new) or change, that’s in our Ni domain, so we trust it.

Interesting, I also used 2D description for Ni here, overlapping circles of concepts:




Antiparticle said:


> I can explain how I come to new idea/new concepts.
> 
> 1st step: I focus on what I know/do/my goal/research field. This is outer boundary. We don’t want to go out of this. (Because otherwise my every thought would be in new field, one day I would be surgeon, another day engineer, etc.) This is similar to choosing task to solve. New question without answer. It’s not trivial to chose this boundary. This is narrowing down/focusing. But we are still in the known. How do we get out of this known boundary?
> 
> ...


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

> How is this different from any (mathematical) function that operates on different domains?


Well mathematically speaking, two functions on different domains are unrelated. I guess you mean defined by the same formula. Yet, you can say log on ]0;1] have very different properties than log on [1;2[.

Basically, I get the idea that functions are the same and only the attitude (I/E) changes. It's been sufficiently repeated. The question remains however, how the close relation to the subjective desires of the self (in introversion), and the reality of the external world (in extraversion) can usually have an impact on the function. The thing is to try to find a pattern that would be roughly independent of circumstances. This would be possible if the self was of a stably different nature than the external world, or the way it impacts the function was fundamentally different.

But I agree, the self can fracture and scatter Ni, force it to rearrange, just like the variety of the external world can force Ne to rearrange. But as you say, since the source that produced this change in not visible in introversion (to an external eye), it appears as more resisting to adaptation, more remote, having its own dynamics.



> The difference is in different types of possibilities


What types ?


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

maximum danger said:


> I'm talking about his (mis)typings of him and specifically of Adler that he then kept hidden from the public due to shame in his errors because of his belief and reliance thereof to unfounded specificity and calculatedness in his types.


Source please. "Kept hidden from the public" how did you know if it is hidden?
Scientists are not saints. They have their own weaknesses and they commit errors. Even if one questions the moral aspects of something Jung did, it should not serve as a blanket rejection of his theory. 
Typing people is hard, and that is why it can be seen as a lifetime mission. It's never that easy.



maximum danger said:


> So, yes you are mistaken.


No, I'm not. My sources are: 
Freud: A Very Short Introduction
Jung: A Very Short Introduction, both were published by OUP.
Also, Freud being INFJ (FiNi) is the conclusion of von Franz in her book "Jung's typology".



maximum danger said:


> In a 1957 letter to Ernst Hanhart, he first identified Freud as an introverted feeler type, and then getting to know him in 1907 he's said his type has already become neurotically blurred and now looked like an empiricist and extraverted thinker. In the same letter he then mentions a story about an extraverted man with cardiac neurosis married to an introvert woman, who then divorced and married an extravert woman and lost his cardiac neurosis and became then an introvert. It wasn't just with Freud. He consistently implicates himself in this kind of contradiction and leaves exits for his analyses to escape itself leaving it able to change.


Provide the source. these are facts so they must come from one or two definite sources.



maximum danger said:


> Personally, reading the fallible Jung who has multitudes in his theory is more accurate than as a scientist who simply was correcting errors to his system as time went on.


Everyone in science is fallible. The "infallible" only exists in religion.

Jung did not "invent" those types. Types are real differences among people. They are real in the sense that they are clearly observable and serve as valid explanations for everything people do - motives, actions, purposes, etc. Types have long existed before Jung developed his theory. Even Jung himself said he did not have the truth and his theory was built on the existing literature and empirical evidence. Types reveal the truth and fundamentals of human society and if one understands types, one will find out that almost everything people do can be associated with types. What types really are - they are not cognitive functions or letters but they do encompass two major aspects of the mind - judgment and perception.


----------



## maximum danger (4 mo ago)

lww23 said:


> Source please. "Kept hidden from the public" how did you know if it is hidden?
> Scientists are not saints. They have their own weaknesses and they commit errors. Even if one questions the moral aspects of something Jung did, it should not serve as a blanket rejection of his theory.
> Typing people is hard, and that is why it can be seen as a lifetime mission. It's never that easy.
> 
> ...


Naming sources aren't relevant to your mistake when you said Jung never indicated Freud's type, only von Franz. Your response consists half of only responding partly to what I said, and the other half is arguing against things I've never said or argued for. That is a sign of apologetics. 

_C.G. Jung Letters Vol. II, pg. 349-350
C.G Jung Letters Vol. I, pg. 301-302_


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

maximum danger said:


> Naming sources aren't relevant to your mistake when you said Jung never indicated Freud's type, only von Franz.


Of course it is relevant, as least you let people know you were not making up stories.

When I said that, I made a *guess* in a very cautious and polite tone.
No need to be that condescending as if you had never made any mistakes.


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Joe Black said:


> Is Jung talking about self awareness and unawareness?
> The words conscious and unconscious seems to infer that it's "out of our control" to me.
> To be so aware of how we think that we become in control of our behaviours/actions rather than being controlled by them all the time.


No, consciousness and unconsciousness is not the same as self-awareness or not, in Jungian theory.

Unconscious does suggest a lack of control.

It must be noted that these concepts have been used widely in contemporary settings and hence have different definitions.

The following shows how these two concepts are defined by Jung:

*Consciousness. *_The function or activity which maintains the relation of psychic contents to the ego; distinguished conceptually from the psyche, which encompasses both consciousness and the unconscious. (See also opposites.)

There is no consciousness without discrimination of opposites.["Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype," CW 9i, par. 178.]
There are two distinct ways in which consciousness arises. The one is a moment of high emotional tension, comparable to the scene in Parsifal where the hero, at the very moment of greatest temptation, suddenly realizes the meaning of Amfortas' wound. The other is a state of contemplation, in which ideas pass before the mind like dream-images. Suddenly there is a flash of association between two apparently disconnected and widely separated ideas, and this has the effect of releasing a latent tension. Such a moment often works like a revelation. In every case it seems to be the discharge of energy-tension, whether external or internal, which produces consciousness.["Analytical Psychology and Education," CW 17, par. 207.]

In Jung's view of the psyche, individual consciousness is a superstructure based on, and arising out of, the unconscious.
Consciousness does not create itself-it wells up from unknown depths. In childhood it awakens gradually, and all through life it wakes each morning out of the depths of sleep from an unconscious condition. It is like a child that is born daily out of the primordial womb of the unconscious. . . . It is not only influenced by the unconscious but continually emerges out of it in the form of numberless spontaneous ideas and sudden flashes of thought.["The Psychology of Eastern Meditation," CW 11, par. 935.]_

*Unconsciousness. *_A state of psychic functioning marked by lack of control over the instincts and identification with complexes.
Unconsciousness is the primal sin, evil itself, for the Logos.["Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype," ibid., par. 178.]
An extreme state of unconsciousness is characterized by the predominance of compulsive instinctual processes, the result of which is either uncontrolled inhibition or a lack of inhibition throughout. The happenings within the psyche are then contradictory and proceed in terms of alternating, non-logical antitheses. In such a case the level of consciousness is essentially that of a dream-state. A high degree of consciousness, on the other hand, is characterized by a heightened awareness, a preponderance of will, directed, rational behaviour, and an almost total absence of instinctual determinants. The unconscious is then found to be at a definitely animal level. The first state is lacking in intellectual and ethical achievement, the second lacks naturalness.["Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour," CW 8, par. 249.]

The greatest danger about unconsciousness is proneness to suggestion. The effect of suggestion is due to the release of an unconscious dynamic, and the more unconscious this is, the more effective it will be. Hence the ever-widening split between conscious and unconscious increases the danger of psychic infection and mass psychosis.[The Structure and Dynamics of the Self," CW 9ii, par. 390.]_






The Jung Lexicon by Jungian analyst, Daryl Sharp, Toronto


Daryl Sharp is the publisher and general editor of Inner City Books. The Jung Lexicon has been made available to The Jung Page through the generosity of its author.




www.psychceu.com


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

skyboy said:


> What types ?


External possibilities or internal possibilities. Ni will focus on internal and Ne on external (for dominant Ns). There is a symmetry relation between the attitudes; whats invisible to Ne or Ni, beyond that both have to extrapolate what happens using their own functions.

The number of possibilities shouldn’t change. Ne looking at Ni doesn’t see frequent changes that depend on external factors. This is true, I don’t want to depend on immediate external situations, i.e. one example is using a group of people to brainstorm ideas. Underlying motive for this is because I want to brainstorm the same amount of ideas by myself, to demonstrate my competence in this subject. Using others would be “cheating”. (Just to illustrate.) I want to distance myself from the external *origin* of the idea. It should start internally, because it’s *my own* idea. I am attached to it, it’s not up for external use. Then later we can combine ideas. Ne dom would start in the other direction, and then later the idea can internalize.


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> External possibilities or internal possibilities. Ni will focus on internal and Ne on external (for dominant Ns). There is a symmetry relation between the attitudes; whats invisible to Ne or Ni, beyond that both have to extrapolate what happens using their own functions.
> 
> The number of possibilities shouldn’t change. Ne looking at Ni doesn’t see frequent changes that depend on external factors. This is true, I don’t want to depend on immediate external situations, i.e. one example is using a group of people to brainstorm ideas. Underlying motive for this is because I want to brainstorm the same amount of ideas by myself, to demonstrate my competence in this subject. Using others would be “cheating”. (Just to illustrate.) I want to distance myself from the external *origin* of the idea. It should start internally, because it’s *my own* idea. I am attached to it, it’s not up for external use. Then later we can combine ideas. Ne dom would start in the other direction, and then later the idea can internalize.


Thanks. Very clear. Also, I agree unreservedly.


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

> Using others would be “cheating”


It's funny, I feel exactly the same about Ti.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Squirt said:


> Hm, I thought the introverted preference was clear. He isn't bending his worldview to the objective facts, but the objective facts to his worldview - he also objectifies and then submits his own self, which is something introverted intuitive folks have a habit of doing because N is already de-personalizing.
> 
> The neglect of the self fits this part of Jung's definition of Ni fairly well:
> 
> ...


I prob misread that quote when I responded - however based on other stuff he's said I do think he was probably not strongly introverted compared to being strongly N. 

I'm more interested in discussing and you describing how this disconnect between world and self happens with NIs, I've seen it but to me it sort of appears as a blindspot in introspection whereas what you describe earlier as objectification of the self is something I'd associate more with NE. Perhaps tho there are subtle differences how and when each type does it, like to me it's a way to study the self more thoroughly and solve problems, which often leads to a bigger understanding on the human condition and more personally basically as tool for introspection. So how else does it work for NIs? a way to remove subjectivity? a projection? 

yea my friend sees it that way and so far I think it makes more sense than how Jung describes the line between conscious and unconscious. It has been able to explain differences between people of the same type as well that nothing else so far, like how some i.e. ENFPs are more "ENP" while others are more "EFP" and so on for other types.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

skyboy said:


> It's funny, I feel exactly the same about Ti.


Maybe it sounds similar because I am half INTP 🙃 

I mimick a lot of INTP thinking styles, without joking. 🤓


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

> I mimick a lot of INTP thinking styles, without joking. 🤓


Thanks God, there are bridges .

Recently, I focussed on INFPs. Some of what INFPs say is something I partly experience, but it's not natural to find the "language" to express it. INFJs are still labelled as "weird people" in my brain...  . Just kidding...but I haven't yet paid much attention. Anyway, I'm new to the MBTI and don't even know the types of all my closest friends. One of them could be INFJ and I wouldn't know.

More seriously, the notion of "it's mine, not theirs", "it has to come from me", the loop "in -> out -> in", "building an inner framework", "it must be distanced from the outside"... is really how I can spot introversion in relation to a function. Everything you explained about your connection to N as being introverted, is how I came to explain my connection to T as being introverted.

I see that my relation to N as the opposite. "Cheating" is what I constantly do and it does not feel like cheating. Insights, potentiality, visions, concepts do not belong to me, they are out there, terribly attractive and can be freely stolen, interiorized. There are moments when engaged in a hard research, some conceptual solution appears "magically" from nowhere. But it is rare, and when it's finished, worked out, I don't feel it belongs to me anymore, it is meant to return to the world as a small aspect of an external knowledge, even to disappear in it as something that existed before me.

The fact that T belongs to me goes further. It happens from time to time that, spending time with a Te who interiorizes my own methods and logics, the way I articulate the facts, and starts using it... It's flattering, I don't feel like being "stolen". But suddenly, I feel responsible for it, like if it was about controlling one of my hands.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> I prob misread that quote when I responded - however based on other stuff he's said I do think he was probably not strongly introverted compared to being strongly N.


Well, someone who is very strongly introverted and relies on an irrational function is likely not going to accomplish much of anything externally, lol. So, you're probably right.



Red Panda said:


> I'm more interested in discussing and you describing how this disconnect between world and self happens with NIs, I've seen it but to me it sort of appears as a blindspot in introspection whereas what you describe earlier as objectification of the self is something I'd associate more with NE. Perhaps tho there are subtle differences how and when each type does it, like to me it's a way to study the self more thoroughly and solve problems, which often leads to a bigger understanding on the human condition and more personally basically as tool for introspection. So how else does it work for NIs? a way to remove subjectivity? a projection?


Yeah, I would also describe it as a blind spot for introspection. What I see Tesla doing (which maybe I am projecting because this behavior is painfully familiar) is that when he can break down his "self" into a mechanical process, he also gains control over it because that is his strength - understanding and manipulating mechanical processes. It is (paradoxically) done to _subordinate _his object-nature to his subjective ideal, and even more the object-nature of everything he encounters.

It reminds me of how I acted when I was much younger (though with age I've become more balanced). There was a clear attempt to _reduce _physical reality (sensation-reality, including the experience of it) to something that could be controlled or understood without directly interacting with it. I don't think extraverts approach the world this way - they want to be connected to the world and be a part of it; they are fully engaged.

I am curious, and wanted to ask earlier, about how inferior sensing works with an extraverted intuitive, besides the trope of not sticking around long enough to fully "realize" ideas.



Red Panda said:


> yea my friend sees it that way and so far I think it makes more sense than how Jung describes the line between conscious and unconscious. It has been able to explain differences between people of the same type as well that nothing else so far, like how some i.e. ENFPs are more "ENP" while others are more "EFP" and so on for other types.


I think so, too... @lww23 this is why the strict hierarchy or linear development of functions from conscious -> unconscious really breaks down for me. It necessarily assumes that functions (with particular attitudes) are discrete entities operating within a person, which can be "arranged" to produce a type who is more or less conscious of the arrangement. I don't think that describes the nature of how functions operate in the psyche at all.

Jung does discuss the non-linear aspects of functions by his concept of differentiation, where he says: "To the extent that a function is largely or wholly unconscious, it is also undifferentiated; it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions." He was also of the opinion that only one or maybe two functions could become well differentiated due to the necessary conflict between the function pairs (F/T and S/N).


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

skyboy said:


> Anyway, I'm new to the MBTI and don't even know the types of all my closest friends. One of them could be INFJ and I wouldn't know.











intp & infj


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Squirt said:


> Yeah, I would also describe it as a blind spot for introspection. What I see Tesla doing (which maybe I am projecting because this behavior is painfully familiar) is that when he can break down his "self" into a mechanical process, he also gains control over it because that is his strength - understanding and manipulating mechanical processes. It is (paradoxically) done to _subordinate _his object-nature to his subjective ideal, and even more the object-nature of everything he encounters.
> 
> It reminds me of how I acted when I was much younger (though with age I've become more balanced). There was a clear attempt to _reduce _physical reality (sensation-reality, including the experience of it) to something that could be controlled or understood without directly interacting with it. I don't think extraverts approach the world this way - they want to be connected to the world and be a part of it; they are fully engaged.
> 
> I am curious, and wanted to ask earlier, about how inferior sensing works with an extraverted intuitive, besides the trope of not sticking around long enough to fully "realize" ideas.


Ah I see what you mean, I've seen how some NIs can do this indeed, it can explain how they can be prone to things like law of attraction or the new age chakra crystal meditation stuff that exalt introspection and having control in general, both of yourself and of the world.

Well, let's see. When I was a kid I remember having a band aid on my thigh and it was about time to remove it but, you know how the skin can be pulled on the side and make it concave? well i thought it had made a hole in my leg and i was panicking and crying and telling my mom i have a hole in my thigh and was afraid to remove it xD. Sis's solution was to just pull it ofc and I was liek "oh.. I guess it didn't make a hole after all lol".

Few years ago I had a stressful time, it was the peak of feeling aimless and stale for a few years so I developed a fear that I'm going to have an allergic reaction to food and it slowly made me unable to eat most foods and despite knowing it's irrational I still couldn't fight it just by reason, had to fix the underlying problem first so that my attention could be directed somewhere else. It was quite a tough time I'm hoping I learned a lesson on how to trust myself more, it was like I had forgotten that my body functions well on the daily basis and not falling apart as I was basically fearing. I was noticing every little thing and thought it was gonna be my end. I do fine when I'm actually sick and not really afraid of external things like viruses n stuff, they can be icky but I don't lose my mind over such threats, no, my irrational Nfocused fears are usually centered around my body failing and unable to deal with the world anymore (despite it working 24/7).

Beyond those, on a more daily non dramatic base I suppose I just erase some type of information that's considered normal, such as knowing where I put my stuff like seasonal clothes- I pack them away for the season then have to look to find them. Similarly for other stuff, I just lose them so much and not because I'm inattentive adhd style (I'm not) but I just forget afterwards. Remembering what day of the week it is can be challenging despite having 5 different forms of calendar around me. Just stuff most people seem to pay attention to I don't. It's usually comical and not a real hurdle, except that time I forgot to print my bachelor's thesis and my HDD broke and now I don't have it coz my school didn't keep it either after so many years.

People in the mainstream type theories like to call some of the above as "Si grip" but it's obviously a "Si slip", aka losing touch with even the baseline of the inferior, focusing on infrequent unlikely stuff as if the others don't exist. Jung definitely had the right idea on this.


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> View attachment 913150
> 
> intp & infj


well seen


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Joe Black said:


> How did things progress?


We had MBTI and Socionics, they developed separately and hence they have two very different developmental histories.
Not that it matters, shuffling semantics does nothing to the actual phenomena being described.



> Is the understanding of Jungian cognitive functions being bastardized?


All day everyday in this place, but you should know that having been here since 2015.



> Or has everyone transcended and improved what Jung started.


Hardly, though in their own minds I don't doubt everyone thinks they have transcended the whole thing.
There are plenty of variations that claim to be the new holy grail from a new perspective.

Personally I like Jung a lot, but I'm willing to pick up concepts from other various branches that has developed.
Being a Se type, I always view things as one reality with phenomena and the theories as various peoples opinion about what is going on in reality.

As opposed to a Ne type where each theory is more like it's own trend object, that interact with and change the magical Si fairy dust or whatever...
I always find it hilarious that Alphas actually consider Jung/MBTI and Socionics 
like separate realities that somehow stand on its own in its own conceptual vacuum.
Though maybe I'm being a bit unfair in my assessment here, it may be a bit tainted by my own shadow impressions, if you will.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> Ah I see what you mean, I've seen how some NIs can do this indeed, it can explain how they can be prone to things like law of attraction or the new age chakra crystal meditation stuff that exalt introspection and having control in general, both of yourself and of the world.
> 
> Well, let's see. When I was a kid I remember having a band aid on my thigh and it was about time to remove it but, you know how the skin can be pulled on the side and make it concave? well i thought it had made a hole in my leg and i was panicking and crying and telling my mom i have a hole in my thigh and was afraid to remove it xD. Sis's solution was to just pull it ofc and I was liek "oh.. I guess it didn't make a hole after all lol".
> 
> ...


Your band-aid story reminds me of an incident with a little girl in my family who was about three years old. She was stopped by her cousin who told her she had an ant on her back. The cousin brushed it off and said, "okay, it's gone," and moved on. The little girl suddenly became near hysterical. She ran from person to person crying that she had ants on her back. When the person would say, "I don't see any ants..." she would say, "I feel them! I feel them crawling all over. I know they are there!" and then run to another person, frustrated they wouldn't believe her. Finally, her uncle said, "Oh no! Let me take care of it." He brushed her back off vigorously and said, "They're all gone!" Then she was fine, lol.

I had similar phobias as a kid about my health. For instance, I couldn't go down the laundry aisle of the grocery store because the smell of detergent was so overpowering, I believed that it was poisoning me. If I was forced to be around chemical smells for very long, I'd have a panic attack. What's funny is I wasn't exactly wrong - noxious fumes aren't good for you and can be poisonous. Yet, it's not so great for a kid to be panicking because mom needs to get some fabric softener. To this day, I use unscented detergents as much as possible and never use fabric softener or any cleaners that have a strong detergent smell. I don't have panic attacks over it, but it still makes me feel uneasy.

Some kids I know are very grounded - they might be unfamiliar with a lot of things, but they can gain a reasonable sense of their environment with exploration. Yet, other kids put a lot more stock into fantasies built up in their minds rather than what is right in front of them. It seems like it could be a "tell" that someone has an N-preference when they start to show consistent, odd hang-ups around how they sense their bodies/environment even as children.


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Squirt said:


> this is why the strict hierarchy or linear development of functions from conscious -> unconscious really breaks down for me. It necessarily assumes that functions (with particular attitudes) are discrete entities operating within a person, which can be "arranged" to produce a type who is more or less conscious of the arrangement. I don't think that describes the nature of how functions operate in the psyche at all.


I think that treating the human mind as something that can be codified with functions seems a bad idea. Assuming that functions can adequately capture the dynamics in the psyche, they are not at the disposal of the individual. One cannot consciously arrange their functions to become a certain type as they prefer. Both nature and nurture play a role but maybe nature > nurture.

The conscious and the unconscious are clear upon birth. One is either an Extrovert or an Introvert. Being conscious of something means more control, clarity, and independence. Being unconscious of something suggests a lack of control, less autonomy, and more confusion. This is only in comparison to the self. The E/I attitude is the first to develop, followed by the dominant function, then the auxiliary. The tertiary for many people is hardly conscious. The inferior is unconscious and undifferentiated. Is there a linear development? It seems the case. The initial stage, before the child is born, is complete unconsciousness. According to Jung, the conscious grows out of the unconscious and the unconscious is the root and the source. This suggests that the unconscious is richer in content and more complex than the conscious. If the conscious is a galaxy, then the unconscious can be compared to the whole universe.

Do we use all eight functions? - At least from the Jungian POV, no., because complete differentiation of all functions is impossible.

Is there a strict hierarchy of functions? - It depends on what you mean by "strict". My current answer is yes. The dominant function is always fully conscious and the strongest of all. The auxiliary comes next, followed by the tertiary. The inferior is unconscious and undifferentiated, meaning that its messages often carry a negative connotation and the function is hard to control consciously. Functions 5-8 are undifferentiated and unconscious.

I recently read about this and will find the quote(s) later. The hierarchy of functions suggests what motivates you the most and what you are best at compared with other things you do. It is no indicator of competence.

When you are conscious of something, it comes naturally to you, it is more familiar, it tends to be fully under your control, and it is something that mainly motivates you. This does not necessarily mean you are better than others in doing something.

The dominant function may be developed with the child's sense of the self, which means, for most children, it is the early childhood.
How do children develop a sense of self?
Before that, the child's functions are all undifferentiated. This does not affect cognition though. It could simply suggest that the child is not fully aware of the self.

To conclude, the point is - Yes, there seems a sequence of function development but it varies according to each individual, so there is no fixed way or standard formula as to how exactly cognitive functions differentiate. Differentiation of functions tends to be highly individualized and may be susceptible to external influence. And yes, there is a hierarchy of functions, and to a large extent, I think you may describe it as strict. Assuming the types do not change, no other function can exceed the dominant. If the dominant is weak, then all else is weaker.

This again, leads to the point that you cannot have EIEI or IEIE because if the auxiliary is of an opposite attitude than the dominant, it means that it has already gone against the dominant and developed into something with an opposite E/I orientation (in other words, a completely independent function). At least in the Jungian view, this is not possible. The auxiliary always follows the dominant.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

lww23 said:


> I think that treating the human mind as something that can be codified with functions seems a bad idea. Assuming that functions can adequately capture the dynamics in the psyche, they are not at the disposal of the individual. One cannot consciously arrange their functions to become a certain type as they prefer. Both nature and nurture play a role but maybe nature > nurture.
> 
> The conscious and the unconscious are clear upon birth. One is either an Extrovert or an Introvert. Being conscious of something means more control, clarity, and independence. Being unconscious of something suggests a lack of control, less autonomy, and more confusion. This is only in comparison to the self. The E/I attitude is the first to develop, followed by the dominant function, then the auxiliary. The tertiary for many people is hardly conscious. The inferior is unconscious and undifferentiated. Is there a linear development? It seems the case. The initial stage, before the child is born, is complete unconsciousness. According to Jung, the conscious grows out of the unconscious and the unconscious is the root and the source. This suggests that the unconscious is richer in content and more complex than the conscious. If the conscious is a galaxy, then the unconscious can be compared to the whole universe.
> 
> ...


There are only four functions in Jung’s model, not eight (so there is no hierarchy of “all eight” functions). However, there are eight types, due to the combination of I/E preference and a dominant function. You seem to be conflating Jung and Grant at various points.


----------

