# Ni dom/aux users often have unusual beliefs. True or false?



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Inguz said:


> In my experience it's Ne that tends to believe in the *possibility* of unicorns and stuff.


Bolded the critical part of your point, which some people surprisingly leave out and then think that it's an Ne thing to actually believe in the unicorns, which maybe some do but it wouldn't be related to their main perceiving function.

Dare I say, if an Ne dom makes a thing about actually believing in unicorns rather than just being unicorn-agnostic, it's very likely they are trying to get at your own intuitive potential, a.k.a. messing with you. 

There's something similar there about Ni doms too, that they say things that would have some people believe that they have unusual beliefs for those who think people actually believe in everything they think or say. But they're just swirling around in perceptions, not necessarily believing one way or another.


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Not so generic, no. Ni dom/aux types tend to be esoteric, but it's more in the way they interpret, than anything else. In terms of believing in "underlying happenings," rather than dogma, I think these types, mainly the Ni dominants, are going to be very eccentric (the Je/Ni types are going to be more dogmatic I think - they might uphold eccentric dogma, like New Age spiritualism/any kind of unusual dogmatic conviction, etc.). Dominant judgment is more about taking dogmatic positions/seeing the world from the standpoint of a dogmatic position, while dominant perception is more about circumventing this or adjusting one's perceptions to or against a dogmatic position and coming up with interpretations from this position to support their own stance. Both can be narrow-minded in their own ways.


Dom Ni can also "believe" in many different interpretations of a type of phenomena and, you can be buddhist, more esoteric and atheist about it all at the same time...that's the beauty of having a dominant perceiving faculty. I tend to take some system, like let's say MBTI and run with it and then another one and do the same, then I reflect as to what is common. You come to perceive something you can express in several ways and in several contexts. It's a matter of preference which perspective way you choose. That said some INFJs are pretty adamant about their preference...if they are atheist or religious for example, it seems to me. 
I have always been drawn to archetypal images and symbology but don't use it consciously. I put symbols in place because it feels right and later when I read up on something I find I've used some symbols that I thought were arbitrary in a consistent way. A lot of things are not planned or researched. 




Ashcancowgirl said:


> I think Ni users can have a tendency toward entertaining unorthodox thoughts (whether or not they progress into beliefs is another matter, and dependent on the person), especially so if the individual is prone to periods of isolation/internal philosophizing.
> 
> In effect, it can help facilitate the extremely quick absorption of an idea or concept. If the idea is something that has a certain unreal mystique to it, it's all the more attractive a prospect (my opinion). And, importantly, it can also produce strong visions/convictions/understandings, etc based on some of these systems it assembles. I don't want to say it jumps to conclusions prematurely (though that may happen), but does make heavy use of subjective logic, so that there's potential for a disconnect between how something is conceived of in the user's head / reality, which might account for the prevalence of 'strange' beliefs you've noticed.


I think Ni is open to other perspectives and as such also the "stranger" ones. But to me the visions, understandings and experiences came first and explaining them with a system second. I started with psychology thinking I was schizophrenic but I'm not so...I began to explore different ways of explaining my experiences. Doing it right now with MBTI. 


FacelessBeauty said:


> In the process of making realizations I've learned to separate my belief in certain ideas from the ideas themselves. So they're not really beliefs, just ideas. Whether or not they are perceived as orthodox or unorthodox is up for debate, but that really doesn't make much of a difference to me.


This.


ElectricSparkle said:


> There's something similar there about Ni doms too, that they say things that would have some people believe that they have unusual beliefs for those who think people actually believe in everything they think or say. But they're just swirling around in perceptions, not necessarily believing one way or another.


This. That's why there can be a marked "triviality" with some issues that can land an INFJ in trouble with the outside world, if you forget others have strong feelings about some dogma.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Bolded the critical part of your point, which some people surprisingly leave out and then think that it's an Ne thing to actually believe in the unicorns, which maybe some do but it wouldn't be related to their main perceiving function.
> 
> Dare I say, if an Ne dom makes a thing about actually believing in unicorns rather than just being unicorn-agnostic, it's very likely they are trying to get at your own intuitive potential, a.k.a. messing with you.
> 
> There's something similar there about Ni doms too, that they say things that would have some people believe that they have unusual beliefs for those who think people actually believe in everything they think or say. But they're just swirling around in perceptions, not necessarily believing one way or another.


Is there any difference between ENTP and ENFP in unicorn-agnosticism?

And no, I had a very close friend that used to make all kinds of ridiculous statements just to see how long others were willing to accept what she said, and this is not it.

The belief I'm referring to is that trolls etc are just from other dimensions and so fourth.


----------



## AstralSoldier (Jun 18, 2012)

As an INFJ, I can entertain theory/beliefs simply for the joy/intrigue of them, not necessarily to experience them simply to believe fanatically in them or to debunk them. These beliefs to me at the very least are simply ideas to play with creatively, for creative writing, or drawing, but ideally, I have to say I'm alot more interested in finding evidence of something rather than trying to prove it doesn't exist collectively with no data, just a broad, sweeping, generalization of 'it doesn't exist because it doesn't 'sound' rational for it to exist' that's not what science does. 

Looking for evidence of something's existence seems to follow a rational scientific approach, rather than ruling something seemingly 'irrational' simply because it doesn't 'seem' real or it was 'unusual'... we live in a huge universe, and we haven't even left our solar system yet... to me it seems a little pre-mature to write these things off as 'unusual beliefs' when we haven't taken the great leap into the unknown. I mean, what intuitive doesn't enjoy investigating the unknown to figure out what genuinely is 'out there' beyond our sight to find definitive evidence either FOR or AGAINST things like aliens, specters, cryptids, and various other seemingly 'paranormal' phenomena?

All I know is, I reserve the right to keep an open mind if ONLY to entertain myself, because how boring would life be, if all there was, was the concrete, the tangible, and the sensory based experiences? Nothing transcendental, nothing inspiring, nothing to look forward to...nothing but UTTER boredom...

According to this, Ne-doms is more 'aliens/ghosts/werewolves' on the brain than Ni doms...in the end, is it such a bad thing to enjoy these thoughts/beliefs if we're still taking an active role in society, and not hovering on the fringes of it like a bunch of outcasts?


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

It's like you plucked this post from my "soul". I particular:



AstralSoldier said:


> we live in a huge universe, and we haven't even left our solar system yet... to me it seems a little pre-mature to write these things off as 'unusual beliefs' when we haven't taken the great leap into the unknown.
> ....
> how boring would life be, if all there was, was the concrete, the tangible, and the sensory based experiences? Nothing transcendental, nothing inspiring, nothing to look forward to...nothing but UTTER boredom...


----------



## PyrLove (Jun 6, 2010)

Inguz said:


> ...trolls etc are just from other dimensions....


I've often thought so, too.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Title said:


> I'm not making a generalization, just an observation.
> Many people who I believe to be Ni doms/aux tend to speak in strange ways and have unusual beliefs, often spiritual. Believing in ghosts, religion, spirituality, auras, and things along the same lines. I've noticed many Ni users with those traits.
> Is that a Ni "thing", or am I totally getting this wrong? Of course, a person with any function can exhibit those traits, but I notice it seems quite common in Ni users.


I know an ISTJ girl. She's convinced that fairytale are real...
Maybe it's the Si doms that are a bit odd :tongue:
My ESFP mother believe in ghosts (she thought the clock stopped for a moment at the time of her father's death a few days or so after his death).
A lot of people are religious 
Spirituality is a really really open term and I don't think it's Ni-specific to have odd spiritual beliefs.
I don't know about the aura thing, it seems like NF talk.
Generally I don't think there's a type of mad people xD
Humans are superstitious etc. and we see patterns where there are none.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

If anyone wants to hear the weirdest of the weird that Ni dominance has to offer, tune into AM radio religious programming at night. I swear, some of these people are trending toward Jung's description of "the lone voice crying in the wilderness" variety of people (they sure sound like they're crying in the wilderness anyway, lol). I can guess they're Ni dominants based on the way they explain their reasoning.


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

I have some experience with this, but not in the way you seem to be suggesting. People have indicated that I had "unusual" beliefs in the past, but I think it's just a communication thing. What I will do is, I will get an idea about something, then as I go through the world, I constantly gather up evidence and support for this idea until it becomes a large amalgam. Then I try and convey it to someone and they think I'm nuts. But then someone else conveys the same idea in 'relatable' words, and they agree easily. 

So in my exp, it's not the ideas that are so unusual, but merely others perception of them as a result of Ni-doms specialized thinking.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

A few posts reminded me of a George Carlin quote:

"Philosophers for a long time have said 'why are we here?' I'm here for the entertainment. If you're born in the world, you're given a ticket to the freak show; if you're born in America, you get a front row seat.”

I'm not sure of my type but it's likely a strong N, since I seem to be part of the weird/unusual/mystery show people are watching.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

False.. The weirdness is in your perception of my beliefs. You decide If what I believe is weird.

My beliefs are completely rational, logical, empathetical, ethical and principled. 
But what do you see?


----------



## Daithi (Dec 13, 2011)

Arclight said:


> False.. The weirdness is in your perception of my beliefs. You decide If what I believe is weird.
> 
> My beliefs are completely rational, logical, empathetical, ethical and principled.
> But what do you see?


Sure, but being rational can be unusual. All my believes are very unusual, but I feel they are closer to the truth.

I actually hate were my Ni has taken me. I am so isolated by my believes. Sometimes I wish I can join with every else in their extremely foolish believes. I really hate to say this, but I sometimes feel like ignorance is closer to being blissful.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Daithi said:


> Sure, but being rational can be unusual. All my believes are very unusual, but I feel they are closer to the truth.
> 
> I actually hate were my Ni has taken me. I am so isolated by my believes. Sometimes I wish I can join with every else in their extremely foolish believes. I really hate to say this, but I sometimes feel like ignorance is closer to being blissful.


Perspective is 100% of the rule.


----------



## DistilledMacrocosm (Apr 11, 2012)

I think N's in general will believe in fantastic stuff. But this could significantly be impacted by whether someone is a J or S type as well, they do not lean towards these ideas.

"Esoteric" is the word you're looking for, instead of "unusual". I would propose you actually mean Platonic mysticism or idealism, as opposed to Aristotelian materialist. In which case, I'm as mystic, esoteric, and Platonic as you get.

On the other hand, INTJs tend to be atheists or not inclined to spiritual phenomena, and that's probably the hard J in them, despite being Ni doms.


----------



## Meadow (Sep 11, 2012)

Daithi said:


> Sure, but being rational can be unusual. All my believes are very unusual, but I feel they are closer to the truth.
> 
> I actually hate were my Ni has taken me. I am so isolated by my believes. Sometimes I wish I can join with every else in their extremely foolish believes. I really hate to say this, but I sometimes feel like ignorance is closer to being blissful.


I know what you mean, since it's difficult to find friends with beliefs like mine unless I live in a large city. It can be lonely, but I can't unknow what I've seen and learned, just to have friends. At least my life is fuller in other ways since my beliefs encompass enough to have the world seem mysterious and full of possibilities.


----------



## jakojako (Jul 5, 2012)

Title said:


> I'm not making a generalization, just an observation.
> Many people who I believe to be Ni doms/aux tend to speak in strange ways and have unusual beliefs, often spiritual. Believing in ghosts, religion, spirituality, auras, and things along the same lines. I've noticed many Ni users with those traits.
> Is that a Ni "thing", or am I totally getting this wrong? Of course, a person with any function can exhibit those traits, but I notice it seems quite common in Ni users.


Ni doms/aux are always judgers(J).
Judgers organize outer world so they can be free internally. 
Perceivers need to be organized internally, with clear beliefs and other kinds of structure, and they want to be free externally.

This explains everything to you. They're free internally. What you perceive as "beliefs" is not necessary something they believe in. They are able to hold in mind all this "unusual, weird, essoteric" things with attitude of "could be true." 
They can hold it in their minds for months, or years, or forever? without drawing conclusion about it. As they go on and gather more information and experience about it, it progressively becomes more clear. In their minds it's not "true or false" ... but rather like a scale from 1-100 of truth and clarity ... Not black/white but gray.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

People's beliefs have nothing to do with functions in-and-of-themselves. Functions might rationalize them, but beliefs are mostly a reflection of anything about you other than functions (they are the *products* of reasoning to begin with, not the *processes* like cognitive functions and whatnot). Any type can have weird beliefs - designating this to functions is giving them too much power in the psyche. It can be said that N dominants probably have a higher tolerance for the unusual or unpredictable (as in, they are hard to freak out in this department, unlike say, S dominants), but that's not saying a lot about them in terms of functions - it's just a safe generalization based on the dom/inferior functions of them relative to their reverse types who tend to have negative intuitions and tend to see the worst into what can't be ascertained from elements of their experiences (impressions, which is really what they S functions deal with - not visceral 5 senses, but interpretations of this data). Ni can sound very vague at times, which might make people think they're a bit weird/mystical, but this is just a stereotype - the sounding vague aspects of Ni tends to give them this "all-knowing" quality that tends to freak people out a bit in this highly S focused society. It's mainly S dominants who will probably find these types weird (since these types tend to hate generalizing underlying connections from experiences and tend to think that experiences speak for themselves). The Se dominants are essentially the mirror types of the Ni dominants (as much as either party may be completely oblivious to this in themselves, since ego delusions make this hard to rationalize, so the Mr. Hyde character of Se dominants is usually Ni, making them often come off as superstitious or paranoid/conspiratorial for no (obvious) reason - the Ni doms, contrary to popular misunderstandings, are probably some of the least likely people to be superstitious conspirators, since they are so sophisticated around appropriately assigning metaphysical purpose phenomenologically - where they look paranoid irrationally would be around Se - thinking an accident is always about to happen that will make them feel out-of-control (like the moment possesses them) or feeling like they can defeat potential occurrences of momentary impact that they don't want to deal with with magical thinking. Both of these functions are largely misrepresented online, I think (they aren't easy to stereotype at all - the Ni dom stereotypes tend to look more like inferior Ni (too inane and simplistic - dominant Ni is going to be complicated and even realistic as hell in a sense for those who have habituated it - like all dominant functions, it's going to be very convincing and hard to stereotype (like all doms, definitely not going to be represented stereotypically in the person's behavior in the crude way that the inferior might), since elements of individual interests and beliefs/how a person feels most comfortable defending themselves, etc. get so heavily involved here) and the Se dom stereotypes tend to reflect a general misunderstanding of the rationality of the S functions altogether).


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

I don't know about the Sensors you know but my Dad's an ISTJ and some of his beliefs are pretty damn weird...

For instance, he actually believes people in ancient times lived up to 900 years, just like the Bible says they did... :dry:

(Love him to death, but usual his beliefs are not.)


----------



## Raichan (Jul 15, 2010)

Wouldn't call it unusual, just that we tend to perceive connection between certain information and how they relate to past/present/future really fast.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> People's beliefs have nothing to do with functions in-and-of-themselves. Functions might rationalize them, but beliefs are mostly a reflection of anything about you other than functions (they are the *products* of reasoning to begin with, not the *processes* like cognitive functions and whatnot). Any type can have weird beliefs - designating this to functions is giving them too much power in the psyche.


Wow. That's certainly inconsistent with Jung's views, so it's a little surprising to hear it coming from somebody whose username begins with "Jungyes."

Jung spent much of Psychological Types reviewing dichotomous _worldviews_ of many kinds — religious, cultural, philosophical, literary, etc. — and discussing how both the _content_ of the opposing worldviews, and in many cases the passion with which the respective sides held their views, reflected the influence of introversion/extraversion and/or one or more of the functions. He thought entire cultures and religions reflected typological preferences. For example, he thought Greek culture had been introverted, and that the Christian culture that replaced it was extraverted. He viewed Indian religion as introverted, in contrast to the extraverted Christian religion.

In the Foreword to a 1934 edition of the book, Jung explained that he'd put the specific type descriptions at the end of the book for a reason. He said, "I would therefore recommend the reader who really wants to understand my book to immerse himself first of all in chapters II and V."

Chapter II is Jung's detailed discussion of Schiller's Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man, and centers around Schiller's insight, as a Ti-dom, into the specific kinds of "barbarism" found in the dominant Christian culture as the result of its one-sidedly extraverted orientation. Jung, as a fellow Ti-dom, concurred with much of Schiller's analysis, and noted that the extraverted one-sidedness of the culture (and its consequential barbarism) had only gotten worse since 1795 (when Schiller wrote).

At 110 pages, Chapter V is by far the longest chapter in the book, and it centers around a detailed analysis of Spitteler's Prometheus and Epimetheus — which, as Jung notes, very much parallels his interpretation of Schiller. Jung calls Prometheus & Epimetheus "a poetic work based almost entirely on the type problem," and explains that the conflict at the heart of it "is essentially a struggle between the introverted and extraverted lines of development in one and the same individual, though the poet has embodied it in two independent figures and their typical destinies." Epimetheus (embodying the extraverted attitude) represents the established, traditional Church and the (by Spitteler's time, as both he and Jung saw it) barbaric influence of its one-sidedly extraverted attitude on Western culture, while Prometheus tries to bring about a religious reformation/renewal as a result of the introverted, intuitive orientation that causes him to represent the view that God is to be found within each man rather than outside him.

And there's more in other parts of Psychological Types. Chapter I is almost entirely devoted to various _theological_ disputes — e.g., the dispute over whether Christ was purely divine or a human/divine split, and the dispute over whether the communion bread actually becomes Christ's body or just symbolizes Christ's body — and in each case Jung discusses the dispute specifically for the purpose of showing how the two sides reflected the typological differences between introverts and extraverts, thinking types and feeling types, etc. In Chapter VIII, he discusses William James' round-up of "tough-minded" and "tender-minded" philosophers, and explains that many of the fundamental differences in their philosophies stemmed from their psychological types. And so on.

Also: If you're talking about "unusual beliefs" (the topic of this thread), it's certainly worth noting that, as further described in this post, Jung thought introverts were _substantially_ more likely to subscribe to non-mainstream beliefs than extraverts.

I'll close with Jung, explaining that the dominant function "is always in the nature of a _Weltanschauung_" — which is German for "world view."



Jung said:


> The alteration of the conscious attitude [— i.e., balancing a too one-sided dominant function —] is no light matter, because any habitual attitude is essentially a more or less conscious ideal, sanctified by custom and historical tradition, and founded on the bedrock of one's innate temperament. The conscious attitude [— i.e., the dominant function —] is always in the nature of a _Weltanschauung_ if it is not explicitly a religion. It is this that makes the type problem so important. The opposition between the types is not merely an external conflict between men, it is the source of endless inner conflicts; the cause not only of external disputes and dislikes, but of nervous ills and psychic suffering. It is this fact, too, that obliges us physicians constantly to widen our medical horizon and to include within it not only general psychological standpoints but also questions concerning one's views of life and the world.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

reckful said:


> Wow. That's certainly inconsistent with Jung's views, so it's a little surprising to hear it coming from somebody whose username begins with "Jungyes."
> 
> Jung spent much of Psychological Types reviewing dichotomous _worldviews_ of many kinds — religious, cultural, philosophical, literary, etc. — and discussing how both the _content_ of the opposing worldviews, and in many cases the passion with which the respective sides held their views, reflected the influence of introversion/extraversion and/or one or more of the functions. He thought entire cultures and religions reflected typological preferences. For example, he thought Greek culture had been introverted, and that the Christian culture that replaced it was extraverted. He viewed Indian religion as introverted, in contrast to the extraverted Christian religion.
> 
> ...


I never said that functions have nothing to do with beliefs - I said functions have nothing to do with beliefs in-and-of-themselves. Beliefs reflect curiosities and curiosities can indirectly relate to functions. I'm not denying Jung - I'm just making a distinction (after all, you've got so many people here thinking that their religious beliefs are type-related, when in fact, they're more than likely not - usually related to upbringing and other factors). Jung's just describing the nature of some of these religions and such - it doesn't mean that introverts are more likely to be one or the other, etc.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I never said that functions have nothing to do with beliefs - *I said functions have nothing to do with beliefs in-and-of-themselves*. Beliefs reflect curiosities and curiosities can indirectly relate to functions. I'm not denying Jung - I'm just making a distinction (after all, you've got so many people here thinking that their religious beliefs are type-related, when in fact, they're more than likely not - usually related to upbringing and other factors). Jung's just describing the nature of some of these religions and such - *it doesn't mean that introverts are more likely to be one or the other, etc.*


As I said, Jung's view was that many different "beliefs in-and-of-themselves" were, in fact, characteristic of particular types and, contrary to your latest post, that people _were_, in fact, more likely to adopt beliefs consistent with their types. Jung scoffed at Luther for clinging to the idea that the communion bread was actually transformed into Christ's body, and explained that it was Luther's extraversion that made it _virtually impossible_ for Luther to accept what Jung saw as the more enlightened view. "It can hardly be supposed that it was merely the force of tradition that made Luther determined to cling to this dogma, for he of all people gave abundant proof of his ability to throw aside traditional forms of belief," said Jung. But, Jung explained, "Luther was nevertheless unable to free himself" from the traditional view because Luther's type made "the sensuous reality and the immediate experience of" the communion bread "an indispensable religious necessity."

And, again, addressing the topic in this particular thread ("unusual beliefs"), Jung certainly believed that an introvert was more likely than an extravert to subscribe to beliefs that weren't endorsed by the mainstream.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

reckful said:


> As I said, Jung's view was that many different "beliefs in-and-of-themselves" were, in fact, characteristic of particular types and, contrary to your latest post, that people _were_, in fact, more likely to adopt beliefs consistent with their types. Jung scoffed at Luther for clinging to the idea that the communion bread was actually transformed into Christ's body, and explained that it was Luther's extraversion that made it _virtually impossible_ for Luther to accept what Jung saw as the more enlightened view. "It can hardly be supposed that it was merely the force of tradition that made Luther determined to cling to this dogma, for he of all people gave abundant proof of his ability to throw aside traditional forms of belief," said Jung. But, Jung explained, "Luther was nevertheless unable to free himself" from the traditional view because Luther's type made "the sensuous reality and the immediate experience of" the communion bread "an indispensable religious necessity."
> 
> And, again, addressing the topic in this particular thread ("unusual beliefs"), Jung certainly believed that an introvert was more likely than an extravert to subscribe to beliefs that weren't endorsed by the mainstream.


I see what you're getting at - I mean to say that you can't ascribe particular kinds of beliefs to specific functions (Jung generalized this to mainly I/E in terms of objectivity/subjectivity) - it's more like you need to start with the person in order to see where they might be getting tripped up, but there's no doubt you can have other people of different types who have similar beliefs - that much is self-evident, because Jung was looking at how people rationalize to explain idiosyncracies.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

jakojako said:


> Ni doms/aux are always judgers(J).
> Judgers organize outer world so they can be free internally.
> Perceivers need to be organized internally, with clear beliefs and other kinds of structure, and they want to be free externally.
> 
> ...


Why do you think Ni doms/aux are always judgers? Why can't there be Ni/aux "percievers" as you've defined judger and perciever.


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

Hmm... Maybe Im not a perceiver afterall. I also might be a Ni aux. So what gives...


----------



## jakojako (Jul 5, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> Why do you* think* Ni doms/aux are always judgers? Why can't there be Ni/aux "percievers" as you've defined judger and perciever.


It's more like a fact, really. Contemplate this and see the pattern: http://postimg.com/87000/functions-86677.jpg


----------



## KittyKraz13 (Jan 3, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> Why do you think Ni doms/aux are always judgers? Why can't there be Ni/aux "percievers" as you've defined judger and perciever.


Because Ni is backed (or fronted) by either Te or Fe, the judging functions.
Ni doms/auxs: INTJ, ENTJ, INFJ, and ENFJ. 

Our extraverted functions are what the world sees and what we use to interact with the world, so a TJ is going to be viewed as logical and efficient where an NP is going to be viewed as open and abstract. To a TJ or FJ the world is to be controlled by making choices that organize the external world either objectively or subjectively. A TP and FP feels better when they keep their options open as they are 'perceiving' all the time and constantly taking in new information as opposed to closing off from new information like a Judger would do. An INTP wants internal structure (Ti) but open endedness in the external world (Ne) where an INTJ wants internal openness (Ni) but external closure (Te).


----------



## Aeloria (Sep 3, 2012)

I don't know how much it has to do with functions, but I have beliefs that might be considered unusual. Spiritual beliefs, some of which may be based in established spirituality, but I don't subscribe to beliefs as "package deals". My supernatural beliefs are based upon my own understandings, because the simplified writings of religious texts don't offer explanations I'm fond of. 

Like Ni-Te, I regard empirical physical data as having the final say, but unlike Ni-Te, I don't have a tendency to regard the absence of empirical data as something important. I'm interested in the human element. There is no empirical data for much of the human element. "Unusual" probably isn't the right word. These are things everyone thinks about to varying degrees, so in that way, it's common.

It seems to me that Ni-Te and Ni-Fe are interested in the same kinds of inner deliberation, but different types of subjects. I'd guess Ni-Te would have more concrete beliefs overall than Ni-Fe. Ni-Te seems to strongly value quantifiable data, while Ni-Fe strongly values the unquantifiable. Which would suggest Ni-Te wouldn't have a tendency to hold unusual beliefs. Or rather, they wouldn't be statistically as likely as Ni-Fe to hold unusual beliefs.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

My INFJ friend is a strong Christian. My INFJ ex is not religious at all (though he dabbled in Catholicism and Wicca). It's not a Ni thing but I feel like Ni users might enjoy experimenting with beliefs if they haven't picked one of their own yet.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I'm sure inferior Ni types can probably have some really loony beliefs about underlying phenomena/conspiracies, since their intuition tends to be "primitive," according to Jung (as their judging functions tend to suck at rationalizing their visions/hunches). The inferior Ne types might have loony beliefs about people's actions after-the-fact (e.g. put words in people's mouths that they never came close to implying, let alone, saying).


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Aeloria said:


> It seems to me that Ni-Te and Ni-Fe are interested in the same kinds of inner deliberation, but different types of subjects. I'd guess Ni-Te would have more concrete beliefs overall than Ni-Fe. Ni-Te seems to strongly value quantifiable data, while Ni-Fe strongly values the unquantifiable. Which would suggest Ni-Te wouldn't have a tendency to hold unusual beliefs. Or rather, they wouldn't be statistically as likely as Ni-Fe to hold unusual beliefs.


You can have weird quantifiable beliefs. There may be an order and a logic to something but a very convoluted one; the belief could still be eccentric or even ridiculous.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Ni-Fe and Ni-Te probably have nothing to do with beliefs inherently - they probably just relate to outer-orientation for action (to Jung, the auxiliary function seemed to be largely about communication, if anything at all, which he briefly discusses at the end of Ch. 10 of PTs). Both of these types are probably likely to have similar beliefs on the basis of Ni/Se, which is how they're oriented to the world anyway. I think Fi and Fe in these types might have the biggest impact on what's comfortable to them in terms of how they manage beliefs on the personal level - this is probably where they're going to be the most different. I doubt the T functions will make much of any difference in them, since thinking is just thinking, albeit, with slightly different styles. These types are really a lot more similar than MBTI makes them out to be (yeah, like their aux. functions really matter beyond the superficialities of outward appearance - if you prefer one to the other, so what - where is this actually supposed to mean anything other than perhaps something about your ego goals, which might not be type related at all in-and-of-themselves).


----------

