# Ni instead of Ne



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tyltalis said:


> I thought that was Se...?
> Si is more developed than Se, I think, but it still manifests as negative. Se is just... not all there. Kinda neutral, not interesting. I find its use kinda boring and too animalistic for me.


Se experiences things as they are. It doesn't internalize experience.


----------



## Tyltalis (Dec 31, 2013)

So I'm not mistaken about Se then. By the way, I'm very NOT ESFJ, if that's what you're implying by saying I have Se as a critical parent role.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> It's so funny, before I even knew what Ni was, I was trying to do what Ni people do and failing miserably.
> 
> I just loved the idea of being able to have a brilliant, creative insight without it coming from an existing idea.
> 
> ...


This is probably the best analogy/explanation of Ne and Ni that I've ever seen. I kinda just want to preserve this for later use; thats how awesome it is.

In fact, I will.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> It's so funny, before I even knew what Ni was, I was trying to do what Ni people do and failing miserably.
> 
> I just loved the idea of being able to have a brilliant, creative insight without it coming from an existing idea.
> 
> ...


I realize this wont be something I get Likes for - but I don't belive this sounds like Ne dom. Are you sure you aren't ESFJ who happens to have a relatively high IQ and wants to capitalize on The nerd "N" on-line culture? - ESFJ's have Ne too.

When I get stuck and need to pull my ass out of the fire on a project I'm supposed to be creative for - Ti will do this for me.

But other times I'm on a roll and pieces are fitting together because I'm so free and fuled up - and those are Ne times. When someone has a problem and I see 6 ways to solve it, I hand it over to Ti and start working on pieces but things branch off like tree branches that I will have to go back and prune (still a lovely tree I couldn't have imagined at the begining) - thats how Ne works for me. - Unless that isn't Ne.

I need an original trigger - like an assignment or client, or use - but then it takes on a life of it's own. Unless it's Ti where I'm curious about something, trying to make sense of something, getting overworked and frustrated or on a time crunch - then I have the experience you are saying.

I did, in art school often like to wait untill other people were already started and take a walk to see what everyone else was doing. But it was more like seeing what not to do, weeding out what is obvious or too hard to execute, etc.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> I realize this wont be something I get Likes for - but I don't belive this sounds like Ne dom. Are you sure you aren't ESFJ who happens to have a relatively high IQ and wants to capitalize on The nerd "N" on-line culture? - ESFJ's have Ne too.
> 
> When I get stuck and need to pull my ass out of the fire on a project I'm supposed to be creative for - Ti will do this for me.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your perspective. I don't think there are any absolute truths, so I could be an ESFJ. Who knows. My nerdish behaviour has little to do with my cognition. I could argue for my being_ any_ MBTI type, though, and still be off-track.

It's clear(To me, anyway) that I use Ne dominantly. In particular, Socionics really cinched that into perspective for me. Annnd... I avoid IQ tests like the plague-- They intimidate me because I'm not confident in my mathematical ability. roud:

It's a skill I'm working on, and filling in gaps. I've never been taught by someone who actually appreciated the material.

In art school, I didn't have this issue at all. That had to be the most enjoyable time in my life. (Removing the obvious is something I resonate with from your perspective.)

Really--It's a very natural, quick and easy process. Ne is always there, bursting and creating new ideas non-stop. But, those ideas are always based on the original idea, which are based on the proceeding ideas that are based upon referential or observed ideas, and therefore not truly _new_.

And when I'm trying to mimic Ni-Se, that's when it becomes clumsy and unruly, because it's not something I like. (In Socionics, when you rely on Ni as an Ne-dom, you basically turn off your Ne-Si in order to accomodate. It's boring to work like this, so I prefer not to.)

The spark that starts the constant, infinite idea-branches, streams outward. Ti is either very easily cutting in to the bottom line and finding the perfect, logical framework to contain it, or I simply continue using Ne. And.. Well... I'm not really doing it 'on purpose'. Ne just happens very naturally- My most comfortable way of viewing every situation, idea, people, the organic and inorganic. :kitteh:

I really enjoy being what I am. I wouldn't want to slip into the shoes of an Ni-dom, unless it was a guaranteed temporary position where I could gain an interesting perspective.

I simply appreciate what strong Ni accomplishes. Similar to Ne, but backwards... Ni will take the idea-fireworks-spew, and work to the center from the outer tendrils.

And, if I am a type which has a stronger set of ethical logistics, I relate to Ne to the degree that I can safely say ENFP over ESFJ-- And that's a grudging admission, because Fi grates my teeth through a straw in fine shreds, whereas Fe is much more tolerable, but still extreme in large doses. Fe-Si would imply I'm basing much of my perspective on experiential impression, and I'm doing a lot more projecting in order to locate information to gather novel patterns and ideas. I do Si dual-seeking, but it's a definite non-strength which I don't practice cognitively.

I know I don't have Ni, so ENFJ'd be out of the question... And Te seems like a wild idea based on my overall experience with the dynamics of my cognition against strong Te-cognition peoples. :wink:

Whatever the case may be, I don't consider myself very gifted, and often feel incompetent in a lot of ways. My sore spot is a worry about having inferior intelligence. I don't think intellect and nerdy or geekyness is mutally exclusive. And neither is type. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is... If I'm an ESFJ, then I'm extremely below-average on their strongest functions, and still kinda slow. If I'm ENTP, I'm pretty average, and still kinda slow. :mellow:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Word Dispenser, Thank you for being a good sport about my frustration with your post. One thing might be that I'm taking this stuff too seriously because I think it has mainstream potential - to help people in a time of economic shifts and accelerated technology, etc. (So I'm working on usable definitions for a practical publication) I think the perceiving "walk through" descriptions on-line are confusing people because Jung describes these as indirect thought. In real life perception as a function, just is whatever it is. On-line, people have fun making poetic descriptions of their inner worlds, exaggerating their own experiences, and then everybody tries too hard to fit a mold - or it seems like a trend anyway.

And I may be reading a personal irritation into things because the post triggered something I witness in the real world - excessive self deprecation as a social technique - this might be my own Fe deficit. ? This is my experience with a lot of women in casual social circles and something I wanted to be able to not have to be polite about on-line. ? Again, thanks for being a good sport about my venting.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> @_Word Dispenser_, Thank you for being a good sport about my frustration with your post. One thing might be that I'm taking this stuff too seriously because I think it has mainstream potential - to help people in a time of economic shifts and accelerated technology, etc. (So I'm working on usable definitions for a practical publication) I think the perceiving "walk through" descriptions on-line are confusing people because Jung describes these as indirect thought. In real life perception as a function, just is whatever it is. On-line, people have fun making poetic descriptions of their inner worlds, exaggerating their own experiences, and then everybody tries too hard to fit a mold - or it seems like a trend anyway.
> 
> And I may be reading a personal irritation into things because the post triggered something I witness in the real world - excessive self deprecation as a social technique - this might be my own Fe deficit. ? This is my experience with a lot of women in casual social circles and something I wanted to be able to not have to be polite about on-line. ? Again, thanks for being a good sport about my venting.


No worries. I don't take offense, seeing it more as a query to gain more information.

I'm seeing this trend as well. It's groan-worthy, on my end. Confrontation seems pointless and doesn't build understanding with those who take it as a personal attack rather than a quest for understanding.

There also begins to be an influx of those who begin to think critically, such as yourself. I think it's essential not to take typology as being complete, especially considering the holes in the foundation, and the skeptical scientific reception to it. 

Since it's not empirically measurable, or consistently showing similar results, it doesn't seem a reliable way to truly understand a person's psychology--But, it's a start. The statistics behind MBTI tests alone are kind of staggering in their lack of accuracy, especially in the longterm. It seems one can only hope to find the truth through a questionnaire with a professional, and even then... I wonder how many people question it afterwards.

I suppose there's a lot of clique-ism erupting in personality psychology forums, where individuals base their interests, admirations and behaviours on an ideal rather than a perceived uncomfortable truth.

It's why I'm gravitating more in a direction of growth over coddling myself with 'happy descriptions' that seem uncannily similar to daily horoscope frills. I look at my weaknesses first. We all have them, and they're normally downplayed. Or up-played, for attention and compliment-fishing. Not something I practice (At least not consciously.)

When I say what I think about myself, even if it sounds 'negative', they're conclusions that took a lot of time to grudgingly admit to. It's best to be realistic, even if it's more natural for me to be optimistic. I'll be the latter when dealing with others. But, when it comes to me, I'm more sure of my flaws than I am about my strengths. 

In most cases I've seen, there's a tendency to glaze over weaknesses, whether in the self, or maybe particularly, in others. When someone is only giving me compliments when I ask for constructive criticism, I can't take them seriously, and won't be able to establish trust.

For personal growth, I think a headlong wade through the swamp of uncomfortable self-truths is probably required. In my case, followed sporadically by ignoring this through entertaining mediums and coming back to it when I've rebuilt my confidence. :tongue:

Otherwise, yes, probably a bit of self-deprecatory humour as well. Though, I haven't come across this so often in the real world, I've seen a more whiny emotional variant among adolescents and young adults, that seem pretty universal across type. :kitteh:

I think the _real _trend we're dealing with, is a widespread and contagious erroneous assumption that compassion isn't rational. 

Namely: You're either kind, or smart. 

That's obviously _not_ the case, and it doesn't make sense when putting it into perspective. But, it causes individuals to violently defend a position that may be untrue, and group people categorically into these two different models that also may be untrue.

It... It kind of reminds me of politics, really. A democratic system that, in theory, has hundreds of thousands of groups to vote for, but only two make it to the top due to sensationalizing and buying the right to advertise.

I'm going tangential again. Sorry. I.. Think the point's in there somewhere. I guess I'm venting a little too.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Just because existing tests are flawed doesn't mean this isn't measurable. Though we might have to wait for more EEG.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Just because existing tests are flawed doesn't mean this isn't measurable. Though we might have to wait for more EEG.


That was something I was going to add to my wall of text, but ended up forgetting. :bored:


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Examples of Ne as the dominant, auxiliary, and inferior functions from Jung:

Ne dom:


> Where intuition has the priority, every ordinary situation in life seems like a closed room, which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking outlets and fresh possibilities in external life. In a very short time every actual situation becomes a prison to the intuitive; it burdens him like a chain, prompting a compelling need for solution. At times objects would seem to have an almost exaggerated value, should they chance to represent the idea of a severance or release that might lead to the discovery of a new possibility. Yet no sooner have they performed their office, serving intuition as a ladder or a bridge, than they appear to have no further value, and are discarded as mere burdensome appendages. A fact is acknowledged only in so far as it opens up fresh possibilities of advancing beyond it and of releasing the individual from its operation. Emerging possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.



Ne aux:


> Intuition seeks to discover possibilities in the objective situation; hence as a mere tributary function (viz. when not in the position of priority) it is also the instrument which, in the presence of a hopelessly blocked situation, works automatically towards the issue, which no other function could discover.



Ne inf:


> His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion.


Ne Dom/Aux quote from: Psychological Types - Wikisocion (Extraverted Intuition)
Ne inferior quote from: Psychological Types - Wikisocion (Introverted Sensation)


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Tyltalis said:


> INFP here.
> 
> I've found that though I have a high level of N, and low S, I seem to have more Ni than Ne. Is it possible for an INFP (or any type for that matter) to have Fi + Ni instead of Fi + Ne? Or is it a set thing that the aux must be extraverted/introverted if the dom is introverted/extraverted?
> 
> ...


No. What you think is Ni is you thinking. The way you consciously think isn't a cognitive function by it self.

Fi and Ni as your main functions means you just perceive and don't judge. That's not possible. You may think (feel) that that's what you´re doing, but we´re not talking about you here, we´re talking about your brain and your brain is always doing both, perceiving and judging. You can't have a new thought without your brain making a judgment. But you´re not actually aware of every perception and judgment your brain makes.

Always remember,.. the cognitive functions are functions of the brain, not of the person. It's all of the functions together that result in the person, so never one single one can be the person by itself. Not even for a short while.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@PaladinX
you found the excerpts I fell in love with when I found Jung.
Yes, when I was a kid I was always inventing a little gadget or making something - but I never did things to be busy with my hands or make and have a thing. People would want to buy something I did but I wouldn't want to do that because it would be boring. The adventure is over when something is discovered or produced. How to trick myself into this being used to an advantage has been the mission of my life. I had a good run, but am truly concerned that I will die if I have to adjust to some kind of "regular job" for my second half of life.

I like it that Jung chose to be sort of unflattering to us all


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Peter said:


> Fi and Ni as your main functions means you just perceive and don't judge. That's not possible.


Another prize post from Peter. W00t! And that makes two in one hour, too.
@Tyltalis —

As you know, I'm not really a functions guy but, contrary to what Peter's telling you, and as you probably also know, Fi is considered a _judging_ function, not a perceiving function. So if Fi and Ni were your main functions, you'd have one judging function and one perceiving function, which is the way Jung thought it worked.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_Tyltalis_ you would not be contrary to Jung if you consider yourself to be Fi-Ni. Just suuuper introverted.

If you see the world firstly or primarily through Fi though, Fi-Ne would seem less expansive and more complex than Ne dom. (You read Jung's original observations excerpted above? - via @PaladinX).

People love talking about "N" (both kinds) and they make it sound more complex and mysterious than anyone needs it to be. http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/174436-fi-fe-revisited.html http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/175072-improved-function-definitions-perception.html

Fe and Fi are nothing alike and it has nothing to do with how mature or nice you are.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

reckful said:


> Another prize post from Peter. W00t! And that makes two in one hour, too.
> 
> @_Tyltalis_ —
> 
> As you know, I'm not really a functions guy but, contrary to what Peter's telling you, and as you probably also know, Fi is considered a _judging_ function, not a perceiving function. So if Fi and Ni were your main functions, you'd have one judging function and one perceiving function, which is the way Jung thought it worked.


Cool, you´re right. I mixed some things up in my head, didn't I?

But I still think that it's not possible for the main and auxiliary functions to have the same attitude. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not even for the most introverted people in the world. That is, within the logic of the MBTI of course.

I know Jung didn't have a problem with the concept of having the 2 first functions with the same attitude, but just because he didn't, doesn't mean it makes sense. It's all about how you define what the 4 first functions do. The MBTI has one way of defining it. I have the impression that Jung never liked to define position as specific as the MBTI does.

The way I understand all the theories is that the first and auxiliary functions work together leaving the other functions pretty much unused, except for the third function. This function still really adds something to the whole picture. The fourth function (shadow) really doesn't do much. In fact, in situations where this function gets used, you just want to get away from that situation. It's a very uncomfortable function to use. (Not because it's "under developed" but because it's something the brain just doesn't appreciate doing/experiencing. And that makes sense, it's the opposite of the main function which is what the brain prefers strongly. How can you expect the brain to really like something and then not dislike the exact opposite?)

If the 2 main functions are of the same attitude and consider the logic of the MBTI then it means you have a psychological problem. If both are introverted you´re almost incapable of interacting with the outside world. If both are extroverted then you´re almost incapable of using past experiences to process information.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Peter said:


> But I still think that it's not possible for the main and auxiliary functions to have the same attitude. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not even for the most introverted people in the world. That is, within the logic of the MBTI of course.


Why not? What doesn't make sense?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

PaladinX said:


> Why not? What doesn't make sense?


Read again, for some reason my post got posted while I was still writing it. I just finished it.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Peter said:


> If the 2 main functions are of the same attitude and consider the logic of the MBTI then it means you have a psychological problem. If both are introverted you´re almost incapable of interacting with the outside world. If both are extroverted then you´re almost incapable of using past experiences to process information.


Taking a step back and looking at what "attitude" is (in this context anyway)--it is simply direction or movement of interest.



> Extraversion
> 
> Means an outward-turning of the libido (q.v.). *With this concept I denote a manifest relatedness of subject to object in the sense of a positive movement of subjective interest towards the object.* Everyone in the state of extraversion thinks, feels, and acts in relation to the object, and moreover in a direct and clearly observable fashion, so that no doubt can exist about his positive dependence upon the object. In a sense, therefore, extraversion is an outgoing transference of interest from the subject to the object. If it is an intellectual extraversion, the subject thinks himself into the object; if a feeling extraversion, then the subject feels himself into the object. The state of extraversion means a strong, if not exclusive, determination by the object. One should speak of an active extraversion when deliberately willed, and of a passive extraversion when the object compels it, i.e. attracts the interest of the subject of its own accord, even against the tatter's intention. Should the state of extraversion become habitual, the extroverted type (v. Type) appears.





> Introversion
> 
> *Means a turning inwards of the libido (q.v.), whereby a negative relation of subject to object is expressed. Interest does not move towards the object, but recedes towards the subject.* Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the chief factor of motivation while the object at most receives only a secondary value. Introversion may possess either a more intellectual or more emotional character, just as it can be characterized by either intuition or sensation. Introversion is active, when the subject wills a certain seclusion in face of the object; it is passive when the subject is unable to restore again to the object the libido which is streaming back from it. When introversion is habitual, one speaks of an introverted type (v. Type).


With that understanding, I think that it is possible to interact with an object in the external world based on subjective interest or to interact with the subject in the internal world based on objective interest. 

An example of the former is my INFP psychologist friend. She works tirelessly from morning into the evening most days of the week. She is self-employed and doesn't have any specific need to work that much. So why engage in so much "extraverting" by dealing with people's problems all day and night? It is because she gets to flex her Fi muscle. Listening and filtering through her value system to provide feedback and support to her clients. That is the energizing part for her.

An example of the latter is my ENFJ girlfriend. When getting emotional, she will turn that inwards in order to harmonize and match her rational feelings with what is outwardly socially acceptable. Even though she is internalizing and working through the emotions, she is doing it out of "Fe" reasons.

The point is that I don't think it is necessarily true that Introverting functions are how we deal with the inner world and Extraverting functions are how we deal with the outer world. It is simply where our interest points.


EDIT: I agree, however, that according to MBTI type theory E is how we deal with the outside and I is how we deal with the inside. I disagree with this part of the theory though. I was going to write up another response to Myers about this, but never got around to it.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Taking a step back and looking at what "attitude" is (in this context anyway)--it is simply direction or movement of interest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm right about this one - I've seen it here too many times to be wrong. Can anyone here tell me this contradicts what you know about yourself?. . . . . . . .

*Introverted functions *filter everything through one’s own perspective (or doing add-ons from one’s own mental library of one kind or another) and a sense of self comes from the observation of one's own processes.

*Extroverted functions *operate more like a middle-man and a person's sense of self comes from what they see reflected in the world - in terms of results, reactions, with only the sense of being an observer added into the picture, not looking at one's own processes.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Peter said:


> That is, within the logic of the MBTI of course.
> 
> I know Jung didn't have a problem with the concept of having the 2 first functions with the same attitude, but just because he didn't, doesn't mean it makes sense. It's all about how you define what the 4 first functions do. The MBTI has one way of defining it. I have the impression that Jung never liked to define position as specific as the MBTI does.




I agree the crux is how MBTI is doing things -- it's a separate modeling paradigm to some extent. 

Your view that the first two functions define type has been echoed by others, including Eric B, and this seems to be the paradigm building the MBTI. Whereas, in Jung I'd say it seems closer to the first function + introversion/extraversion (actually maybe just the latter pair depending on how you look at it) defines type (clarification forthcoming, however). Both are not irreconcilable points of view - clearly Jung noted the phenomenon of someone roughly leading with two functions with the other two pushed aside, _but_, the reason I believe he was vaguer about the auxiliary is simply a matter of perspective -- it's not that the concept of an NT, ST, SF etc was foreign to him, but it was very likely to me not the focus of why he conceived of types that, in practical experience, often one encounters people influenced by two. The auxiliary is named as such because it is a helper, whence it is to me more a question of _habit _why the "third" function remains more underdeveloped than the "second", whereas I think Jung would've found the first function is embedded so deeply that understanding this dom-inf polarity is critical in various cases. I.e. it cuts really deeply in.





PaladinX said:


> I agree, however, that according to MBTI type theory E is how we deal with the outside and I is how we deal with the inside. I disagree with this part of the theory though.




Here are some thoughts for you. First, let me say I disagree with the statement you disagree with as well. 

The thing though is, what is the purpose of the auxiliary? Is it to "deal with things" or to move in our direction of focus, to use roughly your terminology? I'd say it is unclear to me if there is an answer.

I'd argue "dealing with things" itself used too broadly has nothing to do with type by functions even (at least not by Jung, by Myers well -- I dunno, perhaps you think so though), unless used in a very specific way. I mean, to "deal with the task of going to the supermarket" I might find sensation predominates in me, and then thinking. It can involve various functions, in various ways.

Where they become a part of type is when they become deeply embedded in our psyche. And this position generally belongs in a significant way to one function and its 'opposote', although another third (the aux) may help characterize the individual a bit more.

Basically I don't think the aux has to be in the same attitude or a different attitude as the dominant, because the aux's role in the psyche isn't always clearly one thing --- it's just generally "there" on some level.
I think all the 'issues' come about by trying to make the aux a definitive part of type. I think in a way that's what led to the dichotomies POV even existing. J/P tells me more definitively on 'dealing with the outer world' but whether this says anything about my aux is unclear because we don't know what the aux is really for definitively.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> few Jungian purists




I don't think a purist would necessarily insist on typing you by your auxiliary, but rather by your dominant function. I think the auxiliary would change how a person looks on the outside greatly, and by outside I don't mean superficially but as in the practical details of how the type manifests, but since everything ultimately goes through the dominant prism, understanding them on the inside on a really fundamental level requires understanding the psychology as to how the dominant is lodged firmly as it is.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Damnit why am I not getting any thank-yous on this? Do I have to have a PHD to get anyone to admit what they see in themselves and around here as valid?


Im sensing a definitive SF-style need to be loved. Are you sure you're an ENTP? *ducks, runs, hides*


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

@arkigos Well, dunno if this information could be useful for contrast, as I'm an ILI-Te (lol I'm a pseudo-ENTJ) . In my case I suspect that this happened because I needed to use Te for communicating with my relatives, specially with my mother who is an INFP, and at least part of my family is heavy on the rational side, so being an irrational type causes lots of static with them if I don't use Te. In fact she tends to reject my observations when they're of a NiFi nature, so I'm forced to be on NiTe mode on a permanent basis if I want to go somewhere during a discussion with her. 

I also think that relying on NiTe could explain why I'm interested on the natural sciences, even if I lived on an humanist environment, but I don't deny that all sciences are important, even if I will spend most of my life working as a chemist after finishing my major. So humanist sciences would be more of a hobby for knowing more about the world. Besides as I have to work doing experiments I think that Te has been useful for dealing the information that I get at the laboratory.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

More than a couple people on here have expressed being INFJ's that rely heavily on Ti. Some were INFJ's who went through a denial phase, maybe guys who thought it was a liability or a crime to have Fe?

Even when they don't directly use Fe, this "sub-type" seems to have a gift for a certain style of writing. The "work" they produce on the forum says they understand people well enough to have awesome communication skills, or they just know who they are talking to, and want to make that connection with readers.

I think you can be a type with circumstances that cause you to lean on particular functions, but adjust yourself into something that resembles more similarity to 16 model configurations- if and when you see the need for that dormant part of yourself?

Personality works more like a framework - not a time-clock. You don’t use one department when you have more necessity somewhere else; but that’s my (Ne)Ti understanding of it so far.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

azdahak said:


> Im sensing a definitive SF-style need to be loved. Are you sure you're an ENTP? *ducks, runs, hides*


:laughing: well . . . . . S . . ? I feeeel like I'm seeing something about this personality theory stuff as a whole system that I can tweak and use. But I've gone on just enough fact finding to wonder if i've I let myself go down a rabit hole. -People with PHD's that don't seem to be doing what I think should-could be done with this.

Soooo many theories, and less common vocabulary than what people think they have? How would anyone wipe the slate clean to make this all less "messy"?


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traitshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits


Old Intern said:


> :laughing: well . . . . . S . . ? I feeeel like I'm seeing something about this personality theory stuff as a whole system that I can tweak and use. But I've gone on just enough fact finding to wonder if i've I let myself go down a rabit hole. -People with PHD's that don't seem to be doing what I think should-could be done with this.
> 
> Soooo many theories, and less common vocabulary than what people think they have? How would anyone wipe the slate clean to make this all less "messy"?



Indeed....and it's already been done. It's called the Big 5 
It has a better scientific foundation than MBTI (given that the 5 axes were mathematically inferred from data, rather than being an arm-chair psychology theory) and is the vehicle that many researches use to understand personality. 

The axes are also continuous, instead of binary like MBTI. 

While this model captures more diversity than the MBTI, it is less immediately useful because there is simply not a lot written about it on a popular level, and also it's more difficult to interpret the difference between someone who is, say, 60% trait X and 70% trait X.

MBTI is essentially a shadow, a projection of the big 5 into 16 discrete boxes...but those boxes, and the labels attached to them, can be incredibly useful, as long as you maintain a proper perspective of what the MBTI is really talking about....unconscious paradigms the brain uses to make sense of itself, and the world around it.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Tyltalis said:


> A bit difficult to put into words, but I made visual references
> 
> Squares/rectangles are input, circles are conclusions/ideas that come from them.
> 
> ...


These pictures suggest that Ne/Ni are somehow fundamentally different, rather than being two different perspectives on the same big unconscious N. 


I would suggest something more like this:

Ni users are vase-people. They have seen vases in the past. They expect vases in the future. When they look at the picture, they are trying to find vases. They are very, very good at finding the vases....they just jump out at them from seeming nowhere...a-ha! A vase! I knew it! ...even though no one else has spotted the vase yet. People congratulate the Ni for her insight.

Ne uses don't have the same expectations of vases. They know about vases, but don't necessarily expect them, and don't look for them. When an Ne uses sees the picture, he thinks, oh that looks like a vase....but it also likes faces. Hey guys? Check this out. Do you see the faces *and* the vases? People stare at the picture....hey....you're right! People congratulate Ne for his creativity. 

A downside to Ni is that they can see vases where none exist...but insist anyway.
A downside to Ne is that....well, who am I kidding, Ne is fucking awesome.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Well, isn't that the case with all forms of specialization? In order to be good at something you need to give up something else. One might also argue it's bad too be too general and thus selling oneself short. I don't think there is any right or wrong there because with strengthened introversion the unconscious extroverted forces also strengthen to balance out the introversion so in a similar sense, I am also more Se than I am compared to a more Te-heavy INTJ - but perhaps one might argue in terms of psychological growth that one perspective would be seen as more desirable. Jung clearly thought orienting the entire psyche by differentiating all the functions towards the same orientation of the psyche as something to be desired, from what I understand though I never quite understood why. I never read those parts of his writings.
> 
> And in socionics with its subtype system, I'd peg you as an LII-Ne or INTP-Ne, so in actuality you'd be more of a pseudo-ENTP either way, because more focus is spent on Ne. There is a distinct difference between you and an LII-Ti that you refer to here as TiSi. In socionics I see myself as ILI-Ni for example, or NiFi. Word Dispenser's husband would be LSI-Ti or ISTP-Ti thus TiNi too in the same way.
> 
> ...


I agree wholeheartedly. I took a Socionics test (one that @Word Dispenser sort of linked to earlier. in some thread... this one? can't remember) and it was ILE-Ne or something like that, but then 98% alternative LII-Ne I think. There was some number there as well, a 1? I don't know. I am a Socionics noob still, but baby steps are happening. 



azdahak said:


> Im sensing a definitive SF-style need to be loved. Are you sure you're an ENTP? *ducks, runs, hides*


If it is, it's something I utterly share. I suppress little tantrumy thoughts like that all the time, and more than once on this forum have failed to do so. It has an 'inferior' quality to it, and is well suppressed. I've noticed it more in ENTPs, if what I am perceiving in this interchange is accurate.


----------



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

azdahak said:


> Ni users are vase-people. They have seen vases in the past. They expect vases in the future. When they look at the picture, they are trying to find vases. They are very, very good at finding the vases....they just jump out at them from seeming nowhere...a-ha! A vase! I knew it! ...even though no one else has spotted the vase yet. People congratulate the Ni for her insight.


That... doesn't sound quite like Ni, even if it's meant to be taken metaphorically.



> A downside to Ni is that they can see vases where none exist...but insist anyway.
> A downside to Ne is that....well, who am I kidding, Ne is fucking awesome.


If you can't imagine a downside to Ne, perhaps your imagination is lacking.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> That... doesn't sound quite like Ni, even if it's meant to be taken metaphorically.
> 
> 
> If you can't imagine a downside to Ne, perhaps your imagination is lacking.



Of course the analogy is simplistic..so instead of merely judging it wrong, contribute by improving it. How would you interpret Ni vs Ne visually?

My main contention is that Ne and Ni are aspects of the same cognitive process and must be understood that way. 


As far as Ne downsides--when have you ever known an ENTP to admit his faults publicly? Lol


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

azdahak said:


> Ni users are vase-people. * They have seen vases in the past. They expect vases in the future.* When they look at the picture, they are trying to find vases. *They are very, very good at finding the vases....*they just jump out at them from seeming nowhere...a-ha! A vase! I knew it! ...even though no one else has spotted the vase yet. People congratulate the Ni for her insight.


But... I saw both the "vase" (it looks more like a candlestick holder or a lamp) and the faces the moment I saw this thing? 

What you're describing sounds more like Si to me. 




> A downside to Ne is that....well, who am I kidding, Ne is fucking awesome.


Well, one downside could be that you have a tendency to embarrass yourselves by being too creative and impulsive in public, and end up doing things that you regret. Less filter between your brain and your body, you have the ideas and act on them. I can see that going badly. xD


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> The problem is thinking that what is introverted or extroverted hangs on what is expressed.
> An extrovert is not a loud introvert.
> 
> Extroversion is a focus of consciousness outside the self - and introversion focuses on one’s own mental processes, or mixes content from the individual into the external. This is seen clearly between Te and Ti. Ti mixes its own drink, has nothing to do with if we talk or not. Less talking can be a corollary because we are satisfied with our own internal activity, or we find our own complexities harder to synthesize for timely comment. If I talk more about my own thinking processes this is not a feeler process AND it isn’t TE.


I am going to assume this was somehow in response to (if not, well.... oops?):



PaladinX said:


> Why does it have to be? Why can't you explain internal perceptions with subjective logic or value? Why must you explain it with objective logic or value? What is the connection there? What makes this necessarily true?
> 
> To me, this only seems true if one presupposes Cartesian dualism and believes that only extraverted functions can interact with the sense world and introverted functions the mental world. However, the "attitude," is merely direction of interest rather than a conduit between the mind and sense worlds.


If so, then I think there is too much focus on the word "explain" rather than the underlying idea that I'm trying to express or question. Why can't introverted functions interact with extraverted objects? Why can't extraverted functions interact with the introverted subject? Using the examples from my other previous post:



> An example of the former is my INFP psychologist friend. She works tirelessly from morning into the evening most days of the week. She is self-employed and doesn't have any specific need to work that much. So why engage in so much "extraverting" by dealing with people's problems all day and night? It is because she gets to flex her Fi muscle. Listening and filtering through her value system to provide feedback and support to her clients. That is the energizing part for her.
> 
> An example of the latter is my ENFJ girlfriend. When getting emotional, she will turn that inwards in order to harmonize and match her rational feelings with what is outwardly socially acceptable. Even though she is internalizing and working through the emotions, she is doing it out of "Fe" reasons.


I don't see why not. However, if I were to concede that the INFP required extraversion to deal with clients and the ENFJ needed introversion to deal with internal emotions, then I would say that their inferior functions are more likely to aid in compensation to these tasks than the auxiliary; where Te aided in execution of Fi's goals to help others and Ti aided in execution of Fe's goals to rationalize the internal state. The focus would still be on the Feeling function in either case, and Thinking is bent to its will so to speak. To me, this would be more plausible than the auxiliary providing that compensation in either case.



> Damnit why am I not getting any thank-yous on this? Do I have to have a PHD to get anyone to admit what they see in themselves and around here as valid?


My highest academic achievement is high school, though I am in first year of University. For context, I am almost 34 years old. I understand how you feel though. It makes me sad on the inside when @Word Dispenser thanks everyone else but me.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> But... I saw both the "vase" (it looks more like a candlestick holder or a lamp) and the faces the moment I saw this thing?
> 
> What you're describing sounds more like Si to me.


I don't mean this as some kind of text of Ni...but as an analogy, a way of explaining both the Ni/Ne unity and dichotomy.

To me at least...seeing both the vase and the faces at the same time...vacillating between them...and not being able to say that the picture is of faces or of a vase...because both alternatives look equally proper...of understanding people who claim it's a face...and people who claim it's a vase.....is what it's like to be ENTP.



> Well, one downside could be that you have a tendency to embarrass yourselves by being too creative and impulsive in public, and end up doing things that you regret. Less filter between your brain and your body, you have the ideas and act on them. I can see that going badly. xD
> 
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> I could write 10 pages worth of the downside of being an ENTP, but being _physically_ impulsive is not one of them. ENTPs are Rationals after all.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

azdahak said:


> To me at least...seeing both the vase and the faces at the same time...vacillating between them...and not being able to say that the picture is of faces or of a vase...because both alternatives look equally proper...of understanding people who claim it's a face...and people who claim it's a vase.....is what it's like to be ENTP.


That is also what it's like for me, though. Seems like our similarity is making this tougher. xD

I think that to an extent, if you have Intuition... you have Intuition. If I were to describe Ni specifically, though... I would actually say that I would be less interested in that one image. My mind naturally moves to the idea of optical illusions and the importance of perspective in general, as a concept. I tend to "zoom out" on an individual example, seeing it as part of a larger concept or web of concepts. I'm not as interested in the object itself, but more focused on the impact/connections the object makes in my imagination. Though I'm certainly not oblivious to what you see if asked "what do you see in this image." It just isn't my first thought.



> I could write 10 pages worth of the downside of being an ENTP, but being _physically_ impulsive is not one of them. ENTPs are Rationals after all.


Well, I didn't mean you'd jump off a bridge or go bungee jumping... I meant that you'd verbalize most of the ideas you had, and the results of your creativity being on display that way could be embarrassing. I wasn't even imagining physical impulses. Although it _could _include terrible puns about physical impulses. Hehe.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> nd the results of your creativity being on display that way could be embarrassing..



I don't think any ENTP could be embarrassed like this. I rarely get embarrassed...and when I do...it's mostly because I feel I've somehow failed myself or people important to me..I've somehow let -them- down.... not that I've crossed some ill-defined social mores. Besides, ENTPs usually have enough Fe to avoid social gaffs.

The INTJs I know are much more likely to commit social blunders by running off at the mouth.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I am going to assume this was somehow in response to (if not, well.... oops?):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol, consider your posts thanked. I miss some when I skim, but I largely agree with what you write. :tongue: 

I'm kinda surprised that I get to be a source of external validation, when usually I'm the one hoping for those. :kitteh:


@Lady O.W. Bro's thanks make me squee inside. <3


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Tyltalis said:


> 100% certain. See my above post.


haha and then you change to infp. so much for 100%...


----------



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

azdahak said:


> Of course the analogy is simplistic..so instead of merely judging it wrong, contribute by improving it. How would you interpret Ni vs Ne visually?


My advice for how to improve it would be to try to really understand Ni before you try to describe it.

Although I believe my own understanding of Ni is fairly limited, so I hesitate to describe it myself.

(For what it's worth I did try to create my own analogy for Ni, but I don't feel like I can properly grasp it well enough to do that.)


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Word Dispenser said:


> Lol, consider your posts thanked. I miss some when I skim, but I largely agree with what you write. :tongue:
> 
> I'm kinda surprised that I get to be a source of external validation, when usually I'm the one hoping for those. :kitteh:
> 
> ...


:blushed:


:kitteh:


...



....


...

..

.


* *




:crazy:


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> My advice for how to improve it would be to try to really understand Ni before you try to describe it.
> 
> Although I believe my own understanding of Ni is fairly limited, so I hesitate to describe it myself.
> 
> (For what it's worth I did try to create my own analogy for Ni, but I don't feel like I can properly grasp it well enough to do that.)



So, then, if your own understanding of Ni is admittedly limited, how can you be so quick to judge that my analogy is so worthless?

Show me something better. Just saying I'm wrong is kinda pointless, no? Would such an argument convince you?


----------

