# The Abstractness of Being Intuitive



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

I was reminded again during a private discussion of how intuiting types seem to struggle in acknowledging their dominant functions. This is not meant at all to be flame these types, just a recurring observation. Judging types don’t seem to have in describing themselves neither do sensing types. But intuiting types seem to always defer to their auxiliary functions when describing themselves. ENTPs and INTJs routinely refer to themselves as thinking types, and ENFPs and INFJs as feeling types. Per Jung and Myers-Briggs, the thinking types are: ESTJ-ENTJ and ISTP-INTP, the feeling types: ESFJ-ENFJ and ISFP-INFP, the sensing types: ESTP-ESFP and ISTJ-ISFJ, and the intuiting types: ENTP-ENFP and INTJ-INFJ. 

One problem is people mistake Keirsey’s use of the two-letter codes as a given that they will use their dominant and auxiliary function. Even Myers-Briggs says it is something we must work on to develop. Jung however was quite explicit when describing the dominant function by saying:



> The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not merely pondering, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action without the backing of any further evidence.
> 
> This absolute sovereignty always belongs empirically to one function alone, and can belong only to one function since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation which would at least partially contradict the first. But since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden.
> 
> *This other function therefore can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that in a given case, it is not valid in its own right as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.*


There you have it. When you refer to yourself by your auxiliary function, you are claiming something lesser type than your full type. ENPs and INJs are intuiting types, not thinking and feeling types. IPs are thinking and feeling types, not sensing or intuiting types and so on. 

So why is it that intuiting types struggle with describing themselves by their respective dominant functions (Ne/Ni)? This is only a theory but referring back to Keirsey who describes the language of sensing types as concrete and intuiting types as abstract. I remind you type is about nothing if it is not about mental processing. When we refer to concrete we are not speaking of something physical, but a focus on the literal facts of something and abstract is a focus on the implication of something. So does this implication also cause dominant intuiting types to struggle with an understanding of themselves when describing their dominant cognitive funciton?

In their book, "Gifts Differing" Isabel and Peter Myers refer to Van der Hoop recognizing the problem with Ni dominant types:


> "There is a peculiar difficulty, where this inner knowledge is concerned, in finding even approximate expression for what is perceived. It is extremely important for people of this type to attain through their education a technique of expression...."


 Myers-Briggs goes on to describe intuition:


> "Requires the development of balancing judgment not only for the criticism and evaluation of the intuitive enthusiasm (Ne) and understanding (Ni), but also to hold it (Ne) to the completion of it's various activities; or enable it (Ni) to impart it's visions to others and bring them to practical usefulness in the world."


Going back to Jung, he says of Ne:


> Because in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was [p. 462] 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay in the object.


And of the Ni:


> Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function.


 This again is no slight against toward the intuitive, but a recognition of how difficult it is for these types to express who they are through their respective dominant functions (Ne and Ni).


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> So why is it that intuiting types struggle with describing themselves by their respective dominant functions (Ne/Ni)? This is only a theory but referring back to Keirsey who describes the language of sensing types as concrete and intuiting types as abstract. I remind you type is about nothing if it is not about mental processing. When we refer to concrete we are not speaking of something physical, but a focus on the literal facts of something and abstract is a focus on the implication of something. So does this implication also cause dominant intuiting types to struggle with an understanding of themselves when describing their dominant cognitive funciton?


In all honesty I think it's more a matter of them not speaking of the system with the same specificity that you do. For instance any xNFx might simply refer to themselves as both Intuiting and Feeling types regardless of the other two dichotomies because that is what MBTI indicates to them. There also seems to be a lot of xNxx (I don't mean to say Intuiting types) on the site, so many of them will default to calling themselves Thinking and Feeling types. When they call themselves "Thinking types" or "Feeling types", they don't mean it as you or Jung defined it, but rather as xxTx or xxFx. I am not saying that you are wrong in your definition. I think it's right. I am just giving you a perspective on why I and I believe others don't define ourselves correctly according to Jung's definition.


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

Thank you for this.

I could never describe who I am through the eyes of morally rationalistic Fe. It defies my conscious perceptions and creates a sense of claustrophobia. If I had to describe my relation to Ni I would say my perceptions have a magnetic pull that compels me to live a certain way. It's like a fly that's drawn into the blue light of a bug zapper.

It is admittedly disheartening to see people describe an INFJ in terms of Fe, (or even worse, as emotional train wrecks) because this really doesn't do the type justice.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

allisreal said:


> In all honesty I think it's more a matter of them not speaking of the system with the same specificity that you do. For instance any xNFx might simply refer to themselves as both Intuiting and Feeling types regardless of the other two dichotomies because that is what MBTI indicates to them.


Actually no, MBTI refers to types by their dominant functions. Again when you refer to a two-letter code you are no longer talking about type, but temperament. NF is a generic representative of four types (ENFJ, ENFP, INFJ and INFP) with similar core temperament values.


allisreal said:


> There also seems to be a lot of xNxx (I don't mean to say Intuiting types) on the site, so many of them will default to calling themselves Thinking and Feeling types. When they call themselves "Thinking types" or "Feeling types", they don't mean it as you or Jung defined it, but rather as xxTx or xxFx. I am not saying that you are wrong in your definition. I think it's right. I am just giving you a perspective on why I and I believe others don't define ourselves correctly according to Jung's definition.


Now you're referring to something rudimentary when calling yourself a "X" and not relevant to this topic. There's no "X" factor in type, even if you refer to just one dichotomy. For example merely indicating the "T" or "F" as you allude to implies the person knows they prefer thinking or feeling, not a sensing or intuiting. Otherwise, I would hope someone who knew they were sensing would, as you say claim they are "XSXX" first and someone who knew they were intuiting would refer to "XNXX". But again this a completely different topic and only indicates the futility of attempting to make a noun an action word. Thinker, feeler, sensor and intuitive are merely neutral functions until you give them energy by adding the attitude. Now they are active. Intuitive (XNXX) now becomes extraverted or introverted intuiting (Ne-Ni), thinker (XXTX) becomes extraverted or introverted thinking (Te-Ti) and so on.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Actually no, MBTI refers to types by their dominant functions. Again when you refer to a two-letter code you are no longer talking about type, but temperament. NF is a generic representative of four types (ENFJ, ENFP, INFJ and INFP) with similar core temperament values.Now you're referring to something rudimentary when calling yourself a "X" and not relevant to this topic. There's no "X" factor in type, even if you refer to just one dichotomy. For example merely indicating the "T" or "F" as you allude to implies the person knows they prefer thinking or feeling, not a sensing or intuiting. Otherwise, I would hope someone who knew they were sensing would, as you say claim they are "XSXX" first and someone who knew they were intuiting would refer to "XNXX". But again this a completely different topic and only indicates the futility of attempting to make a noun an action word. Thinker, feeler, sensor and intuitive are merely neutral functions until you give them energy by adding the attitude. Now they are active. Intuitive (XNXX) now becomes extraverted or introverted intuiting (Ne-Ni), thinker (XXTX) becomes extraverted or introverted thinking (Te-Ti) and so on.


I am not attacking how you define things. I was primarily trying to offer you a perspective on how other people might be defining things when they use terms like "Thinking type" when they're an INTJ. I did this mainly to refute your theory of why inappropriate classifications were being tossed around. A lot of people learn about the MBTI before they learn about Jung...And when I say the MBTI I just mean the four dichotomies. Before I learned about cognitive functions I would have seen nothing wrong with calling myself both a "Feeling type" and "Intuitive type". As far as I could tell my four letter type code included both an N and an F, so I was both. My idea is that others might have thought the same. 

And as for the xNxx. I was merely using that as a place holder for N's or anybody with an N in their four letter type code. Sorry if that was misleading. There's really no need to deconstruct this notation any further.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

I would surmise that NTs have the most difficulty speaking about their iNtuition simply because of the narrow crucible of their Thinking functions. For instance, I place more value on my Te than my Ni though I use Ni more often. 

Under tight self-control, I speak my Ni thoughts only through Te, otherwise it doesn't make sense or is at least unreliable in some way.

Edit: not only that, but my Te decides whether or not to even speak about what my Ni came up with(I usually just leave my thoughts to myself, until I'm _sure_ I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

On a few tests there is a disclaimer that says; _If you don't understand the question it is "not you" _ 

If you don't understand your lead function it is not you.

People have read the N's have a difficult time explaining how they know something. Such is the nature of iNtution.
Nowhere does it say that N's have a difficult time explaining how they think. (Only that some people being explained to might not get it). 
There is the first reason. It's convenient eh? "_You don't understand_" or "_I can't explain it_" .. But I can , and do, and so can others. Explaining and understanding your lead function should never be a chore. 
The very descriptions of Ne and Ni suggest that they should be better at explaining themselves than some other functions.
They are considered intellectual functions who's primary purpose is the synthesis of ideas. They will have an idea or ten on how to express themselves as a likely byproduct.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I think Jung underestimated the influence of the auxiliary though. He did not make profiles of whole individuals so much as pure types based on the dominant function only. You see little to no influence of the aux in his profiles, and that's why they appear quite exaggerated.

Meyers & other MBTI authors who built on his theory saw the auxiliary as influential enough on the thinking & personality of individuals to warrant two separate types based on it. Most have also noted the importance of developing the auxiliary because of the balance it brings to the personality (as those quotes you included indicate). 

Even if you are Ne-dom & your aux is weak, you will still reason & make judgments, and you're going to do that with Feeling or Thinking. So in that sense, _when it comes to judging_, it's not inaccurate for a Ne-dom to call themselves a Feeling/Thinking type. The main distinction between an ENFP & ENTP is the thinking/feeling preference after all. Same can be said for INTJs & INFJs.

For introverts, it's often noted that their aux is the "face" they present to the world, so they especially may identify with their aux function.

I'm not disagreeing with the technicality of your point either, but I also think people are simply using these terms in a casual manner; it's not because all of them do not understand their type. Ne & Ni doms may not be thinking or feeling types technically, but they certainly prefer one or the other when making judgments, at least within the MBTI theory.


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> So why is it that intuiting types struggle with describing themselves by their respective dominant functions (Ne/Ni)? This is only a theory but referring back to Keirsey who describes the language of sensing types as concrete and intuiting types as abstract. I remind you type is about nothing if it is not about mental processing. When we refer to concrete we are not speaking of something physical, but a focus on the literal facts of something and abstract is a focus on the implication of something. So does this implication also cause dominant intuiting types to struggle with an understanding of themselves when describing their dominant cognitive funciton?


Going back to your question, I'll try to answer it from my personal experience. (Skip the first paragraph if you don’t want to read my ramblings and jump to the anecdotal story)

I think the biggest disparity stems from trying to convey my seemingly irrational concepts to a rational individual. Now, I wouldn't think of myself as an irrational individual but to a judger, my reasoning would typically seem eccentric or absurd. I think this is caused by my view of the world. To me it seems most people's thoughts/lives are governed by some form of systematic, orderly, precise collection of "objective" facts and morality. Of course, every individual will have a different flavor of thought and some may encompass a broader range of ideas. But, from my perspective, it seems those systems have their own values and ethics defined in an attempt to create personal stability. Here's the problem: I generally don't trust people's definitions because it often seems finite and lacking. It seems like a game to me - where people try their best to create defined principles. And I can't dupe myself into believing a false reality if I think of it as just a game.

Here’s the anecdotal story:

When I was getting my first degree in business my motivations were very different from my peers. I didn’t really aspire towards an end goal of being a “successful” individual with a large bank account or glamorous corner office. I was playing the game of business school. My fascination wasn’t really in the subject but more of the dynamics involved in capturing the attention of corporate recruiters and faculty. There was an underlying system and it became apparent that, if I could understand the game, I could predict patterned responses. I think I did end up understanding the game. Before I graduated I already had a job lined up, my own office waiting for me the Monday after graduation, and a picture of myself and other distinguished students framed in the business school. But once I sat in my office I realized the game was over and within 2-3 months I quit my salary job, moved out of state, enrolled in another university, put myself in major debt, decided to pursue another degree in mathematics and lived happily ever after.

So how the hell am I supposed to relate my actions to my Te dominant father who values financial stability, a successful career and being a productive member in the workforce? Better yet, how am I supposed to relate it in a way that makes sense to him? To me, those values are bounded into his own individual framework and I don’t really abide in frameworks. So, it is difficult to explain Ni sometimes because I do things for obscure, subjective, irrational reasons in a world governed by rational frameworks.

I’m simply a curious person, trying my best to understand the world with no real end goal. Curiosity drives me and compels me to explore, simply for the sake of exploration.

Before I get judged, I want to state that I don’t think I’m smarter than anyone nor do I trust my own perceptions too steadfastly. I don’t hold onto my own opinions too dearly because I know fully well that my thoughts change the more I’m exposed to new ideas. And it wouldn’t surprise me if I would write something completely different one year from now. 

I think the Joker depicts an image of what I’m trying to express (albeit the character takes a much more violent approach towards life than I do). After reading my ramblings, this clip might somehow synthesize my thoughts into a more tangible form.


----------



## Jamie.Ether (Jul 1, 2011)

How do you explain something abstract to someone who thinks in concretes? Even if I did express it accurately, as it is in my mind, it wouldn't be understood and therefore could be dismissed as inaccurate.
A better question is how do you know how accurately someone is describing something that you don't understand? 
There's no way to measure.
I call myself a "Feeler" when talking to most people, but I know that I'm not. I know explaining that to them would most likely confuse them. It's hard to explain intuition to a non-user. 
How do you explain a specific perception of an object? You cannot tell what another's perception is. I can compare it to color blindness. How do you accurately explain a colour to a person who has never seen it? Even in doing so, as accurately as one can, some essence is lost. It's not an easy task.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Thank you!

Thank you for emphasizing this as it's definitely important, and something to consider when one is typing themselves.

I've always thought of myself as more intuitive than thinking.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

As was said before:
You can use "Thinker" to describe someone with dominant Te or Ti.
Or you can use "Thinker" to describe someone with T as opposed to F - with Te or Ti as their highest _judging_ function.
People use the words both ways. It doesn't mean they don't know the difference.
Ditto Feeling, Sensing, yada etc.

Most of the rest is from describing behaviour - INTJs come off as very T, more so in some ways than INTPs, whose intuition is extraverted and therefore obvious to others. Their intuition is introverted and thus not so obviously displayed, their thinking function is extraverted. To describe behaviour, to describe oneself in a way others outside one's head would recognise, has to rely on the more external attributes as much as anything. (Plus, most times you try to talk about Ni, someone gets offended and claims you are trying to exclude people or claim magical prowess or some such irrational shit.) The trend is more obvious with Ni-Doms - Ne-doms you hear about intuition all the time, all the time, and if they call themselves Thinkers or Feelers it is usually because of the above - using the term more than one way.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Thanks for the responses so far. But I am not asking how you communicate with others. I am asking why you seem to struggle with defining yourselves with your dominant function. I will take into consideration what you both said Allisreal and Orange. It does make a difference if one is using cognitive functions to describe themselves as opposed to MBTI dichotomies. But since I put the thread in the cognitive function forum, I figured that would be an indicator that I was looking for responses along the lines of cognitive functions, not MBTI. 

I will look over the responses in more detail, when I have a chance, but for now something that stands out and is on point is Pardox’ response:


Paradox of Vigor said:


> I would surmise that NTs have the most difficulty speaking about their iNtuition simply because of the narrow crucible of their Thinking functions. For instance, I place more value on my Te than my Ni though I use Ni more often.
> 
> Under tight self-control, I speak my Ni thoughts only through Te, otherwise it doesn't make sense or is at least unreliable in some way.
> 
> Edit: not only that, but my Te decides whether or not to even speak about what my Ni came up with(I usually just leave my thoughts to myself, until I'm _sure_ I know what I'm talking about.


This again is my point. There is no guarantee that one will have a good use of their auxiliary function. Contrary to Orange’s assertion, MBTI descriptions (at least those in “Gifts Differing”) are two-thirds the discussion of type based on the dominant cognitive function (Ni) of the two sharing that function and one-third a generic description of the particular type (INTJ-INFJ). Jung, Myers-Briggs, Van der Hoop and all who use cognitive functions pair by the dominant function, not the dominant and auxiliary functions. 

But back on point and no attempt to pick on Paradox, but it seems the Ni cannot be described in yourself without using Te. And contrary to your edit, no the Ni does not work for the Te. The Te and all auxiliary functions work for the dominant function. This is a basic principle of type. So your Ni will tell your Te what to do, not the other way around. An example may be in Joe Butts’ description of Te for INTJ at typelogic.com:


> Thinking in this auxiliary role is a workhorse. Closure is the payoff for efforts expended. Evaluation begs diagnosis; product drives process. As they come to light, Thinking tends, protects, affirms and directs iNtuition's offspring, fully equipping them for fulfilling and useful lives. A faithful pedagogue, Thinking argues not so much on its own behalf, but in defense of its charges. And through this process these impressionable ideas take on the likeness of their master.


Jung also says again of the auxiliary function:


> The superior position of the internal factor in dominant introverts involves an inferiority of the external factor. The external is not given that importance which should really belong to it. Just as it plays too great a role in the extraverted attitude, it has too little to say in the introvert. To the extent that the introvert's dominant function is internal, thus bestowing undue importance upon the ego, the external world is placed in a position that in time becomes quite weak.


I pasted his theory on the unconscious functions *here*. As for Lirulin, again the words are not interchangeable and Jung again makes that clear in my opening thread. A thinker (noun) does not equate to thinking (verb). Jung’s titles are action oriented due to the energy, not neutral like dichotomies. Again thanks so far and I will get back to this thread when I have some time, but Trosi’s response is what I am looking for.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

I never said they were interchangeable. I said people use them two different ways and _usually are aware that they are different.
_ That would be the_ opposite_ of interchangeable. More like homonyms.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> But back on point and no attempt to pick on Paradox, but it seems the Ni cannot be described in yourself without using Te. And contrary to your edit, no the Ni does not work for the Te. The Te and all auxiliary functions work for the dominant function. This is a basic principle of type. So your Ni will tell your Te what to do, not the other way around.


I agree that Te works for Ni in the case of an INTJ, but first of all, how can you ever make that a claim like that completely irrefutable? Cognitive functions are not even measurable. Who knows that they even exist? And what are they? If they are real, then they are measurable in some way. Even dark matter can be measured with math...

The functions are guesswork anyway, correct or not, and are bound to be untrustworthy in some way.


----------



## a space whale (Jul 12, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> But I am not asking how you communicate with others.


The question you "asked" in your original post was _does the fact that intutives have a tendency to refer to themselves imply that they "struggle in acknowledging their dominant functions?"_

Somehow you've jumped to the point that this is a forgone conclusion. No personal slight intended, but you seem to struggle with concept that others wont immediately see the argument that you presented as irrefutable and obvious.

The assertion you make has _everything_ to do with how intuitives communicate with others. Take a simplified concrete example: I'm talking to my new friend Lars. I ask

"Lars do you like bananas?" He replies
"They are not my favourite."

Do we conclude from this exchange that Lars obviously hates bananas? No, there is some ambiguity in language and how individuals choose to use it. The _truth_ in this example, is that Lars does not speak English so well. In sweedish, "banana" refers to the fruit we know as a pineapple, but he has forgotten this difference. Lars in fact LOVES bananas more than anything in the world, but he thinks we are talking about pineapples.

Incidentally, my opinion on this matter is "Who gives a shit?" I'm an INTJ, and as an extraverted thinking type, there are few things I hate more than debates which at their core are disagreements over words and semantics -- debates which have no measurable bearing on the world, other than damaging the relations between the participants.

The _fact_ is @Functianalyst, like it or not communication between humans is often as much about building relations and enjoying the event as much as passing information. Ambiguity and flexibility is built into _ALL_ existing human languages by design. People *choose* to use different language and phrasing depending on the context of the conversation and the desired level of "_specificity_".


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

I think this thread is veering off course a little. If I understand correctly, the aim of the OP is simply to gain some insight on how dominant intuitives orient their abstract reality with the rest of the world and why it's difficult to relate their abstractions to sensing and judging types. While valid arguments have been raised on different theories and the influence of auxiliary functions, this thread wasn't designed to dissect those issues. I think Functianalyst just wants to peer into the minds of those whose conscious egos are governed by abstract intuition.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

I heard somewhere that any type will devote about 60% of solving a given task with their dominant function and the remaining 40% divided on their second and tertiary. No idea if this is true or where the numbers come from, I cannot stand for its validity. Anyhow, _if_ true, then an INTJ and INFJ would spend the majority of task solving using the same function; Ni. That process would then be filtered by the Te/Fi and Fe/Ti respectively. In this sense, the INFJ would have a more similar process with the INTJ then with an INFP, for example.


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

I've had trouble, in the past (and sometimes even now, when I'm feeling doubtful) describing myself in objective terms, even without regard to functions. If this is so for any other INFJs, then it wouldn't be surprising to hear these types describe themselves not in terms of how they spend most of their time thinking and taking in information, but in terms of how they may be perceived by others, no? If you're not sure you can trust the way you think about yourself, it makes sense to try to grasp a sense of yourself based on how others respond to you. And the function most likely to be apparent to others, if it's well-developed, would be the INFJ's Fe. This may not be a problem for INFJs with a more developed sense of self than mine, or with a different focus on their functions.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Now I understand why ISTPs like hanging out with INFJs on the forums. At least that is what most ISTPs tell me. Thanks.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I can never truly explain my intuition and it's what makes it so "abstract". It's an over-arching feeling, thought, idea, approach that adds value to my interactions with others. It's not exactly empathy [because that's mostly my Fe] -- but it adds to my empathy ... it's things like ... aah .. when I think of my self and trying to think about doing something .. it's like this:

- I start regretting doing something before doing it because I see the positive and negative outcomes and realize that they will or will not add value to mine or someone else's life before I actually impart in them, therefore I don't impart in them. It's a spectacular moment of self-realization that no .. doing this is just not worth it.

- It's like reading a thread about quantum mechanics and thinking about what it would like to be broken down into tiny molecules myself and how I would like to perceive the world from that perspective

- It's like reading this thread and trying to come up with ways to explain Ni and all I can think about is trying to explain how I do things, but not being able to do so because the words that would express what I want to express fail me .. at the same time, I have a nagging concern that what I'm expressing will not have value to this discussion because it's entirely unrelated to how the reader would like to see

- The combination of how my functions worked .. the most practical example I have is that I was inherently able to live up to the expectations of social groups. Give them a side of myself that would make me seem endearing. It's about *knowing* what role to take and when. How to express my thoughts in ways that would be emotionally appealing, yet definitive at the same time

- I've never been able to get along with people because I can see connections and perspectives that normally they don't. I speak in metaphor and my metaphor falls flat. Example, when someone asks me how I feel, I want to say "Like a broken mirror." But I say "I'm fine, thank You." because I know that the latter is a more socially acceptable way of speaking. However, in company where I'm allowed to be abstract, I'm inherently happier because I know my views will be accepted. 

I can't explain it any better than that. Though I have tried in the past, but I can't.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Troisi said:


> I think this thread is veering off course a little. If I understand correctly, the aim of the OP is simply to gain some insight on how dominant intuitives orient their abstract reality with the rest of the world and why it's difficult to relate their abstractions to sensing and judging types. While valid arguments have been raised on different theories and the influence of auxiliary functions, this thread wasn't designed to dissect those issues. I think Functianalyst just wants to peer into the minds of those whose conscious egos are governed by abstract intuition.


I would think it would be accomplished more efficiently if we lose the silly assumption that a certain way of speaking always implies dominant intuitives _struggle with acknowledging their dominant functions_. Personally, I don't, and I don't know many who do, though surely there will be some. _Communicating _it to someone who doesn't share it can be difficult, but that can _equally_ imply that other types have trouble understanding it as opposed to intuitives having trouble acknowledging it, or (most likely) a mutual communication issue, or many other things. There is no reason to accept the first presupposition as fact thus far. Assuming a lack of comprehension on the part of the people whose responses you are soliciting isn't the most helpful setup. Just saying. Plus it is hard to explain reasons for something that isn't necessarily true.

In terms of communication, explaining Ni to some other types is like being asked to describe a photo of a person pixel by pixel. I can maybe break it down to eyes-nose-mouth but not much further with any sort of coherency. You know it is a face, this is an obvious perception, but you need to translate it. Obviously, the simplest way for _me_ to translate it is with Te and this involves breaking it down - so Te is a bit part of how I have to explain the workings of Ne. I suspect with Fe it is less about breaking it down and more about (pardon the extended metaphor) saving it into a different file format more compatible to the receiver. More of a bridge than a foundation. In terms of Dom-Ne, I honestly haven't witnessed this trend, beyond the normal word usage issues, so I cannot speak to that.

There _have_ been discussions about people identifying more easily with their secondary judging function and usually the idea came up that it is easier to notice, particularly if it is external - whereas it can be easy to not notice your dominant perceiving function as standing out so much because it is so natural and so pervasive, you sort of absent-mindedly expect people to share it. You don't realise, initially, that it is so different, so you don't see it as something that _sets you apart _from others, as an _identifying_ trait - it feels like a more natural, _normal _one, but you are fully aware you have it. I suspect this is enhanced when this is an introverted perceiving function (less opportunities for comparison since it is internal) and when your perceiving function is more abstract than your judging one but I don't think those trends are limited just to dominant intuitives. I don't know if it mirrors in terms of dominant judgers as I was not privy to any discussion on that, but it could.

Another reason is probably that the temperaments are NF and NT rather than NJ and NP. This will carry into people's identification also, I suspect. A sort of attentional bias to the Feeling/Thinking dichotomy as opposed to the judging/perceiving one (although, of course, judgers are dominant perceiving functions and perceivers are dominant judging functions).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

I agree with Troisi that the topic continues to veer off course. So I will address those issues to hopefully get back on course.


lirulin said:


> I never said they were interchangeable. I said people use them two different ways and _usually are aware that they are different.
> _ That would be the_ opposite_ of interchangeable. More like homonyms.





lirulin said:


> I would think it would be accomplished more efficiently if we lose the silly assumption that a certain way of speaking implies dominant intuitives _struggle with acknowledging their dominant functions_. This is where you remain off course.


I never indicated anything regarding your manner of speaking or how you communicate with others, other than to ask why is it that Ni and Ne dominant types prefer to relate to themselves using their lesser functions (Te-Fe and Ti-Fi) or as some have said relate in a general way to being thinkers and feelers. You and others continue to struggle with the question. But as far as your statement on the different ways of discussing type, why would you respond to a cognitive function inquiry using dichotomies, when you know it would muddle matters. Interchanging dichotomies when the discussion is about cognitive functions makes no sense, when you claim to know the discussion is about cognitive functions.


lirulin said:


> There _have_ been discussions about people identifying more easily with their secondary judging function and usually the idea came up that it is easier to notice, particularly if it is external - whereas it can be easy to not notice your dominant perceiving function as standing out so much because it is so natural and so pervasive, you sort of absent-mindedly expect people to share it. You don't realise, initially, that it is so different, so you don't see it as something that _sets you apart _from others, as an _identifying_ trait - it feels like a more natural, normal one, but you are fully aware you have it. I suspect this is enhanced when this is an introverted perceiving function (less opportunities for comparison since it is internal) and when your perceiving function is more abstract than your judging one but I don't think those trends are limited just to dominant intuitives. I don't know if it mirrors in terms of dominant judgers as I was not privy to any discussion on that, but it could.


Now was that so hard, instead of wasting time on your rant? I wasn’t looking for a dissertation on how Ni or Te works. Your explanation above is what I am looking for, and thank you. Ni is no different than any other introverting function in the manner you speak of above. But I do not identify with my Se, in fact some descriptions have noted that ISTPs generally mistype as some form of NT type, because they struggle to relate to SP core values. I suppose my observation that INJs struggle with their Ni by relating more to their auxiliary could be subjective on my part, since it could be equally arguable that Ti dominant types over relate to their dominant function which has also be raised in studies. Ti types generally will not be open to new experiences, finding it more comfortable to just go with what they know. However this creates a problem for us since, without sufficient input using our Se, our Ti can become void.


lirulin said:


> Another reason is probably that the temperaments are NF and NT rather than NJ and NP. Whereas the Sensors are divided by SP and SJ. The functions are the same in each temperament for the Ss, whereas NF has both Fi and Fe users, NT has both Ti and Te - the commonality is simply having your top judging function, whether first or second, being a T on or an F one. This will carry into people's identification a little also, I suspect.


This is my take, temperament is any two-letter code you make it to be, that covers at least four types. Besides, to imply a difference insinuates all Se and Si users are the same, when they are not. Again, ISTPs and ESTJs dominate with a thinking cognitive function, therefore are first and foremost thinking types. The same goes for ISFP and ESFJ as feeling types. The true sensing types are ESPs and ISJs. So to the contrary, we’re in the same boat as NFs and NTs, where there are truly two intuting types in each and two feeling and thinking types in the respective groups. Thanks, this is what I was asking for all along.


Paradox of Vigor said:


> I agree that Te works for Ni in the case of an INTJ, but first of all, how can you ever make that a claim like that completely irrefutable? Cognitive functions are not even measurable. Who knows that they even exist? And what are they? If they are real, then they are measurable in some way. Even dark matter can be measured with math...
> 
> The functions are guesswork anyway, correct or not, and are bound to be untrustworthy in some way.


Type is guesswork and at best a psedo-science. There is no measurable facet of type, including the assessments you take. Surely you know that the results of test measure nothing but a probability that you may be a certain dichotomy?



a space whale said:


> The question you "asked" in your original post was _does the fact that intutives have a tendency to refer to themselves imply that they "struggle in acknowledging their dominant functions?"_
> 
> Somehow you've jumped to the point that this is a forgone conclusion. No personal slight intended, but you seem to struggle with concept that others wont immediately see the argument that you presented as irrefutable and obvious.
> 
> ...


Yet everyone is getting what I am saying except a few, including you. What does that tell you? I am not jumping to conclusions, I’m inquiring. So who was it that jumped to conclusions in their misunderstanding of what I asked? And for the last time it’s not how you communicate with others. It’s how you struggle to discern the use of your intuition, by referring to your auxiliary function. Let’s get an understanding of what I am asking.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> *I never indicated anything regarding your manner of speaking or how you communicate with others*, other than to ask why is it that Ni and Ne dominant types prefer to relate to themselves using their lesser functions (Te-Fe and Ti-Fi) or as some have said relate in a general way to being thinkers and feelers.


*That is exactly the problem.* Because what you observe _is_ about a manner of speaking/communicating rather than the misunderstanding you assume it to be, something you seem to struggle with, as _again_ you make that mistake here:


Functianalyst said:


> You and others continue to struggle with the question.


I know what you are asking. I just didn't respond as if your assumption was true, when it isn't true of Dom-Ns generally - instead I pointed out a number of the actual reasons for what you were observing.




Functianalyst said:


> But as far as your statement on the different ways of discussing type, why would you respond to a cognitive function inquiry using dichotomies, when you know it would muddle matters.


Because I don't share your assumption that it would muddle matters. I am used to switching from framework to framework, the same words meaning different things in each framework, and not finding this at all muddling. I guess here I take Ni for granted. But seriously, it doesn't muddle matters among those who use this way of discussing type - the confusion arises when you assume they are talking from your framework when they are not, a clash of frameworks. Again, a communication issue rather than someone being inherently muddled. _Again _you make this mistake. It is possible to talk of 'thinker' and 'feeler' the more colloquial way and _also _know the formal definitions - perhaps this is less comfortable for Ti, which prefers a single framework? If it muddles things for you, that's fair, but you needn't assume everyone shares that, that "everyone knows." Not everyone has Ti - I guess this is another an example of how we all take our dominant functions for granted sometimes.



Functianalyst said:


> Interchanging dichotomies when the discussion is about cognitive functions makes no sense, when you claim to know the discussion is about cognitive functions.


But if, as it is, the answer to your question - about why Dom-Ns identify with Feeler/Thinker -* is *mostly that they are using a dichotomy and the colloquial usage of the terms "thinker and "feeler" as a reference rather than the formal "Thinker" and "Feeler" that you favour, then you have artificially constricted the question *so as to leave out the real answer*. To answer the question _accurately _is to ignore your restrictions - to step out of your Ti framework and discuss the usage meaning instead of strict cognitive function issues, since the usage meaning accounts for most of your observations.

What you observe is a manner of describing and talking about type identity. These are the facts, the starting point. The tangible observations, not what you have postulated about the reasons. That people are confused because their way of expressing certain things does not regularly follow the formal aspects of typology is an assumption that does not serve as a valid presupposition for the discussion. 



Functianalyst said:


> Now was that so hard, instead of wasting time on your rant?


Cut the childishness, thanks. 



Functianalyst said:


> I suppose my observation that INJs struggle with their Ni by relating more to their auxiliary could *be subjective on my part*,


_Exactly._



Functianalyst said:


> since it could be equally arguable that Ti dominant types over relate to their dominant function which has also be raised in studies. Ti types generally will not be open to new experiences, finding it more comfortable to just go with what they know. However this creates a problem for us since, without sufficient input using our Se, our Ti can become void.
> 
> This is my take, temperament is any two-letter code you make it to be, that covers at least four types.


I actually changed this; I wrote this before my coffee and I made an error. I changed it to:
A sort of attentional bias to the Feeling/Thinking dichotomy as opposed to the judging/perceiving one (although, of course, judgers are dominant perceiving functions and perceivers are dominant judging functions).

Again, what you are observing _mostly_ comes down to a way of describing it, one that is referencing dichotomies as opposed to functions. I am perfectly happy to talk about the rest of it, the part that genuinely _is_ the functions, but I simply needed to point out that your assumption had some holes in it. There are factors outside yoru criteria that account for some of your observations.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Troisi said:


> Thank you for this.
> 
> I could never describe who I am through the eyes of morally rationalistic Fe. It defies my conscious perceptions and creates a sense of claustrophobia. If I had to describe my relation to Ni I would say my perceptions have a magnetic pull that compels me to live a certain way. It's like a fly that's drawn into the blue light of a bug zapper.
> 
> It is admittedly disheartening to see people describe an INFJ in terms of Fe, (or even worse, as emotional train wrecks) because this really doesn't do the type justice.


I liken INFJs to ISTPs in this manner as well. As stated, my Ti is so strong it sometimes prevents me from relating to SP types altogether. This is why I find it confusing when I do see any introverting type consistently relating to their auxiliary function. Thanks Troisi.


Arclight said:


> There is the first reason. It's convenient eh? "_You don't understand_" or "_I can't explain it_" .. But I can , and do, and so can others. Explaining and understanding your lead function should never be a chore.
> The very descriptions of Ne and Ni suggest that they should be better at explaining themselves than some other functions.
> They are considered intellectual functions who's primary purpose is the synthesis of ideas. They will have an idea or ten on how to express themselves as a likely byproduct.


Your examples reminds me of something an INTJ told me on another forum, many years ago. He was the first person to indicate how introverting types generally use their auxiliary function to ward off or defend themselves in the world. It was one of the reasons that I moved beyond MBTI because the theory is based on a “perfect world” situation. 

Generally we (introverts) struggle to use our auxiliary functions in a proactive way, and are inundated with so many things throughout the day that causes us to react defensively. An example for me is, contrary to stereotypes I am not that observant of my environment but I find that is relative since I am more observant than others. I also loathe large get to-gethers, would most likely injure myself using a tool and can count on one hand the number of times I have ridden anything with less than two wheels. In other words, I do not use my Se proactively. I generally use it defensively.



OrangeAppled said:


> I think Jung underestimated the influence of the auxiliary though. He did not make profiles of whole individuals so much as pure types based on the dominant function only. You see little to no influence of the aux in his profiles, and that's why they appear quite exaggerated.
> 
> Meyers & other MBTI authors who built on his theory saw the auxiliary as influential enough on the thinking & personality of individuals to warrant two separate types based on it. Most have also noted the importance of developing the auxiliary because of the balance it brings to the personality (as those quotes you included indicate).


I may have answered this already. I disagree that Jung underestimated the use of auxiliary. I think Myers-Briggs exaggerated the use of it to sell their theory, since one of the caveats of “Gifts Differing” is the need for people to consciously develop their auxiliary for balance. The auxiliary can never match the most differentiated function as I alluded to earlier. Contrary to the assertion, Jung’s profiles indicate the similarities the two types sharing the same cognitive function have. I spent years talking to INTPs and find I have a great deal in common with them. I have also found INTJs and ENTPs for some reason maintaining the distinction between their respective pairing (INFJ/ENFP) the same way INTPs do ISTPs.


OrangeAppled said:


> Even if you are Ne-dom & your aux is weak, you will still reason & make judgments, and you're going to do that with Feeling or Thinking. So in that sense, _when it comes to judging_, it's not inaccurate for a Ne-dom to call themselves a Feeling/Thinking type. The main distinction between an ENFP & ENTP is the thinking/feeling preference after all. Same can be said for INTJs & INFJs.


And maybe that’s where I see the difference. I don’t see INJs and ENPs being different, except that INTJs and ENTPs make more out of temperament than is truly there. To the contrary, they’re the same type born of the same function. The differences are hardly going to be noticeable if the person’s type is well balanced for the simple fact that Ni stands alone and is compensatory to the Se, Te-Fe are gauged by the use of the respective tertiary functions Fi-Ti. So which makes more sense for an introvert, the comfort of extraverting a function or the comfort of introverting a function. Jung never said the tertiary cannot be equal to the auxiliary, only that no function can be equal to the dominant. So how would someone actually discern a difference when speaking to someone that is Fe-Ti-ing, from someone Te-Fi-ing since most likely those two functions will have equal use and are compensatory to one another?


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

Hmm I think others understand what you are asking but they are expressing another possible view of the situation of why intuitives seem to identify with their auxiliary functions. 
 
I'm just going to reply concerning Ni. The function itself lends itself to a lot of ambiguity even to the Ni-dom, putting it into words or even simply working your head around it is not as obvious as it seems because of its very nature. It seems easier to understand through one of its outlets which is Fe (or Te) because of that when we express our Ni it comes in Fe form if that makes any sense (see already trying to put in words my Ni thoughts is hard). It is not that I define myself less with Ni and more with Fe rather the way I exhibit it seems so. It also becoming clearer that functions work together and that will affect how when trying to explain the function itself is "colored" with another function.

We need ENFP and ENTP input. 

I'm not going to argue that maybe not only intuitive types do that because you have based that on your observations and I have no way of validating that unless I go on a information hunting trip (which I will).
Thanks for pointing this out. 

@_Troisi_ Spot on! 




> I’m simply a curious person, trying my best to understand the world with no real end goal. Curiosity drives me and compels me to explore, simply for the sake of exploration.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Elinor Dashwood said:


> I've had trouble, in the past (and sometimes even now, when I'm feeling doubtful) describing myself in objective terms, even without regard to functions. If this is so for any other INFJs, then it wouldn't be surprising to hear these types describe themselves not in terms of how they spend most of their time thinking and taking in information, but in terms of how they may be perceived by others, no? If you're not sure you can trust the way you think about yourself, it makes sense to try to grasp a sense of yourself based on how others respond to you. And the function most likely to be apparent to others, if it's well-developed, would be the INFJ's Fe. This may not be a problem for INFJs with a more developed sense of self than mine, or with a different focus on their functions.


This is an interesting concept Elinor. But as it relates to you from the outside takes the use of an extraverting function wouldn’t you say? And in that case, one of two functions are being used by let’s say an INFJ. You are either using Fe or Se. Since Se and Ne are functions used to bring in information, when you say “trying to grasp a sense of yourself based on how others respond to you”, would that be your Se? Or as I alluded to earlier is this the Fe working defensively to protect the Ni?


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

I think another hurdle for dominant intuitives is lack of self-awareness. Jung described intuition as mostly being an unconscious process and that's exactly what it is. Referring back to my story, I wasn't fully aware I was playing the game of business school - I just did it. It was instinctual. It took hours of reflection to realize what I was doing and recognize patterns in my past endeavors in life. I realized that I'm drawn to deciphering paradigms but as I find myself drawn to something I don't always think "Hey - I am going to decipher this system of thought". It's something I realize after the fact. It's why I used the analogy of a fly being sucked into the blue light of a bug zapper. It wasn't until I decided to analyze myself systematically, like I've done with other objects, that I gained a better sense of understanding who I am, and what it means to be a dominant intuitive.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

MoonLight said:


> Hmm I think others understand what you are asking but they are expressing another possible view of the situation of why intuitives seem to identify with their auxiliary functions. I'm just going to reply concerning Ni. The function itself lends itself to a lot of ambiguity even to the Ni-dom, putting it into words or even simply working your head around it is not as obvious as it seems because of its very nature. It seems easier to understand through one of its outlets which is Fe (or Te) because of that when we express our Ni it comes in Fe form if that makes any sense (see already trying to put in words my Ni thoughts is hard).


Thanks Moonlight and I notice a pattern emerging from this thread that Ni dominant types believe no one can understand them or that other types are too plebian to get it. I can only surmise this comes from the types need to feel different or express their individuality? But the fact is we are all different in type. No one else will Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si the same way you do as an INFJ, anymore than another ISTP will Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi the same way I do. It’s humanly impossible. So to the contrary, I don’t see it being an obstacle based on type, except that some people choose to believe they are incapable of communicating effectively with another in the name of type.


MoonLight said:


> It is not that I define myself less with Ni and more with Fe rather the way I exhibit it seems so. It also becoming clearer that functions work together and that will affect how when trying to explain the function itself is "colored" with another function. I'm not going to argue that maybe not only intuitive types do that because you have based that on your observations and I have no way of validating that unless I go on a information hunting trip (which I will). Thanks for pointing this out.


Thanks again for the insights. As for hunting information, you only have to go as far as your own experiences. When discussing type with INTJs, count how many times you have discussed the commonality of your types when referring to Ni, then count the number of discussions with the same type where the differences were pronounced in the name of thinking and feeling. 

Here is the fact of the matter. Either a type will have commonalities with someone sharing the same dominant function (in this case Ni or Ne) and a weak judging function, or they will have more in common with someone with a weak perceiving function and a strong Te or Fe. I refer to the latter because I frequent the intjforum where ISTJs and INTJs live happily together. Frankly I would not be able to discern the difference. Claiming one’s auxiliary function is equal to or close to being equal to their most differentiated function just does not occur. Thanks again.


Troisi said:


> I think another hurdle for dominant intuitives is lack of self-awareness. Jung described intuition as mostly being an unconscious process and that's exactly what it is. Referring back to my story, I wasn't fully aware I was playing the game of business school - I just did it. It was instinctual. It took hours of reflection to realize what I was doing and recognize patterns in my past endeavors in life. I realized that I'm drawn to deciphering paradigms but as I find myself drawn to something I don't always think "Hey - I am going to decipher this system of thought". It's something I realize after the fact. It's why I used the analogy of a fly being sucked into the blue light of a bug zapper. It wasn't until I decided to analyze myself systematically, like I've done with other objects, that I gained a better sense of understanding who I am, and what it means to be a dominant intuitive.


Good point Troisi, what Jung says of both Ni and Si dominant types is:


> The two types just depicted are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meagre capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a telling criticism. Since their main activity is directed within, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, or uncertainty, and an apparently groundless perplexity. When anything does come to the surface, it usually consists in indirect manifestations of inferior and relatively unconscious functions. Manifestations of such a nature naturally excite a certain environmental prejudice against these types.


Jung also refers to these types inability to experience. But more importantly and the reasons for my inquiry is his first description of Ni:


> 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 contends himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined.….


Thanks again for the responses and I guess my questions were answered more or less indirectly which it sounds like the best one could hope for.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Thanks Moonlight and I notice a pattern emerging from this thread that Ni dominant types believe no one can understand them or that other types are too plebian to get it. I can only surmise this comes from the types need to feel different or express their individuality?





> In school, before there are selective factors operating, only four in a class of 32 would be NTs. Of these four, only one would be introverted - an INTP or INTJ.* So an entirely different social environment surrounds the NTs*. They must live with aliens, while the SPs and SJs are continuously surrounded by their own kind.
> 
> The NT child often experiences the same rejection accorded to the SP, but for the SP this occurs when he enters schools and moves through the grades. For the NT this begins earlier. Over and over, NTs have reported their childhood experiences saying, "I thought I was the only person in the whole world who was like me. When I was growing up no one seemed to see things the way I did. Then I got to college and, suddenly, there were lots of others like me, I was no longer so alone."


From Please Understand Me by Marilyn Bates and David Keirsey 
There are similar things about NFs but I don't have them immediately handy.

I've never understood why so many other types get resentful and defensive when NTs or NFs mention being misunderstood. It is like the have this silly impression we are keeping them outside of some special club or something. A club of...being alienated. Yay. When it is merely a factual statement. And then presume all kinds of emotional motives for what is just a factual statement.

It isn't a _need_ to feel different. It is _being_ different, whether you like it or not. Some may choose to embrace the difference, but they don't create it. That many members of other types choose to feel resentful about NTs or NFs admitting they feel alienated, only increases the lack of understanding. To feel threatened by one's lack of understanding of one specific thing - when this lack isn't a personal flaw, but mostly a lack of exposure to said types, at least to the same degree as to others - plus the usual miscommunications that happen with different ways of thinking - is fundamentally pointless. It's like being threatened because a foreigner who has lived in your country for years knows more of your country than you know of theirs, never having lived there.

In short, your surmise in incorrect as a generalisation, though perhaps applicable to the occasional individual.


----------



## Elinor Dashwood (Mar 3, 2011)

I don't know if remembering things people have said about you, or being aware of how people respond to you, is related to just one function. I suppose Se would be the way one brought in details, and Fe would be the way one interpreted them as well as the _kinds_ of details one was primarily focused on. Wanting to manage the way people respond to you might pertain to Fe. Since the nature of Ni is to see many facets of one concept, trying to describe myself, for instance, as "friendly," instantly sets off an internal debate as to what that word actually means, and whether I can even call myself that when I'm only that way in certain circumstances, etc. This is the kind of thought process that makes it difficult for me to describe myself in concrete terms. I see every term on a continuum. So instead I think, "Well... am I what the _world_ thinks of as friendly? Would others describe me this way?"

Certainly my Fe works to protect my Ni in many situations... I was talking to my INTJ husband just yesterday about how similar we are in our feelings about people, yet how differently we are perceived. We are equally bored by certain social situations, but I find them more stressful than he does because I care about whether I'm being a "good guest," while he just doesn't give a crap! So I try to talk to people, ask them about themselves, all the while being pretty uninterested in all but the rare occasion in which someone brings up one of my pet topics, and desperately wanting to go sit in the ladies' room for ten minutes just to get a break. Meanwhile, Mr. Dashwood sees no problem with talking to only one or two people, taking a random private walk, sitting quietly at a table and staring into space, and giving one-word answers to anyone who tries to strike up a conversation with him. This is not the only purpose my Fe serves, but yes, sometimes it does function to keep people at arm's length rather than to create real connection.

I think I answered your question?


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Arclight said:


> On a few tests there is a disclaimer that says; _If you don't understand the question it is "not you" _
> 
> If you don't understand your lead function it is not you.
> 
> ...


I think your right but I sort of understand what they mean about not being able to explain. Perhaps this is actually a Ti thing, but I often feel that I can't find the right words to describe the shape in my head. It is not that I do not know what the shape is. I understand it perfectly, it is just that it is often very subtle - I need to find a way to get the nuance between words, if you know what I mean. Generally, I just feel that I don't have the tools to explain. If I sit down and try to order it or think it through a few times and try and think of a way of explaining, I can do it, but you end up with very complex sentences (I only really did this at uni when I had time!) 

But saying that, if I've already worked out a way to say something, or I can pinch someone else's phrases (I use "always already" a lot, which is a poststructuralist thing but it seems to bang the nail on the head to me) then I have no trouble at all


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> I was reminded again during a private discussion of how intuiting types seem to struggle in acknowledging their dominant functions ... intuiting types seem to always defer to their auxiliary functions when describing themselves.


I have not seen that much of this going on myself, only sometimes...



> So why is it that intuiting types struggle with describing themselves by their respective dominant functions (Ne/Ni)?


If you see this going on, this might have something to do with it. Dominant intuition especially acts as a lens rather than something to clearly see in itself. 



> I remind you type is about nothing if it is not about mental processing.


"Mental processing" if you mean in the most general of a sense, to mean that it originates in our heads rather than simply behaviors to be observed, yes. But it's really the concept of the function types as these literal processes or as things that really 'function' that really threw me off for a while, and I think it has thrown others off similarly. This is because I have found that one's dominant type, especially in the case of intuitives, isn't simply aanother gadget to be used. It is a _type in itself_, a preferred way of being, a sort of style to everything that you are and do. 

Part of why I thought I was Ti dominant before is because that is what I could actually notice being used. Ne is simply "me" in a way that is less simply said because it would be more like telling my life story. I even primarly identified as intuitive, but some of this misunderstanding then led me to slightly misunderstand what each function is like, and so disregard little bits of information like this. 



Arclight said:


> On a few tests there is a disclaimer that says; _If you don't understand the question it is "not you" _
> 
> If you don't understand your lead function it is not you.


As long as the test is actually doing things right 



> Nowhere does it say that N's have a difficult time explaining how they think. (Only that some people being explained to might not get it).


Yes, I think it's just that a lot of people have a difficult time with that....



> They will have an idea or ten on how to express themselves as a likely byproduct.


Or in the hundreds... don't you see that this is exactly why it might be difficult to explain at times? xD




MoonLight said:


> We need ENFP and ENTP input.


No kidding.... anyone else want to help me out here?


----------



## Nonconsensus (May 19, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> So to the contrary, I don’t see it being an obstacle based on type, except that some people choose to believe they are incapable of communicating effectively with another in the name of type.


I am honestly confused at the point you're trying to make.

What if the communication problem happened _before_ they knew their type? What are they basing it on?

I recently made an acquaintance of a very young INxJ on a private interest group forum. Her self introduction was self-effacing and she seemed almost sorry to exist. The one thing that really stuck out was her constant repetition of saying, "Sorry, not making sense again..."

So when I expressed to her that I _did_ understand her, and I could translate her words back to her in an ambiguous way that resonated with what she was thinking, she started to open up a bit more.

She knows nothing about personality types, mind you, but these are her words: "I try to explain, but others don't understand it, and when I stop trying, they get mad at me for not trying. I don't know how to make sense. Others always misunderstand me and it tires me. I don't know if I'm insane. I like to imagine others' perspectives, go through what they go through, and I try to understand others and I've helped them based on that, but in the end, I don't know if there's such a thing as a normal person. People say I'm 30yrs old but I'm only 16. Sorry if I didn't make sense..."

This sounds almost too familiar but she doesn't even know what Ni is. I'm not discounting her social background and other factors, but the one thing that's clear is that she has noticed all these things.








Functianalyst said:


> Thanks Moonlight and I notice a pattern emerging from this thread that Ni dominant types believe no one can understand them or that other types are too plebian to get it. I can only surmise this comes from the types need to feel different or express their individuality? But the fact is we are all different in type. No one else will Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si the same way you do as an INFJ, anymore than another ISTP will Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi the same way I do. It’s humanly impossible. So to the contrary, I don’t see it being an obstacle based on type, except that some people choose to believe they are incapable of communicating effectively with another in the name of type. Thanks again for the insights. As for hunting information, you only have to go as far as your own experiences. When discussing type with INTJs, count how many times you have discussed the commonality of your types when referring to Ni, then count the number of discussions with the same type where the differences were pronounced in the name of thinking and feeling.
> 
> Here is the fact of the matter. Either a type will have commonalities with someone sharing the same dominant function (in this case Ni or Ne) and a weak judging function, or they will have more in common with someone with a weak perceiving function and a strong Te or Fe. I refer to the latter because I frequent the intjforum where ISTJs and INTJs live happily together. Frankly I would not be able to discern the difference. Claiming one’s auxiliary function is equal to or close to being equal to their most differentiated function just does not occur. Thanks again. Good point Troisi, what Jung says of both Ni and Si dominant types is:Jung also refers to these types inability to experience. But more importantly and the reasons for my inquiry is his first description of Ni:
> Thanks again for the responses and I guess my questions were answered more or less indirectly which it sounds like the best one could hope for.


----------



## Nonconsensus (May 19, 2011)

[Edit] Accidentally double posted.


----------



## jessmk7 (Oct 12, 2010)

Hmm, I wasn't aware types could include perceiving functions. Always heard it used as feeling or thinking. Makes so much sense though.

I definitely don't consider myself a "feeler" necessarily bc I relate those types to heavy Fe using, not me.

I think, for me at least, it's very difficult irl to call myself an "intuiting" type; people don't take that classification very well, especially coming from the subject of themselves. Ime, it has gotten very negative responses, like people think I'm being arrogant, or i think I know more, or some weird vibe I can't quite understand? 

So I tend to just not speak of it at all in those terms. I hate being judged wrong, it's their opinion so I can't tell them they're wrong, but the more I try to explain what I mean, the deeper the hole I seem to dig for myself.


----------



## a space whale (Jul 12, 2011)

Aw I go to work an miss my opening in the discussion, right when it was getting interesting. I'm going to say it anyway:



Functianalyst said:


> Now I understand why ISTPs like hanging out with INFJs on the forums.


Agreed, extraverted feelers are great company when you're looking to feed a confirmatory bias.



Functianalyst said:


> Yet everyone is getting what I am saying except a few


Are people sending you private messages about this idea? Where is the overwhelming majority you speak of? We can both use our fingers to confirm it's not to be found in this thread.

I have no trouble putting words to my intuition, to what it is and how it works. I'll do it for you here in a nuanced and and thought-out essay. Alternatively, I'll do it for you off the cuff, face-to-face and on stage in front of 5,000 people. The latter I can handle as in introvert simply by deferring to my auxiliary function. I don't normally talk about the Intuitive Experience because it bores most people, and I'm not in the business of boring people to make a point.

Anyway it looks like you got the answers you set out to "prove" with this thread. Might I suggest an idea for your next project? With your skills, *you should try looking at ice cores to see if you can determine which geological phenomena in the past led to the Earth being flat today.*

That's the trouble with sensors: they think they can sit down with a book written by some old dead guy that uses lots of big words, and discover how people discuss and communicate in reality. You should try going out into the real world: learn how people discuss and communicate by discussing and communicating with people.

If you are truthfully after insight into how people different from yourself think, try paying attention to those that _disagree_ with you.


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

a space whale said:


> That's the trouble with sensors: they think they can sit down with a book that uses lots of big words, and discover how people discuss and communicate in reality. You should try going out into the real world: learn how people discuss and communicate by discussing and communicating with people.


And that's the trouble with ridiculous stereotypes.


----------



## a space whale (Jul 12, 2011)

oh come off it, it's a joke!


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

Would you like me to loan you a bicycle so you can back pedal a little faster?

^That's a joke. Jokes usually contain some form of humour.


----------



## jessmk7 (Oct 12, 2010)

Yikes. Bad day?


----------



## a space whale (Jul 12, 2011)

man, you are such a downer. Try reading up here  first.

edit: yeah! that's what I meant. Bad day?


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

Am I having a bad day? Good lord, no. But thanks for the link on irony. Since I made a joke out of your joke, I'll make sure to read up on the concept and proceed to incorporate it in my comedic endeavors. Much obliged.

Well, I guess this thread is properly derailed. My apologies Functianalyst.

Edit: I do find it _ironic_ (not sure if I'm using the correct terminology here) that you called me a downer considering how much my Fe is inclined to conformity bias. Again, this whole irony thing is new to me so I'm not sure if I'm using it properly in this context.


----------



## jessmk7 (Oct 12, 2010)

It seems to me like you lashed out irrationally. I understand what you're saying: irony, sarcasm, directness. But, saying "that's what's wrong with sensors" is a hefty generalization, don't you think? Not everybody is 100% sensor or 100% intuitor. Most people lie in between somewhere. 

So I wondered if you had a bad day.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nonconsensus said:


> I am honestly confused at the point you're trying to make.
> 
> What if the communication problem happened _before_ they knew their type? What are they basing it on?
> 
> ...


For your sake, be glad that I saw your age, otherwise I would have a field day. Go back and read your post and ask yourself, would you have wrote it if your acquaintance was a type other than INXJ? For all you know the person could be an ESP type.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> For your sake, be glad that I saw your age, otherwise I would have a field day. Go back and read your post and ask yourself, would you have wrote it if your acquaintance was a type other than INXJ? For all you know the person could be an ESP type.


Seriously, you can't do any better than an ad hominem?
What a crock.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

jessmk7 said:


> I think, for me at least, it's very difficult irl to call myself an "intuiting" type; people don't take that classification very well, especially coming from the subject of themselves. Ime, it has gotten very negative responses, like people think I'm being arrogant, or i think I know more, or some weird vibe I can't quite understand?


This. Happening even in this thread.


----------



## Nonconsensus (May 19, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Not as confused as I am. Obvious question, what makes you think the person is INXJ? For all you know they could have been ISFP.





Functianalyst said:


> For your sake, be glad that I saw your age, otherwise I would have a field day. Go back and read your post and ask yourself, would you have wrote it if your acquaintance was a type other than INXJ? For all you know the person could be an ESP type.




I wrote a rather lengthy explanation, but I happened to preview my message and I saw your updated response.

I read back. It's not as if I really don't know that just that piece of passage is not enough to know whether she's INxJ. That's not everything that went on; that's a fragment of my observations, not everything - I'm not going to bore the general public unless it's really necessary.

I do not know why you seem to think passing judgments prematurely like this encourages others to respond to your questions. I do not even know why using age is a valid argument. I don't know if you realize that when you use that as an argument, you're revealing possibilities that you have a preset judgment people based on ages, essentially boxing them into something, and not allowing for possibilities.

Do you realize that the way you place such a judgment on me is _not_ the same as the way I guess her type? If it wasn't a judgment, what was it?

Would I have written it? I still would. Why wouldn't I? To avoid being wrong? What's the most devastating thing that can happen for being wrong? If I were really wrong, that'd be interesting. This means even more subtle differences to consider. This means there's more to understand. I might feel stupid, but that hardly matters when my priority is to understand.

I find it meaningless to doubt my observations about people my entire life just because of a couple of possible mistakes. When I do get their types right, my relationships with them actually _improve_, not get worse; I understand people more, not less. I even remember who I typed wrongly and as what, and I've been keeping these mistakes as future references. This is _my_ way of learning and to check whether I understand people. If you do not relate to it, so be it - and I don't mean this as an insult.

You have not clarified the point that I was confused by. You look like you're being very testy, but whatever it is, I still maintain my confusion with regards to this:



Functianalyst said:


> Thanks Moonlight and I notice a pattern emerging from this thread that Ni dominant types believe no one can understand them or that other types are too plebian to get it. I can only surmise this comes from the types need to feel different or express their individuality? But the fact is we are all different in type. No one else will Ni-Fe-Ti-Se-Ne-Fi-Te-Si the same way you do as an INFJ, anymore than another ISTP will Ti-Se-Ni-Fe-Te-Si-Ne-Fi the same way I do. It’s humanly impossible. So to the contrary, I don’t see it being an obstacle based on type, *except that some people choose to believe they are incapable of communicating effectively with another in the name of type*.


I quoted longer because I want to be sure we're talking about Ni-doms in particular. Unless of course, your statement has broadened to encompass all other types, then all that we've discussed are moot.

What I was trying to illustrate when I quoted you is that what you're seeing now may _not_ be what you said, that they're using type to justify their problems. I kept track of my journals since 2004. Every year, every few months, I write the same thing, "Is it just me or people keep thinking I have some kind of ulterior motive when I speak? Why the hell does everyone keep telling me I'm an alien? Why do people never really get me?"

I'm not saying you're referring to me, but there's a very high likelihood that I would _appear_ to believe that I'm incapable of communicating effectively when I first came to know that I was INTJ and had a moment of epiphany, "So _that's_ why I had so many of these problems in the past - and why I get along with some more than others."

But how do you know in my mind I wholeheartedly accept this as the only theory why I have communication difficulties? I do consider other things, but I just happen not to actively talk about it. Do I just suddenly, "I'm an INTJ... But I can't use this as one of the explanations even though I know a lot of Ni-doms meet the same problem, just because I don't want others to think I'm trying to justify my problems!" That's not accepting the fact that we are all of different types with different priorities - that's precisely the opposite: Denial.

I think it's _supposed_ to be normal for people to face difficulties when understanding others different from themselves. The weirdest statement thrown to me to this date by the same person is this, "Hey, I know everyone's different, but can you talk more like everyone else?"

If I could, I might, though I don't know if they realize they're asking for some form of dishonesty. I honestly find debates over how I'm unfathomable very pointless and meaningless.

To emphasize why I find it difficult to accept your argument even though I _am_ considering your article:



Functianalyst said:


> I can only surmise this comes from the types need to feel different or express their individuality?


No I don't need to feel different. There's a difference in regarding myself as an individual and explaining myself versus expressing my individuality - the latter is not a purpose I seek.

If we didn't try to explain, I don't know what else others are going to label the "behavior" or lack of it as. Why does "feeling tired" never end up as a possibility?


----------



## jessmk7 (Oct 12, 2010)

lirulin said:


> This. Happening even in this thread.


Can you expand on what exactly "this" entails? I'm not sure what you mean.


----------



## jessmk7 (Oct 12, 2010)

Wow. Forgive me. Going on 24 hrs without sleep lol.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

jessmk7 said:


> Can you expand on what exactly "this" entails? I'm not sure what you mean.


The negative responses & weird negative vibe you mentioned - eg the assumption that N types mention being understood as a 'need to feel different' the idea that we say others can't understand therefore we mean they are 'plebs,' by extension that we think we are better is part of the assumption behind that word choice. As if being misunderstood is a _status _thing rather than alienation. The false, defensive assumption of arrogance you mentioned is being made there.

--oh, nevermind, just saw your other post.

Yeah, sleep deprivation sucks.

(random plug - I started a thread about it to see what other INTJs thought, though other types are welcome to contribute if they want http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/68907-misunderstood-special.html)


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

As @_lirulin_ put it, it is explaining what is and not making an assumption people don’t understand me in a drama queen type of way. If I can’t put my own intuitive thoughts in words as they occur in my head, how is another person going to fully understand them even? It is simply describing the situation. It is not about being individualistic, I’m different than anyone else kind of way (even though maybe some people will take it that way to overcome not being understood so they may see themselves as special). Besides if you spend time with Ni-doms you will notice they couldn’t care less about social status or seeing others as “plebian” (well many of them at least).

Having had discussions about some issues that arise between INTJs and INFJs only when they overcome that they process things differently and judge them on a different manner due to Te-Fe/Ti-Fi even though they both share Ni after that they get along. 

@ElectricSparkle said it more clearly than what I was trying to express that the intuition functions work in a way that is not obvious to show or even talk about or explain. You even quoted about it. I think Ni is more obscure than Ne because is internal. So it seems like we don't identify with our intuition outwardly because of several factors even though it is our dom- function. 




> If you see this going on, this might have something to do with it. Dominant intuition especially acts as a lens rather than something to clearly see in itself.


This thread reminds me of the conversations I have with my ESTP sister. 

Sister: Mentions something
Me: Yes, it is...
Sister: No, it is this way
Me: That is what I said
Sister: Yes *repeats again what she said*
Me: I know  I get it. 

In the end I realized I either added to her thought, offered a different perspective of it or just used a different way of explaining it because of my Ni yet still to her seemed like I was disagreeing with her.


----------



## jessmk7 (Oct 12, 2010)

lirulin said:


> The negative responses & weird negative vibe you mentioned - eg the assumption that N types mention being understood as a 'need to feel different' the idea that we say others can't understand therefore we mean they are 'plebs,' by extension that we think we are better is part of the assumption behind that word choice. As if being misunderstood is a _status _thing rather than alienation. The false, defensive assumption of arrogance you mentioned is being made there.
> 
> --oh, nevermind, just saw your other post.
> 
> Yeah, sleep deprivation sucks.


Thank you, nicely explained.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

lirulin said:


> The negative responses & weird negative vibe you mentioned - eg the assumption that N types mention being understood as a 'need to feel different' the idea that we say others can't understand therefore we mean they are 'plebs,' by extension that we think we are better is part of the assumption behind that word choice. As if being misunderstood is a _status _thing rather than alienation. The false, defensive assumption of arrogance you mentioned is being made there.
> 
> --oh, nevermind, just saw your other post.
> 
> Yeah, sleep deprivation sucks.


I think that is the second time you mention the same thing I was going to say before me. 

Sorry to derail but I question popped up, do you write/say something without saying the whole thought process behind it then you realize you need to mention it or someone didn't understand so you then add to the original thought?


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> I think that is the second time you mention the same thing I was going to say before me.


Apologies. 



MoonLight said:


> Sorry to derail but I question popped up, do you write/say something without saying the whole thought process behind it then you realize you need to mention it or someone didn't understand so you then add to the original thought?


_All the time._ It is quite frustrating. I can become ridiculously verbose to overcompensate but then I just end up confusing people. Or myself, as I don't always consciously know the thought process and have to break it down 'on the spot' as it were.

I think my little sister (ENFJ) is worse at it though- I know her well enough that I know what she is likely to shift to but most others are left completely without context. I tend to be a bit more organised. But then, she also offends less people, being fluffy, so even when she is misunderstood, those that misread are less hostile.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nonconsensus said:


> I wrote a rather lengthy explanation, but I happened to preview my message and I saw your updated response.
> 
> I read back. It's not as if I really don't know that just that piece of passage is not enough to know whether she's INxJ. That's not everything that went on; that's a fragment of my observations, not everything - I'm not going to bore the general public unless it's really necessary.


If the person did not confirm their type, then your assumption of their type is moot, ergo your claim of what happens before they know their type is a non-factor and irrelevant. You provided no indication that the person confirmed they were any type, let alone an INJ type. In fact you stated “she knows nothing about personality type”. Did she confirm her type or not? Otherwise you are you claiming she is INJ based on your being able to relate? That's not passing judgement, that's inquiring why you would label someone you consider an acquaintance as a specific type then base your thoughts on a faulty assumption.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

lirulin said:


> Apologies.


 

xD I meant it as an observation only, because sometimes I mention things then another person says I was going to say that and it seems to be happening to me now. It is possibly a Ni thing. Now someone is going to say I’m claiming super mind reading powers lol but I simply noticed it. I guess I'm trying to find a pattern.



lirulin said:


> _All the time._ It is quite frustrating. I can become ridiculously verbose to overcompensate but then I just end up confusing people. Or myself, as I don't always consciously know the thought process and have to break it down 'on the spot' as it were.
> 
> I think my little sister (ENFJ) is worse at it though- I know her well enough that I know what she is likely to shift to but most others are left completely without context. I tend to be a bit more organised.




Exactly! My head sometimes keeps giving me more thoughts without the process behind it and sometimes speech completely can’t keep up so I end up not mentioning everything. It is easier in writing though. 

Thanks


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> xD I meant it as an observation only, because sometimes I mention things then another person says I was going to say that and it seems to be happening to me now. It is possibly a Ni thing. Now someone is going to say I’m claiming super mind reading powers lol but I simply noticed it. I guess I'm trying to find a pattern.


I have this habit too.



MoonLight said:


> Exactly! My head sometimes keeps giving me more thoughts without the process behind it and sometimes speech completely can’t keep up so I end up not mentioning everything. It is easier in writing though.
> 
> Thanks


I am wondering how this differs with Te/Fe. I know with Ni-Te there is a focus on being logical & objective because, well, that surely is a common language, mathematics is the universal language etc. If you deconstruct and construct things so that they _make sense_ then surely that will communicate? Of course it doesn't, usually. And then Fe uses a common language of values, which also doesn't necessarily work either. I get the sense that this focus on the _common language_ is part of why we focus more on aspects of our judging functions. Does that make sense?


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

lirulin said:


> I have this habit too.


A thread topic is developing...



lirulin said:


> I am wondering how this differs with Te/Fe. I know with Ni-Te there is a focus on being logical & objective because, well, that surely is a common language, mathematics is the universal language etc. If you deconstruct and construct things so that they _make sense_ then surely that will communicate? Of course it doesn't, usually. And then Fe uses a common language of values, which also doesn't necessarily work either. I get the sense that this focus on the _common language_ is part of why we focus more on aspects of our judging functions. Does that make sense?


Hmm, yes I see, depending on the second function to communicate in order to try and make it easier for the flow of thought and understanding. What is intriguing is that sometimes the communication is so clear the other person gets your point completely regardless of type. It is like your thought just put itself on a serving plate ready to be consumed. This usually happens with thoughts that are already complete in the mind, it is there just to say. Yet, with thoughts that come up in a conversation or ones still obscure because of the process that produced them then it doesn't come out well. 

The difference with Fe would be that there is an effort to mold the thought according to what the Fe-user assumes the other person will understand: finding the right words, changing some of them if the other person seems not to be understanding, adapting speech to the other person, etc. Even with all that it might not work out because the thought itself is giving trouble in translating itself into the right words.

I noticed INTJs like to use pictures and that expresses their thoughts more fully sometimes and others may perceive part of what they are trying to say more than words.

INFJs use metaphors, songs and even parts of movies.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> Hmm, yes I see, depending on the second function to communicate in order to try and make it easier for the flow of thought and understanding. What is intriguing is that sometimes the communication is so clear the other person gets your point completely regardless of type. It is like your thought just put itself on a serving plate ready to be consumed. This usually happens with thoughts that are already complete in the mind, it is there just to say. Yet, with thoughts that come up in a conversation or ones still obscure because of the process that produced them then it doesn't come out well.


Ready on a platter, yeah....I wonder if some of the other types have more 'complete' thoughts this way? Perhaps this is partly why they cannot relate and/or think we are exaggerating sometimes.
I do like those thoughts. It makes life a lot easier. 

Also _finding _them perfectly phrased - I find I spend a lot of time reading things, looking for ways to phrase my ideas. Although I seek new ones, I also spend tons of time trying to turn the old ones into something tangible. And if I find a good metaphor I tend to reuse it to death, out of excitement. It can be a bit obnoxious.



MoonLight said:


> [The difference with Fe would be that there is an effort to mold the thought according to what the Fe-user assumes the other person will understand: finding the right words, changing some of them if the other person seems not to be understanding, adapting speech to the other person, etc. Even with all that it might not work out because the thought itself is giving trouble in translating itself into the right words.


Yeah, Te is more about adapting to the idea and concepts, I suppose, not the person. The topic of conversation, rather than the conversation.



MoonLight said:


> [I noticed INTJs like to use pictures and that expresses their thoughts more fully sometimes and others may perceive part of what they are trying to say more than words.
> 
> INFJs use metaphors, songs and even parts of movies.


Pictures, really? I should try that though I am a terrible visual thinker. I'm more in the metaphor camp (of course I studied literature so that helps) - a lot of the Ni threads for NTJs are pretty metaphor heavy too. It does lend itself to metaphors. But I think we have some Ni picture threads too.

I haven't really noticed this trend, but I shall look for it.


----------



## Nonconsensus (May 19, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> That's not passing judgement, that's inquiring why you would label someone you consider an acquaintance as a specific type then base your thoughts on a faulty assumption.


The first quote I had of yours, the "obvious question" part? I was typing a response to that midway. I pressed preview. Then I noticed that the inquiry was gone, left with a discounting of my position because of my age. You didn't explain why you used age as an argument. I removed my response as a result.

I have no reason to explain when someone has done that. Even so, I tried to. But it hasn't been useful apparently.

If we cannot understand each other right now, I believe I would not be of any use to your understanding.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nonconsensus said:


> The first quote I had of yours, the "obvious question" part? I was typing a response to that midway. I pressed preview. Then I noticed that the inquiry was gone, left with a discounting of my position because of my age. You didn't explain why you used age as an argument. I removed my response as a result.
> 
> I have no reason to explain when someone has done that. Even so, I tried to. But it hasn't been useful apparently.
> 
> If we cannot understand each other right now, I believe I would not be of any use to your understanding.


I understand you completely. What you are failing to understand apparently is how you came to the conclusion that the "acquaintance" was any sort of type, let alone INJ? Then based on that claim, you make an argument. Sounds pretty simple.


lirulin said:


> Seriously, you can't do any better than an ad hominem?
> What a crock.


When are you going to finally get over the fact that *Fe types cannot live as hermits* and move on? Not only is it annoying, but shows how petty you are and lack the ability to deal with what really bothers you in a straightforward manner. That has to be the issue, because it's the only time that I can remember ever noticing your existence on the forum.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

lirulin said:


> Ready on a platter, yeah....I wonder if some of the other types have more 'complete' thoughts this way? Perhaps this is partly why they cannot relate and/or think we are exaggerating sometimes.


Haha, some answer “do you have everything figured out?” or “where did you come up with that?” (It is usually said with conviction). Ah it is nice to be in _the_ zone and then comes one of those days were nothing comes out right. I think we need time to process things so thoughts are nicely put in the thought bank to be used later. I get stuck at certain words sometimes which I find annoying , I’m like I’m sure I have a wider vocabulary than that. 



lirulin said:


> Pictures, really? I should try that though I am a terrible visual thinker. I'm more in the metaphor camp (of course I studied literature so that helps) - a lot of the Ni threads for NTJs are pretty metaphor heavy too. It does lend itself to metaphors. But I think we have some Ni picture threads too.
> 
> I haven't really noticed this trend, but I shall look for it.


Maybe I read the threads with the pictures, I wish I can remember the exact threads (details like that escape me).

I guess if we are more aware of these things in ourselves we are able to minimize the problematic issues that might arise.

Using Fe/Te to communicate our thoughts but making sure they are complete ones producing the best result in understanding.

Ok now it makes sense to me why sometimes my students understand exactly what I’m talking about and in other times I seem to be talking to myself. xD


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> Haha, some answer “do you have everything figured out?” or “where did you come up with that?” (It is usually said with conviction). Ah it is nice to be in _the_ zone and then comes one of those days were nothing comes out right. I think we need time to process things so thoughts are nicely put in the thought bank to be used later. I get stuck at certain words sometimes which I find annoying , I’m like I’m sure I have a wider vocabulary than that.


Indeed, it is frustrating. After degrees in linguistics and literature and all those years of study I still sound like a bumbling idiot when I try to explain things for which I don't already have prefabricated phrases and analogies. I spent ages studying words and expression and all to no avail. I really _wish _it were as simple as the elitism Functionanalyst assumes it is, because then I could turn it _off_. I might actually be able to relate to people and talk to them. Although, I always sort of assumed that people _could_ relate to being misunderstood. I thought it was normal to have experienced it at least sometimes, particularly as a teenager. I guess we all lose track of how different people can be sometimes.



MoonLight said:


> Maybe I read the threads with the pictures, I wish I can remember the exact threads (details like that escape me).
> 
> I guess if we are more aware of these things in ourselves we are able to minimize the problematic issues that might arise.
> 
> ...


I suppose it might make sense that pictures would lend itself to a more scientific approach. And it is a way to simplify things - I find though, if I try, it ends up looking like the cabin in _A Beautiful Mind_ with all those random newspaper cutouts and strings connecting everything and random highlights...I am better at simplifying through words, but that was my area of study. Since INTJs are more prone to science, I could be the exception. I think I do vaguely remember a 'Ni in a picture' thread, for certain, though I think it was a while ago? I just remember the recent one where we got trolled because another one thought misunderstood=superior and got angry.

How often do you find you _know_ that your thoughts are incomplete? I find sometimes I know I am confused, but mostly I realise something is missing _after_ someone misreads it and then have to scramble around, trying to find what, because I can fill in the rest in my head and don't notice I skipped steps. There is also what can happen - I don't know if you get this? - but I come off as confident and certain and there are people who pick holes more reacting to that impression than based on what I said - so that isn't really holes, but missing caveats or things to 'soften' a statement. I have a hard time telling these apart sometimes.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Functianalyst;1691806When are you going to finally get over the fact that [url=http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/35600-fe-hermit-3.html#post777970 said:


> *Fe types cannot live as hermits[/url]* and move on? Not only is it annoying, but shows how petty you are and lack the ability to deal with what really bothers you in a straightforward manner. That has to be the issue, because it's the only time that I can remember ever noticing your existence on the forum.


Ohhhhhhhhh that was _you!_ Right.
Considering you remembered and even went so far as to look up the thread...total projection on your part. Stop derailing the thread with it please.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

lirulin said:


> Indeed, it is frustrating. After degrees in linguistics and literature and all those years of study I still sound like a bumbling idiot when I try to explain things for which I don't already have prefabricated phrases and analogies. I spent ages studying words and expression and all to no avail. I really _wish _it were as simple as the elitism Functionanalyst assumes it is, because then I could turn it _off_. I might actually be able to relate to people and talk to them. Although, I always sort of assumed that people _could_ relate to being misunderstood. I thought it was normal to have experienced it at least sometimes, particularly as a teenager. I guess we all lose track of how different people can be sometimes..


 
Yes indeed, if somehow there is a way to control it then we might say ok I found a direct link to others but you know all you can do it probably lessen it rather than remove it altogether. Honestly, I simply stopped caring about the idea of being understood (not that I don’t get frustrated at myself for not making sense to others sometimes). I accept as it is. One can’t change what is part of who they are, which is not a flaw also. I guess I make the best out of any situation and hope some of the thought hits the mark.




lirulin said:


> How often do you find you _know_ that your thoughts are incomplete? I find sometimes I know I am confused, but mostly I realise something is missing _after_ someone misreads it and then have to scramble around, trying to find what, because I can fill in the rest in my head and don't notice I skipped steps. There is also what can happen - I don't know if you get this? - but I come off as confident and certain and there are people who pick holes more reacting to that impression than based on what I said - so that isn't really holes, but missing caveats or things to 'soften' a statement. I have a hard time telling these apart sometimes.


 
It can take different forms. If I can’t trace it back to something tangible like something I read or saw (linking it back to the information I collected). It also happens when the thought comes of nowhere and I don’t say it out loud because I have no reasoning behind it (I was replying to this post and reading the thread you started and this 



by lolthevoillol and what was experienced with the teacher is an example of it). Another one when I notice a gap due to lack of information so I need to acquire more. And as you mentioned noticing after someone misreads what you said. Hmm how to put it, it doesn’t seem like “bang!” it all clicks in every way you look at it. 

Yup, yes people reacting to how you are expressing the thought rather than the content itself. It does happen if I was more concerned with the thought rather than how I was delivering it (Fe), may come out too intense, too blunt, arrogant (according to the other person but not to me). People perceive what we say in different ways regardless of the content sometimes by focusing on how you said it, others pick on words also forgetting the content, others pick on the logic (probably happen way less with INTJs), etc. This is problematic because even though the thought is sound how it is viewed by the other person affects how is understood.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lirulin said:


> Ohhhhhhhhh that was _you!_ Right.
> Considering you remembered and even went so far as to look up the thread...total projection on your part. Stop derailing the thread with it please.


Actually I did have to look it up.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> Yes indeed, if somehow there is a way to control it then we might say ok I found a direct link to others but you know all you can do it probably lessen it rather than remove it altogether. Honestly, I simply stopped caring about the idea of being understood (not that I don’t get frustrated at myself for not making sense to others sometimes). I accept as it is. One can’t change what is part of who they are, which is not a flaw also. I guess I make the best out of any situation and hope some of the thought hits the mark.


I wish I could stop caring. I mean, obviously, there are a _lot _of people I write off as incapable of understanding me - moreso because they clearly aren't interested in listening than the fact that they inherently can't, because I think they could if they tried - or because they are just emotional and projecting - but in general there is still a need for understanding that I haven't killed off yet. And it is always frustrating to deal with someone whose mind is closed from complacency, anger, pettiness, apathy...I should be used to it by now, but I keep expecting more of people, whether they deserve it or not. That's a minor irritation though. I find the worst is when it is with one of the few who clearly wants to understand and it just isn't working. That I haven't accepted yet and I don't know if I will.



MoonLight said:


> [It can take different forms. If I can’t trace it back to something tangible like something I read or saw (linking it back to the information I collected). It also happens when the thought comes of nowhere and I don’t say it out loud because I have no reasoning behind it (I was replying to this post and reading the thread you started and this
> 
> 
> 
> by lolthevoillol and what was experienced with the teacher is an example of it). Another one when I notice a gap due to lack of information so I need to acquire more. And as you mentioned noticing after someone misreads what you said. Hmm how to put it, it doesn’t seem like “bang!” it all clicks in every way you look at it.


That sounds very similar to the way I think. I can often reason through something on the fly, but remembing the evidence, the data that led me there, can be a real chore.



MoonLight said:


> [Yup, yes people reacting to how you are expressing the thought rather than the content itself. It does happen if I was more concerned with the thought rather than how I was delivering it (Fe), may come out too intense, too blunt, arrogant (according to the other person but not to me). People perceive what we say in different ways regardless of the content sometimes by focusing on how you said it, others pick on words also forgetting the content, others pick on the logic (probably happen way less with INTJs), etc. This is problematic because even though the thought is sound how it is viewed by the other person affects how is understood.


I think Fe has a leg up on Te in this regard.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

lirulin said:


> I wish I could stop caring. I mean, obviously, there are a _lot _of people I write off as incapable of understanding me - moreso because they clearly aren't interested in listening than the fact that they inherently can't, because I think they could if they tried - or because they are just emotional and projecting - but in general there is still a need for understanding that I haven't killed off yet. And it is always frustrating to deal with someone whose mind is closed from complacency, anger, pettiness, apathy...I should be used to it by now, but I keep expecting more of people, whether they deserve it or not. That's a minor irritation though. I find the worst is when it is with one of the few who clearly wants to understand and it just isn't working. That I haven't accepted yet and I don't know if I will.
> 
> 
> That sounds very similar to the way I think. I can often reason through something on the fly, but remembing the evidence, the data that led me there, can be a real chore.
> ...


Hmm I'm thinking did I go off the deep end and killed off something I shoudn't or it is Fi related? It is possible you value being understood especially but the ones who want to. If that is the case then may be it is not a good idea to write it off. People who want to understand you will make the effort and as much as it is frustrating sometimes not being able to reach that I think now it is more clear why it happens. If we are able to diagnose the origin of the issue then we can identify when it happens and to use different methods to overcome it (even if to a certain degree).

When I was young I used to dismiss the thought that came out of nowhere because I didn't know where it came from. 

Just remembering how messed up it felt that I couldn't relate to anyone as a kid or teen and if I new just a bit of what I know now life would have not sucked so much xD I suppose I accepted being misunderstood because I accepted myself in that manner. I spent most of my teen life trying to fit in to no avail. Sure I can act as they do but that is not what was inside. So now I try what I can to bring the thought out properly and leave the rest for the other person as long as they don't make a wrong assumption about me (that annoys me very much).

Are you aware you are using Te? Because I know when I am using Fe and to what purpose.


----------



## jessmk7 (Oct 12, 2010)

lirulin said:


> _All the time._ It is quite frustrating. I can become ridiculously verbose to overcompensate but then I just end up confusing people. Or myself, as I don't always consciously know the thought process and have to break it down 'on the spot' as it were.


But this is why I love intj's so much. Not only do I understand the overcompensation as just more precise, but you guys, like earlier today, have an almost flawless way of taking my scattered explanations and putting them into comprehensive explanations that people can actually follow.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

Oh I forgot to add this earlier, a thread inspired from here, all views are welcome:

“I was going to say that”


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> Hmm I'm thinking did I go off the deep end and killed off something I shoudn't or it is Fi related? It is possible you value being understood especially but the ones who want to. If that is the case then may be it is not a good idea to write it off. People who want to understand you will make the effort and as much as it is frustrating sometimes not being able to reach that I think now it is more clear why it happens. If we are able to diagnose the origin of the issue then we can identify when it happens and to use different methods to overcome it (even if to a certain degree).


I don't know - if it works for you, it works for you. I don't know if this is relevant, but INFJs seem to have a way of being accepted even without being understood. It can be a bit isolating still, but there is at least some connection. Lord knows we all have our bad moments, though, so this is just a vague trend I have sort of noticed. For INTJs it _seems_ that more often we cannot get accepted _until_ we are understood. I don't mean to speak for the group and some will disagree, but there is a general tendency, it seems, to be more hostile to external expectations and meet less of them, which rather gets in the way.



MoonLight said:


> When I was young I used to dismiss the thought that came out of nowhere because I didn't know where it came from.
> 
> Just remembering how messed up it felt that I couldn't relate to anyone as a kid or teen and if I new just a bit of what I know now life would have not sucked so much xD I suppose I accepted being misunderstood because I accepted myself in that manner. I spent most of my teen life trying to fit in to no avail. Sure I can act as they do but that is not what was inside. So now I try what I can to bring the thought out properly and leave the rest for the other person as long as they don't make a wrong assumption about me (that annoys me very much).


Being a kid/teen really, really stinks in many ways. 



MoonLight said:


> Are you aware you are using Te? Because I know when I am using Fe and to what purpose.


Oh yes, always, it is conscious. I don't, obviously, identify it _as _Te all the time, but Te is basically the best shorthand way of describing most of the aspects of my thought I have a handle on and can generally explain. Ni has its conscious elements too, but it is more like conducting an orchestra than playing an instrument. You know the cues and dynamics and general structure of the piece, the key and key changes, these are all conscious, and you _can_ know some of the notes, but it would be a nightmare to explain it note by note and you don't even need to to know what you are doing.



jessmk7 said:


> But this is why I love intj's so much. Not only do I understand the overcompensation as just more precise, but you guys, like earlier today, have an almost flawless way of taking my scattered explanations and putting them into comprehensive explanations that people can actually follow.


It is fun when it works. It definitely doesn't always work, but it is fun when it does. And Ne is always entertaining to work with...


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

lirulin said:


> I don't know - if it works for you, it works for you. I don't know if this is relevant, but INFJs seem to have a way of being accepted even without being understood. It can be a bit isolating still, but there is at least some connection. Lord knows we all have our bad moments, though, so this is just a vague trend I have sort of noticed. For INTJs it seems that more often we cannot get accepted until we are understood. I don't mean to speak for the group and some will disagree, but there is a general tendency, it seems, to be more hostile to external expectations and meet less of them, which rather gets in the way.
> 
> 
> Being a kid/teen really, really stinks in many ways.
> ...


Ah yes that's following the Fe part of us rather than really being accepted. To the observer we seem to fit in but it is fitting in not because of who we are but rather just using part of us that can work in that group. It causes all types of problems especially with feeling isolated and increases the issue of not being understood. The INFJ (ENFJs have that too) in that situation realizes that the people in this case don't know them but only know the part that agrees with them. It is not a good state to be in at all because there is the "me" on the inside that doesn’t come out and then "part" that just shows. Fe controls the situation rather than the person controlling it in the sense the person has to uphold the image they have created to fit in thinking it is better than having nothing. *shakes head* it pisses me off that anyone has to go through that just to be accepted.









Yeah, I have noticed that about INTJs here. The stereotypes and first impressions stick to people's minds and they don't give the INTJs the chance anymore just to be themselves. It is so much nonsense to the degree of removing human qualities from them instead of just making an effort to go past that and understanding them. In addition to what you mentioned about meeting less expectations or I should say adapting (negatively) as I explained before like INFJs. 

I wonder how many INJs had any good teen years xD we have this thread about being bullied, I think you have too in the INTJ forum, crazy. 

That is a very nice way of describing Ni, I like.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> Ah yes that's following the Fe part of us rather than really being accepted. To the observer we seem to fit in but it is fitting in not because of who we are but rather just using part of us that can work in that group. It causes all types of problems especially with feeling isolated and increases the issue of not being understood. The INFJ (ENFJs have that too) in that situation realizes that the people in this case don't know them but only know the part that agrees with them. It is not a good state to be in at all because there is the "me" on the inside that doesn’t come out and then "part" that just shows. Fe controls the situation rather than the person controlling it in the sense the person has to uphold the image they have created to fit in thinking it is better than having nothing. *shakes head* it pisses me off that anyone has to go through that just to be accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to say it was all sunshine and daisies. But it looks more peaceful from the outside because people, noticing that you are an alien less, spend less time explaining to you why you are inferior or trying to "help" you, at least as far as I can see. But yes, I can also see how it could increase isolation, as people are often not very interested in reevaluating their assumptions about you - not in the face of my vocal dissent (though defensiveness comes in there), and it might be just as hard if you seem to have validated their assumptions. I guess with Fe you get resigned to the mask and INTJs you get resigned to more open hostility. Though I have seen INTJs with the mask issue as well, it seems there more a deliberate distancing technique for acquantainces at work and things that you can't avoid. Again, generalising terribly. I am not saying, either, that resignation is inevitable, but it seems to be common.

I can't think of anyone who mentioned having good teen years. Perhaps it has happened. Maybe.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

lirulin said:


> Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to say it was all sunshine and daisies. But it looks more peaceful from the outside because people, noticing that you are an alien less, spend less time explaining to you why you are inferior or trying to "help" you, at least as far as I can see. But yes, I can also see how it could increase isolation, as people are often not very interested in reevaluating their assumptions about you - not in the face of my vocal dissent (though defensiveness comes in there), and it might be just as hard if you seem to have validated their assumptions. I guess with Fe you get resigned to the mask and INTJs you get resigned to more open hostility. Though I have seen INTJs with the mask issue as well, it seems there more a deliberate distancing technique for acquantainces at work and things that you can't avoid. Again, generalising terribly. I am not saying, either, that resignation is inevitable, but it seems to be common.
> 
> I can't think of anyone who mentioned having good teen years. Perhaps it has happened. Maybe.


I didn't see that you meant it at such, no problem  I suppose I'm mad at myself for the wasted years of trying to fit in a box of social acceptance but the only solace is that one learns from mistakes. It is hard to find someone who understands you but at least trying to find that someone is "healthier" mentally and psychologically than the other option of masks (for me at least). 
Thanks for the exchange of ideas, it is really helpful to do that than just letting the Ni weave things without much outside info.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> I didn't see that you meant it at such, no problem  I suppose I'm mad at myself for the wasted years of trying to fit in a box of social acceptance but the only solace is that one learns from mistakes. It is hard to find someone who understands you but at least trying to find that someone is "healthier" mentally and psychologically than the other option of masks (for me at least).


It's funny, I am so used to INFJs on here recommending the mask route to me, I kind of got the idea they were good with it, generally - though I certainly know one irl who isn't. Though some of it, I am sure, was also recommending things that would be a mask to me but perhaps less so to them.



MoonLight said:


> Thanks for the exchange of ideas, it is really helpful to do that than just letting the Ni weave things without much outside info.


Back at you.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

lirulin said:


> It's funny, I am so used to INFJs on here recommending the mask route to me, I kind of got the idea they were good with it, generally - though I certainly know one irl who isn't. Though some of it, I am sure, was also recommending things that would be a mask to me but perhaps less so to them.
> 
> 
> Back at you.


Haha, they do? Maybe I'm just bad at it







. 
It is this unbalance between what is one the outside and inside that is unsettling. It is like creating your own prison for what seems like a good reason at first but in the end you are in a prison and really not worth it.

I recall I didn't use it at first, maybe I had less friends but I had my balance then I used it which created an unbalance which I had to correct again. Hmm, I think part of it was losing the self-consciousness I had around others that helped in the end. It is not only about others accepting me but also I needed to accept myself, which was a key point.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> Haha, they do? Maybe I'm just bad at it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That sounds like what I always assumed would be...though maybe they considered not hurting feelings a good enough reason? I find, though, I would rather hurt feelings than create my own prison - ideally _neither,_ but that often results in avoidance more than anything. Perhaps if it is not about fitting in and instead is about others' comfort it seemed worth it? I don't know. The context was different anyways - unsolicited advice for 'dammit, people keep viciously lashing out at me when they mistakenly think I am insulting them' that took the line of 'lie to them to make them feel better' - so that may account for the difference too. I don't think they were perfectly representative anyways, just vocal. It's just good to hear the other side...

I can relate to what you mean about the imbalance, though it is a bit different. I find it unsettling seeing the extreme differences between what I know is on the inside and what others perceive on the outside - it can be crazy-making if you don't have at least one person without the false assumptions.


----------



## MoonLight (Apr 15, 2010)

*P.S: sorry it is a bit long ideas kept connecting to each other 

Yes, it can be seen that way also. I was addressing it as it pertains to me rather than how my behavior does to others. The former is wanted to be accepted or fitting in and the latter is being what the other person needed/wanted from you. It is not even about making up a persona or a character, it is more showing aspects of the personality that gets along with the other person. 

The odd and sad thing when someone gives an INTJ advice how to act (if their intentions are good) they think they are actually being nice or doing the other person a favor which is not the case at all. The reaction of the INTJ, which is defensive some times, confuses the other person. There is a lack of realization that the INTJ doesn’t need that advice and it is kind of offensive like “yeah if you don’t act like yourself they will like you” *face palm* Yes, I get the unsettling part about how other perceive INTJs vs. who they really are. 

I was thinking do only mainly Fe-users do this? I see ENTPs with their charming and playful mask, see the point is they are that but that is only part of them, the rest they usually hide probably because of similar reason we are talking about. INTPs seem more resentful to the whole thing of the mask or rather some social strings. It could be the Ti, they like to do what they want to do (I wonder if ISTPs are the same).

ESFJ: same thing but it is more following social edicts than what intuitive people view it.

ISFJ: check

ENFJ: check

ESTP: check

Then I noticed Fi-users do it too.

ISTJ: My brother would be mumbling about late night guests and that he is tired and doesn’t want to see anyone. He has better social skills than I do  I always wonder where they come from, the smile, the engaging conversation, etc. 

ESTJ mother and friend: Each of them did it for a different reason but the mask was there. My mom would be tired and in pain when she was sick but when guests came she had to be the perfect host! Because that what she had to do (type1). My friend in front of people she acted like she was happy and well adjusted for the image (type 3) then her face fell immediately when the people are gone. 

ENFP friend: Type 3 also an image thing

INFP: check 

The only person I know that thinks it is non-sense to do that is my ESFP brother.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

MoonLight said:


> Yes, it can be seen that way also. I was addressing it as it pertains to me rather than how my behavior does to others. The former is wanted to be accepted or fitting in and the latter is being what the other person needed/wanted from you. It is not even about making up a persona or a character, it is more showing aspects of the personality that gets along with the other person.


The concept of being what someone needs me to be is kind of...weird to me. If I am, I am, if I am not, well, I could become it but only if I have motive and if it doesn't cross a line...it takes effort, and for strangers and smalltalk, that is too much effort. And I guess although aspects are a way of talking about things to make them clear, I don't tend to see the self _as_ aspects but instead one sort of essential core. So it is a bit of an adjustment to show only part of me and have it not be lying - I have totally done selective truth-telling, it is better than lying, but it still feels deceptive. Whereas I have heard some ENTPs and INFJs say they really feel like their self is a collection of aspects/faces so maybe it is less disconcerting if that is where you are coming from? I don't know.



MoonLight said:


> it is kind of offensive like “yeah if you don’t act like yourself they will like you” *face palm*


Thank you for seeing that. It is pretty offensive.



MoonLight said:


> I was thinking do only mainly Fe-users do this?



I think it might be a stronger pull but there are other reasons that might come into it?

Some vague ideas - I know the letter dichotomy isn't the most formal way of looking at it, but these are general ideas.
F- I know an INFP who is intensely keen on authenticity, enneagram four and all that - but she still does it for fear of hurting other's feelings. She is sensitive enough to think of that as primary - probably a lot of Fs have this, Fe or no Fe.
S - They do seem a bit more tuned into, well, reality and convention. I have seen the same ideas come up in terms of authenticity and showing feelings and lies with the ISTJs but they seem more...pragmatic about it and feel less different in the first place? They tend to have a bit of a better idea of normal things to say.
P - Probably more adaptable in some ways than Js.
E - Need more socialisation so more willing to adjust for it.
So basically INTJs are screwed....  Although it is funny, I have all of these and your ESFP friend was another one to dislike the masks....

And then, as you mentioned, there is enneagram...also upbringing...I think there are a lot of interacting factors but Fe would be one.


----------

