# Ni + Te = Emergent Short-Term Strategy?



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

It hit me just now that a lot of my behavior in life could be classified as "emergent short-term strategy," meaning that: 

A) There often is some kind of strategy but

B) The strategy usually operates under principles of the short-term, rather than long-term. For example, if I'm playing chess and facing down a 5-move gambit, I will be much more likely to spot it than if I'm facing down a 20-move gambit. Going as far as the 20-move gambit is a much more difficult kind of analysis for me to do. And

C) The strategy and choices I make often emerge out of the complex interactions that happen in the short-term (more or less what emergent behavior is). 

This combination of factors makes me decent at something like Poker, without any real study of the game from professionals. But even in a game such as Poker, I am almost invariably going to be at a disadvantage against individuals who can craft a long-term strategy quickly and confidently. I might poke holes in their strategy in the short-term, but if they are good at adapting and creating new ones, they are likely going to be numerous steps ahead.

That said, the question in my mind is: Is this just one of those personality quirks that doesn't apply to MBTI/CF, or is this common among Ni-Te types? 

I considered posting this in the INTJ forum for that reason, but I wanted to make it visible to other types, some of whom may relate, despite having different functions.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Hmm. Maybe I should have this moved to the INTJ subforum...


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Well, I am an INFJ and I completely relate to this. I excel at short term strategizing like you and suck at long range planning but that my have more to do with my having ADD, then MBTI.


----------



## Fievel (Jul 9, 2013)

Hmmmmn interesting. I I have noticed this tendency among many INTJs. Don't know if it applies to the type in general, but it seems to be common.


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

So, would it be the same thing with ENTJs? Or would their Te make them more long-term planners?


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

I'm a short term strategist, anything entirely too convuluted and long just does my head in. When I think about something like career strategy which is what I've done more often than any other kind of planning, it was always about 3 steps ahead and not much more than that. I tend to like strategies or plans where I can run to completion within a reasonable period of time. Take note of the scenery again and then strategise accordingly. 

I put it down to the fact that I don't like changing strategy mid-stream and I'm aware that situations and variables can change on a dime. So I don't want to invest my energy in a plan that's contingent on something not likely to happen, like all the variables staying as they are right now. I like to have flexibility built into my plans. I also prefer to deal with the immediate future rather than distant futures. If something is realistically years off, from where I am right now I'm not going to bother to have more than a vague idea of where I want to be by that time. Definately no plans for getting exactly there.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Sounds about right.

I think it's like, a backwards funnel in time.

You have a clear, sharp picture of the final goal in mind, which is the sharpest image, and then you reverse engineer it to get back to where you are in the present - but that's where things get really hazy. Usually I have a vague idea of where to begin and I start there, and then things become more clear as I progress forward, and things fall into place naturally on their own.

So, I'm always adapting my plans, but still moving toward a singular purpose.

Another good analogy is flowing like a river. Ni is like water. But, I also think this is really just Ni, not really Ni-Te.

Te, I don't think, plays much of a role in what you described.

I think Te would determine where you tend to flow. With Te, your goals would be more impersonal, and with Fe they'd probably be more humanitarian.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Yes, this is definitely INTJ. Making rough plans out of nowhere on short notice is all Se, Ni and Te. All of those are important but all of them arent necessary. As long as youve got some of these, I dont think being on the ball should be that difficult, at least in some situations


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Joseph K said:


> Well, I am an INFJ and I completely relate to this. I excel at short term strategizing like you and suck at long range planning but that my have more to do with my having ADD, then MBTI.


I did occur to me that it could have some relation to ADD/ADHD, but I've never been officially diagnosed myself, so I dunno.



Pinina said:


> So, would it be the same thing with ENTJs? Or would their Te make them more long-term planners?


In my experience, ENTJs tend to be more long-term focused. That is, assuming it has something to do with MBTI to begin with. 

An example of this I think of is if you've ever watched the show House of Cards, I feel Frank Underwood is a good example of long-term ENTJ planning. He adapts when his long-term plans go awry, but he does it grudgingly. And he tends to have a strong step-by-step approach to reaching his long-term goals.



Abraxas said:


> Te, I don't think, plays much of a role in what you described.
> 
> I think Te would determine where you tend to flow. With Te, your goals would be more impersonal, and with Fe they'd probably be more humanitarian.


Could be. Might make more sense that way. It being the dominant means it's more readily adaptive, whereas a Te/Fe-dom, for example, is going to be more stolid in pursuing a singular goal, or goals? I could see that.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Abraxas said:


> Another good analogy is flowing like a river. Ni is like water. But, I also think this is really just Ni, not really Ni-Te.
> 
> Te, I don't think, plays much of a role in what you described.
> 
> I think Te would determine where you tend to flow. With Te, your goals would be more impersonal, and with Fe they'd probably be more humanitarian.


To colour your analogy Te is like the rudder on your boat. It's not really determining the course of the river it's just making sure you don't run aground or get caught on a snag.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

InSolitude said:


> To colour your analogy Te is like the rudder on your boat. It's not really determining the course of the river it's just making sure you don't run aground or get caught on a snag.


I wouldn't really say I'm the boat, though. That sounds more like Ti to me.

I'm more like the water. Te would just be the earth.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@InSolitude,

Just to clarify though, the reason I say that is because Ti is very much a function of determination, in which you would say it is like a rudder and your life is the boat, and you are at the helm. That's very subjective, you see, because it places your will in command. Yes the river plays a part, and the earth shapes it's path, but captain of my boat I can sail wherever I want, or run ashore if I please. It embellishes the role of the individual in the decision making process.

It took me a long time to contrast my own way of living against Ti-lead types to understand this subtle difference in the way my judgment manifests. The reason I say I am like water, and Te is the earth, is because there's very little sense of my own will being the mechanism at work in my life. I don't experience my life as being the expression of something inside of me, but rather, my life is merely the byproduct of objective agents influencing me one way or another, and I am largely at their mercy. I must simply adapt to circumstances, or be destroyed by them, for one cannot fight against the whole universe. It's will is cosmic and mine is not, unless my will echos it as closely as I can make it.

That's also the sense in which Fi is tertiary to Te - You see, Te is not really a matter of personal choice making. Te is not the sort of judgment in which I am the one who really decides what the plan, the schedule, or the activity is, you see? Nature herself decides that for me, and I merely _know it_. That is why Te is all about objectivity - it is nothing more than a storehouse of facts, and when a Te-type says "I know just what to do" they simply mean that they know how something works in reality, and how to apply that knowledge in practice by imitating nature.

Only when we get down to Fi does the "self" really play a role in the Ni-Te way of life. Only at that point am I really conscious of something inside of me at work, something that wants something for itself in life that tells me what I ought to be doing, such that I will often times _not_ act on objective facts, but instead do something that ignores them, because I have decided that how I feel about something is more important than however things actually are. It is like having a dream, and you decide that even though it is a fantasy, it is better to live your life that way than to simply be a slave to circumstances forever.

Ni is really nothing more than seeing the end before it comes. It's just seeing things, but in fact, you can't change anything you see. There's no way to _alter_ what you see, because once you perceive something, it becomes part of reality. Instead, you can either adapt to it (Te) or fight against it (Fi).

I simply choose to adapt most of the time, and only stand up for a few things in life, because I am more at peace when I am living my life "fluidly", letting the events surrounding me, past, present, and future, dictate the role I am to play in things. Ti/Fi-leads are very much the opposite. They can be the most stubborn types you'll ever meet, and their great weakness is *hubris*, born out of their _pride_. Their subjective decisions, about a set of data, about a set of morals, about whatever, is absolutely god in heaven, and you can see the tyrannical nature of their conviction very easily if you watch for it.

For example, I very recently (over the past week) have been engaged in an ongoing political discussion in the Socionics sub-forum with @Entropic about economic theories, and he at one point declares himself to be a proponent of an absolute dictatorship, because he doesn't believe in the capacity of the masses to self-govern, and instead believes that the only solution is a single ruler who is wise and altruistic enough to rule benevolently. Later on in the discussion, things get more philosophical, and where I declare myself to be, essentially, an existentialist who tries as much as possible to live my life true to form, he declares "do what thou will shall be the whole of the law", a reference to Thelema, and a quote from a man named Aleister Crowley, a rather infamous magician out of England, who was also sort of a precursor to modern Chaos Magick Theory. You can see the subjective judgment very clearly there, of placing the subjective will of the individual above the objective will of the universe.

That pretty much nails the difference in a nutshell. One type is the master of his own life, and tries with all his might to subdue the forces of nature, bending the universe to his will through magick or logic or science or whatever else he can leverage in his crusade (very much like a Te lead does, if you think about it, only inverted, motivated from within instead of from without), while the other, the Ni-type, has very little "stake" in things, and simply seeks the path of least resistance in life, which is carved out for him already, and he merely needs to recognize it in order to achieve it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Abraxas are you suggesting Crowley is a Ti type? I mean, essentially I agree with the sentiment in the sense that I believe in self-governance; I think it relates far more to my enneagram than it does, cognition, because I enjoy the idea of being the master of my own fate. That also means that the only person I think I answer to is myself, ergo, I do whatever I want and I answer to the consequences that occur as a result of the actions I choose, rather than responding to an external force in the universe. At least that is what that tenet of thelema always represented, to me, and why I am appreciative of esoteric thought. It places a lot of emphasis on the individual right and power, compared to previous religious practices where power resides externally of the human experience e.g. god.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Entropic said:


> @_Abraxas_ are you suggesting Crowley is a Ti type? I mean, essentially I agree with the sentiment in the sense that I believe in self-governance; I think it relates far more to my enneagram than it does, cognition.


I think so, yes. He was either a Ti-lead or a Ni-type with a very strong connection to his Fi. In MBTI I would say either INTJ or INTP.

Also, just to throw it out there, I see enneagram and cognitive functions as two different ways of explaining the same thing - personality. Enneagram might make it easier to explain what's at work, but that wouldn't mean everything I said about Fi/Ti is false. Everything I said _really does apply_ within the model of cognitive functions, and the functions really do work the way I've explained. But yes, enneagram, I think, is a much better model for explaining some of these things than functions. I was merely using the function model here, in this context, because it's the function forum. But we could talk about this stuff through the lens of enneagram and I think would be even easier to explain the differences.

I don't, however, view these two models as being _mutually exclusive_, as if enneagram excludes something that functions do not, or that functions exclude something enneagram does not. I know popular opinion is that they do, but I've studied both extensively and I think in practice, they really don't differ that much except in their construction - i.e., one is a dualistic model, the other is a plural model based on triadic relations. The differences are essentially geometric. Both have, in my opinion, equivalent explanatory power, it really just depends on how deep your understanding of them goes. Just as binary for example _can_ model literally anything, trinary is still more effective at modeling certain things because it saves time in some cases having a "floater" that represents ambivalence.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@Entropic,

Also for the record, I actually have studied a bit of Thelema, so I'm very familiar with Crowley. I own a copy of his book 777 for instance, and I also have studied Chaos Magick Theory extensively (I used to be really into the contemporary occult culture back in the early 2000's). I have copies of every book Peter J. Carroll ever published for example. I was really into the thought process of Crowley and he really inspired me. But I think the point where I started to lose interest was that as I got older I began to feel like the way he lived his life was simply too impractical and out of touch with reality. I still think he was very wise though. I feel the same about Peter J. Carroll as well. As much as I love the philosophy of chaos magick theory, I don't really buy into it. But I do apply bits and piece of it here and there, like trying not to let myself become stagnant, and assimilating whatever works into my beliefs. While I don't agree with 'nothing is true; everything is permitted', I do agree with "if it works, it is true" for example.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I think so, yes. He was either a Ti-lead or a Ni-type with a very strong connection to his Fi. In MBTI I would say either INTJ or INTP.
> 
> Also, just to throw it out there, I see enneagram and cognitive functions as two different ways of explaining the same thing - personality. Enneagram might make it easier to explain what's at work, but that wouldn't mean everything I said about Fi/Ti is false. Everything I said _really does apply_ within the model of cognitive functions, and the functions really do work the way I've explained. But yes, enneagram, I think, is a much better model for explaining some of these things than functions. I was merely using the function model here, in this context, because it's the function forum. But we could talk about this stuff through the lens of enneagram and I think would be even easier to explain the differences.
> 
> I don't, however, view these two models as being _mutually exclusive_, as if enneagram excludes something that functions do not, or that functions exclude something enneagram does not. I know popular opinion is that they do, but I've studied both extensively and I think in practice, they really don't differ that much except in their construction - i.e., one is a dualistic model, the other is a plural model based on triadic relations. The differences are essentially geometric. Both have, in my opinion, equivalent explanatory power, it really just depends on how deep your understanding of them goes. Just as binary for example _can_ model literally anything, trinary is still more effective at modeling certain things because it saves time in some cases having a "floater" that represents ambivalence.


What I got from you and what you were trying to say was that you thought the line of reasoning as Crowley expressed it was exemplary of Ji? If you mean that, I agree. If you meant that my agreement with Crowley meant it was because of my Ji, I am not sure I agree as much; hence I brought up the enneagram. It simply matched my life philosophy or outlook on life. Otherwise I never really delved much into thelema. 

And yes, I agree, both are models to explain personality though they describe very different aspects. 



Abraxas said:


> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->
> @<span class="highlight"><i><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=39512" target="_blank">Entropic</a></i></span>
> <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->,
> 
> Also for the record, I actually have studied a bit of Thelema, so I'm very familiar with Crowley. I own a copy of his book 777 for instance, and I also have studied Chaos Magick Theory extensively (I used to be really into the contemporary occult culture back in the early 2000's). I have copies of every book Peter J. Carroll ever published for example. I was really into the thought process of Crowley and he really inspired me. But I think the point where I started to lose interest was that as I got older I began to feel like the way he lived his life was simply too impractical and out of touch with reality. I still think he was very wise though. I feel the same about Peter J. Carroll as well. As much as I love the philosophy of chaos magick theory, I don't really buy into it. But I do apply bits and piece of it here and there, like trying not to let myself become stagnant, and assimilating whatever works into my beliefs. While I don't agree with 'nothing is true; everything is permitted', I do agree with "if it works, it is true" for example.


I'm too rational to consider myself a magician (I don't mean it in the cognitive sense but more philosophical); there's a great song about Crowley though, if you haven't heard it:






I always thought the particular tarot archetype he picked to represent Crowley was very apt (the magician), as you are probably aware, is associated with (alchemical) transformation.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Entropic said:


> What I got from you and what you were trying to say was that you thought the line of reasoning as Crowley expressed it was exemplary of Ji? If you mean that, I agree. If you meant that my agreement with Crowley meant it was because of my Ji, I am not sure I agree as much; hence I brought up the enneagram. It simply matched my life philosophy or outlook on life. Otherwise I never really delved much into thelema.
> 
> And yes, I agree, both are models to explain personality though they describe very different aspects.


Yes to the first, it is clearly Ji, and thus, yes to the second, because it could not be anything else.

"Thy will be done" is literally subjective and because he utterly embraces it is why I say I think he was a Ji-lead, unless it is the will of the universe being done, in which case, you are a scientist or a businessman, but he was neither (though, he thought of himself as both).

And that last part, in parenthesis - there's the hubris. That's the hubris of Ji-types. They cannot be made to see reality. They cannot be told anything, you cannot reason with them at all. They will say you are wrong, and list a million reasons why, all of which fail to address the point that you made, because that is how subjective judgment works. It's _subjective_ to them - even what you are trying to say, they cannot simply read what you said and take it at face value. Always something is added to it, subtracted from it, and it leaves the other person feeling frustrated and misrepresented, and after a while, it seems futile to discuss anything with them at all.

You can explain what you are trying to say to them over and over and over and over. They will just keep breaking it down and failing to recognize what you are trying to say. It is a waste of time to discuss anything with someone locked into that kind of a mentality, because their subjective reasoning is absolute, and it is a matter of hierarchy - a strict dominance - to them. It is like, they want to split hairs, find little nuances to pick apart, correct every little thing, and they will show you absolutely no mercy, because to omit any little thing at all is to them totally inexcusable.

Like right now, you are maintaining this stance that Enneagram and Socionics, or MBTI, or whatever else, aren't _*essentially*_ describing the same thing. Personality. That is because your mind wants to categorize, to label, to sort, to organize the data into this or that box, pulling facts from your memory of things you read in books, this or that tid-bit, etc etc, trying to keep everything in order, and you view my statement as "messy" - so messy in fact, that it is, in your opinion, strictly false as a point of fact, and so you call it "wrong" when in fact it is not wrong at all, it is merely _less organized_ than your extremely high standards of definition and informational organization.

I've seen you defend this kind of thing by saying "I merely adhere to the facts" - but so what, lol. That's not the point. The point is _how much_ you do it though. Ni is more laid back, man. You don't seem to get that. You think that's a type 9 thing, or something else, but even if it was a type 9 thing, that doesn't make it NOT a Ni-thing. But you'll use ANYTHING to legitimate the model you've created, your subjective model of the functions, of the types, and of reality in general. You can't be like "oh, I guess I'm wrong" - as much as you might claim to be so humble, no, in reality you are not that humble at all. You take every bit of criticism really harshly, because it really offends you to be told that you didn't do a good job organizing everything correctly, after all, it comes as a blow directly to the ego.

But I digress. I'm writing this in the, perhaps absurd hope that you will have a moment of clarity and see what I'm saying, and even if you don't agree, perhaps evolve a little, but even if you don't, well... you were right, I was a little passive-aggressive the other night. But now the penny drops. There it is.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Abraxas said:


> @_InSolitude_,
> That pretty much nails the difference in a nutshell. One type is the master of his own life, and tries with all his might to subdue the forces of nature, bending the universe to his will through magick or logic or science or whatever else he can leverage in his crusade (very much like a Te lead does, if you think about it, only inverted, motivated from within instead of from without), while the other, the Ni-type, has very little "stake" in things, and simply seeks the path of least resistance in life, which is carved out for him already, and he merely needs to recognize it in order to achieve it.


While I appreciate your discourse and explanation. I don't think we are really so far apart in terms of how we view life as going with the flow and path of least resistance. Simply the imagery for that differ. While I am indeed a chaos magician myself, I do not see my will being imposed upon nor over-ruling the natural course of things. I use magic in my life as a way of practising acceptance, rather than focusing and controlling. You can send an intention for yourself out there, using the rituals involved in magic to enable you to fuse with your vision. The how, when and why of the outcome is entirely out of your hands and you must simply accept what comes. When I first came across it I had the same attitude as everyone really that this is a source of power and control. Magick however, soon teaches you that's not it's best use, nor even a practical one. 

I don't really want to get into a debate about magick, law of attraction or any other occultic thing though. It's beside the point of this thread.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

This makes sense to me, as I've mostly followed the flow of things unless I guessed that my current path would lead to a bad result later. I stayed in biochemistry until I had some time where I wouldn't be forced to just keep going with classes, so that free time let me to check if I was really in the right place. So I moved to chemistry as it wasn't that different and the extra information could be useful later. I know that I should check loans and other stuff for when I'm done, but as I'm a lazy ass I mostly spend my energy in dealing with thesis work and some boring as hell class. All the PhD stuff can be checked when I know what GPA I will really have.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

InSolitude said:


> While I appreciate your discourse and explanation. I don't think we are really so far apart in terms of how we view life as going with the flow and path of least resistance. Simply the imagery for that differ. While I am indeed a chaos magician myself, I do not see my will being imposed upon nor over-ruling the natural course of things. I use magic in my life as a way of practising acceptance, rather than focusing and controlling. You can send an intention for yourself out there, using the rituals involved in magic to enable you to fuse with your vision. The how, when and why of the outcome is entirely out of your hands and you must simply accept what comes. When I first came across it I had the same attitude as everyone really that this is a source of power and control. Magick however, soon teaches you that's not it's best use, nor even a practical one.
> 
> I don't really want to get into a debate about magick, law of attraction or any other occultic thing though. It's beside the point of this thread.


That's okay. I actually like your interpretation and that's what I get from it myself. You don't really sound like a Ti type to me anyway.

Like I said to Entropic, there are bits and pieces of the philosophy I really agree with and incorporate into my own lifestyle. I'm a pragmatist, and I like chaos magick's pragmatic approach to self-awareness and development. It's very "no bullshit" and existential. I don't practice the rituals, but I do practice the attitude and the world view, paradigm piracy and the plurality of the self as legion, and reinventing your self-image to suit circumstances as needed, instead of clinging to some consistent belief system for the sake of believing in things.

I like the fluidity of it. I know I'm probably overusing that analogy, but it fits really well. I put emphasis on the "power and control" aspect of it that mainly came from Crowley's teachings, but Peter J. Carroll also puts that kind of a spin on it himself from time to time, although with Carroll, I think he starts right off stating that magick is really nothing more than something thrown in to tip the scales of chance in one's favor, and should never be used to replace mundane or psychological avenues to success in life, and Carroll, I think, puts more emphasis on the power one gains from a practice of magick as being a form of self-discipline, more than power over reality itself, which is just an extension of mana anyway, the same as everything else.

I really like chaos magick theory. It's very Ni-Te to me. Mana being the only true objective reality and force at work is very Te, and recognizing the self, along with everything else in manifest reality as being fluidic and chaotic, is very Ni.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Yes to the first, it is clearly Ji, and thus, yes to the second, because it could not be anything else.
> 
> "Thy will be done" is literally subjective and because he utterly embraces it is why I say I think he was a Ji-lead, unless it is the will of the universe being done, in which case, you are a scientist or a businessman, but he was neither (though, he thought of himself as both).
> 
> ...


I really think you are over-attributing certain personality behaviors to type, here, tbh. The reason I'm opinionated isn't because of Ji; the only real Ji dom I'd even reasonably be would be an Fi dom, but I'm not because my Fi isn't good enough for it. 

Why do you think disagreement naturally means someone must be a different type than Ni dom? Why can't Ni doms disagree with each other because they perceive things differently? And I do think you project your idea of being laid back on Ni as a whole; why would Ni be laid back in and of itself? It's just a specific kind of perception. 

I actually don't think your posts are messy; I simply just disagree with you. I disagree in terms of vision and how I personally choose to orient myself in reality. Whether you understand that people can disagree and still be the same types is up to you, though.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I said that a Ni dom can only do one Se thing at a time, but does it very intensely. It makes sense that Ni can only work with what Se feeds it. It can't go beyond the present moment. But the present moment is the cusp of reality. It is truth. The only thing that exists. 

Ni and Se are more warm blooded; they are high performance and high maintenance, like lions. Spend most of the time lounging around, and a few explosive bursts is how they make their living. "This moment contains all moments". I don't think Ne and Si think that way.

The Picard Maneuver is something I am talking about. 

The Picard Maneuver was born out of desperation during the battle. The Stargazer, which was damaged, suddenly accelerated into high warp directly towards the Ferengi ship. By doing so the Stargazer appeared to ship's sensors, for an instant, to be in two places at once. When data from the newly-moved ship reached the Ferengi ship's sensors, data from its previous position was still arriving, so the Ferengi effectively "saw" two Stargazers in different locations.

The conflicting and rapidly shifting data caused the Ferengi to target and fire on the wrong vessel, and since the Stargazer opened fire as soon as it dropped out of warp, the Ferengi ship had no time to maneuver out of the way before the phasers and photon torpedoes hit. The Ferengi ship was destroyed. This technique was so successful that it was named after Picard, and there was no known defense against it until 2364.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Entropic said:


> I really think you are over-attributing certain personality behaviors to type, here, tbh. The reason I'm opinionated isn't because of Ji; the only real Ji dom I'd even reasonably be would be an Fi dom, but I'm not because my Fi isn't good enough for it.
> 
> Why do you think disagreement naturally means someone must be a different type than Ni dom? Why can't Ni doms disagree with each other because they perceive things differently? And I do think you project your idea of being laid back on Ni as a whole; why would Ni be laid back in and of itself? It's just a specific kind of perception.
> 
> I actually don't think your posts are messy; I simply just disagree with you. I disagree in terms of vision and how I personally choose to orient myself in reality. Whether you understand that people can disagree and still be the same types is up to you, though.


For what purpose though? That's my point. You disagree for no reason. There's no reason to disagree unless it accomplishes something, voicing a difference of opinion ought to lead to something, but what does it lead to? What is your goal? I wonder if you even have a goal other than stating your opinion. And then what? What happens after that? Nothing. Because that's as far as you looked. Far enough to say something, and then nothing else.

Ni is laid back because it holds no prejudice or opinion. It's a form of perception, not judgment. If you really differentiated Ni enough you'd just _get_ what I'm trying to say here, but you can't even begin to grasp the essence of my point without framing it in some kind of subjective model you have for understanding what I'm saying. It doesn't just _click_, which is why I said before, we're not really on the same frequency at all. I even noticed it during our video interview. That's why it was me who suggested that we end the video, repeatedly, because you kept wanting to go on and on about the theory, and I'm sitting there thinking, "what more is there to say. What is the point of continuing this."

When Ni-doms disagree, it's always with a sense of "to each their own" not, "you're wrong and I'm right, period." It's never black and white. Ni-doms don't interact with each other that way. We have a sense of kindredness with each other. Like, it's almost mystical in a way. You just feel it about someone, "okay this guy is chill. He gets it." It's not something rational, because it's NOT rational. But someone who is a rational type is never going to accept such a non-specific explanation. They'll fight it and demand something more precise and scientific, which is what you tend to do.

Ni-doms really _don't_ perceive things differently. We really do see things the same way, all of us. Even if we are led to live different lives and hold different opinions because of circumstances that shape us into different people at different times and different places, we all share Ni in common, and we all recognize the same universality in nature that we recognize in each other, which is why whenever two Ni-doms disagree, there's a kind of admiration for each other, like something inside us tells us that the other person is also correct, and that's part of the beauty of truth.

Spock puts it best, "truth is infinite diversity in infinite combinations." You don't seem to understand that at all. Again, you want to break it down, find exceptions, "no that's X, not Y, it's A not B. You're wrong, I disagree, here's why." You keep organizing, analyzing, establishing strict dominance of one concept over another, forming a hierarchy of concepts and ideas, so that everything is nice and neat and internally consistent. You care too much about doing that when in reality nothing is at stake, and the whole subject matter itself is so imprecise as to allow for many different interpretations. But you think yours is right, and you have a million reasons why, and that's the bottom line.

And the irony is, that's fine by me. I don't even care if we don't agree. And while yes, you can say that's very type 9, a type 1, or a type 5, or whatever else, if they were Ni-Te, would feel the same way believe it or not, because they wouldn't care either. It makes no difference, really, what you choose to believe, or what I choose to believe. What matters is what _happens_ as a _result_ of our beliefs. That changes the whole focus, shifts it away from "what is right" over to "where does it lead."

In the end, if you disagree, I encourage it. Believe what you want, and I wish you luck on your spirit quest, medicine man. As I have said in the past to others, go forth and solve every riddle in your own way if that's where the path leads. Here, we part ways. Good luck, fellow seeker. No hard feelings, because I expect to find you in the same place we all end up regardless of how you get there.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I said that a Ni dom can only do one Se thing at a time, but does it very intensely. It makes sense that Ni can only work with what Se feeds it. It can't go beyond the present moment. But the present moment is the cusp of reality. It is truth. The only thing that exists.
> 
> Ni and Se are more warm blooded; they are high performance and high maintenance, like lions. Spend most of the time lounging around, and a few explosive bursts is how they make their living. "This moment contains all moments". I don't think Ne and Si think that way.
> 
> ...


I love the way you put this.

That's actually exactly what my life is like. Characterized by bouts of inertia. In MBTI Step II they call it "pressure prompted." That's basically it. I rest, and save my energy, and take my time, and people call me lazy. And then, when the time is right, I burst into full gear and I bulldoze through all my tasks and produce A+ results. When events converge, I converge. When they disperse, I disperse. Energy is never wasted because I am naturally in balance with the moment I am living in, as well as the next, and the next after that, and all the ones before it.

_EDIT: Also, holy shit. You posted that while I was writing my post in response to Entropic, where I mention Spock, and then you also make a star trek reference.

Hello there mind-mate. We meet again._


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> It hit me just now that a lot of my behavior in life could be classified as "emergent short-term strategy," meaning that:
> 
> A) There often is some kind of strategy but
> 
> ...


I really relate to this. I don't know if you have seen Searching for Bobby Fischer, but that guy is like that. It shows a scene of him as a little kid playing with his sister while his father is downstairs at the chess board. He has the whole board organized and sees all possibilities. I have never played chess, but a lot of it just seemed like memorization. Like predicting where concrete will harden. It is a finished product. For example, in that movie, he sees he can take another kid out 20 moves in advance. He has to "find" it though. It already exists. It is artificial. Which is why a computer can wipe the floor with humans at chess but can't catch a baseball. That is the hardest thing to replicate in AI.

Compare chess to martial arts. What square is that guy going to be in 20 "moves"? It doesn't even make sense to think that way. It isn't an algorithm. I know I quote Bruce Lee a lot but that is exactly what he preaches. Your opponent is not a robot. I like that scene from Bobby Fischer. The guys in the park are telling him, "What are you looking at the board for? You aren't playing the board. You are playing me." 

For something that is static, fixed, dead, there can be a way or a definite path; but not for anything that is moving and living. In sparring there's no exact path or method, but instead a perceptive, pliable, choice-less awareness. It lives from moment to moment.

When in actual combat, you're not fighting a corpse. Your opponent is a living, moving object who is not in a fixed position, but fluid and alive. Deal with him realistically, not as though you're fighting a robot.

One should not respond to circumstance with artificial and "wooden" prearrangement. Your action should be like the immediacy of a shadow adapting to its moving object. Your task is simply to complete the other half of the oneness spontaneously.
In combat, spontaneity rules; rote performance of technique perishes.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

And one more point on this. lol. I have mentioned this before about some great athletes. Who are probably SP types, often STP. Ni acts as their "third eye". Wayne Gretzky. He says he skates where the puck will be. That isn't something that can be taught or even planned for. It is new each time. You have to be there each time.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Compare chess to martial arts. What square is that guy going to be in 20 "moves"? It doesn't even make sense to think that way. It isn't an algorithm. I know I quote Bruce Lee a lot but that is exactly what he preaches. Your opponent is not a robot. I like that scene from Bobby Fischer. The guys in the park are telling him, "What are you looking at the board for? You aren't playing the board. You are playing me."
> 
> For something that is static, fixed, dead, there can be a way or a definite path; but not for anything that is moving and living. In sparring there's no exact path or method, but instead a perceptive, pliable, choice-less awareness. It lives from moment to moment.


Goddamn you have a way with words. Lol.

Once again, just want to say, I love reading your posts. Your voice carries a feeling of deep wisdom and you express it so well. Great analogies, especially the one about chess and martial arts.

Makes me kind of cringe and laugh at the same time whenever I see "INTJ" labeled "the mastermind" with a picture of some kid staring at a chessboard.

I want to be like, "bitch there ain't no plan, I'm only guessing half the time. I'm just _really fucking good at it._"


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> For what purpose though? That's my point. You disagree for no reason. There's no reason to disagree unless it accomplishes something, voicing a difference of opinion ought to lead to something, but what does it lead to? What is your goal? I wonder if you even have a goal other than stating your opinion. And then what? What happens after that? Nothing. Because that's as far as you looked. Far enough to say something, and then nothing else.
> 
> Ni is laid back because it holds no prejudice or opinion. It's a form of perception, not judgment. If you really differentiated Ni enough you'd just _get_ what I'm trying to say here, but you can't even begin to grasp the essence of my point without framing it in some kind of subjective model you have for understanding what I'm saying. It doesn't just _click_, which is why I said before, we're not really on the same frequency at all. I even noticed it during our video interview. That's why it was me who suggested that we end the video, repeatedly, because you kept wanting to go on and on about the theory, and I'm sitting there thinking, "what more is there to say. What is the point of continuing this."
> 
> ...


I really do not agree with you analysis of me. I do not agree because of some rules of rationality, but because it frankly doesn't match my inner experience of how I see things and myself. To be perfectly honest, it actually sounds quite paranoid and I get the impression that you are projecting issues you have with yourself on me and they relate to the fact I'm opinionated and assertive and you're essentially not, or rather, not in the way I am. You assume everyone have to be like you to be Ni, and that's just incorrect. There's plenty of diversity among people. Go look at FAT you quoted below me; you agree that he's an Ni dom but he's frankly more opinionated than I am. I simply enjoy good debate because it helps to see what people are made of and where they stand. Not in a rational sense, but in terms of character strength and weaknesses. It helps me to get a feel to see inside people, to observe what makes them tick and click, because in the struggle of wills,.people tend to expose themselves, just like you are now, whether they like it or not. 

Everyone is a puzzle but some are more or less complex and some got more or less missing pieces. When you prod people you do get a feel for the shape of what's missing. 

I don't care if we agree or not, but I do care to be understood and to see me for who I am and represent that inner experience accurately. I don't think you have at all and I am frankly hurt and disappointed. I thought you honestly saw me more clearly than this, but I was apparently wrong. 

Seriously, you claim to know to think that I see better than I do, but you evidently don't. I very well see the same as you, and I honestly think all of the posts I've written here to you suggests it. Then I am NOT you but that's fucking evident but comparing yourself and claiming I should be to get a mark of approval on my forehead is ridiculous and whether you claim that you don't you actually do and it's hypocritical as fuck. You can't have the cake and eat it too. Come back when you actually are capable of properly offering a psychoanalytical description I can actually relate to instead of this drivel that I don't see myself in at all. You are taking a framework and applying on me to describe who I am without seeing me objectively and declare that I fit it to be the truth and set up a self-fulfilling prophecy because dare I express anything but agreement, it must simply prove it true. Don't lecture me about Ji when you yourself have been vacillating so much on whether you are a Ti dom or Ni dom. I was the one who suggested Ti dom was ridiculous to you, remember? If you yourself can't be sure of your own inner experience you cannot and should not use it to compare others and claim what they are according to it. Did you know that I typed you as an Ni dom because I see my thinking in you?my own experiences in you? 

I really don't care what you choose to do after this, but I am extremely disappointed. Keep your issues about life and being an Ni dom to yourself, and don't attack me to be something I don't experience myself to be because your analysis doesn't at all describe my inner reality of how I experience things and imply I need to philosophically always see things like you do to be Ni dom. That's just extremely unfair. Judge me on my own merit, not how I compare to you.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> For what purpose though? That's my point. You disagree for no reason. There's no reason to disagree unless it accomplishes something, voicing a difference of opinion ought to lead to something, but what does it lead to? What is your goal? I wonder if you even have a goal other than stating your opinion. And then what? What happens after that? Nothing. Because that's as far as you looked. Far enough to say something, and then nothing else.
> 
> Ni is laid back because it holds no prejudice or opinion. It's a form of perception, not judgment. If you really differentiated Ni enough you'd just _get_ what I'm trying to say here, but you can't even begin to grasp the essence of my point without framing it in some kind of subjective model you have for understanding what I'm saying. It doesn't just _click_, which is why I said before, we're not really on the same frequency at all. I even noticed it during our video interview. That's why it was me who suggested that we end the video, repeatedly, because you kept wanting to go on and on about the theory, and I'm sitting there thinking, "what more is there to say. What is the point of continuing this."
> 
> ...





Entropic said:


> I really do not agree with you analysis of me. I do not agree because of some rules of rationality, but because it frankly doesn't match my inner experience of how I see things and myself. To be perfectly honest, it actually sounds quite paranoid and I get the impression that you are projecting issues you have with yourself on me and they relate to the fact I'm opinionated and assertive and you're essentially not, or rather, not in the way I am. You assume everyone have to be like you to be Ni, and that's just incorrect. There's plenty of diversity among people. Go look at FAT you quoted below me; you agree that he's an Ni dom but he's frankly more opinionated than I am. I simply enjoy good debate because it helps to see what people are made of and where they stand. Not in a rational sense, but in terms of character strength and weaknesses. It helps me to get a feel to see inside people, to observe what makes them tick and click, because in the struggle of wills,.people tend to expose themselves, just like you are now, whether they like it or not.
> 
> Everyone is a puzzle but some are more or less complex and some got more or less missing pieces. When you prod people you do get a feel for the shape of what's missing.
> 
> ...


Quasi-identity - Wikisocion



> In closer interaction, partners' instincts are to want to correct the other person's approach and redefine the issues in completely different language. This leads to a feeling of being under-appreciated by the other. Partners are easily drawn into quite personal conversations because of the sense that the other person can relate to them, but this psychological intimacy can easily disappear without a trace when aggravation about something the other person does finally boils over and partners allow themselves to express dissatisfaction with the other. This can lead to disappointment and a feeling of betrayal of trust or lack of loyalty when partners suddenly don't want to be around each other or maintain the relationship anymore because it drains them.
> 
> The most unpleasant thing in these relations is inability to understand a person fully. There exists a need to always "translate" his information to your own language. Writing of quasi-identical is almost impossible to read. Deciphering his information takes away a lot of energy and this seems wasteful and useless. Creations of quasi-identical partner are always found lacking. Conversation with him though is never heavy, does not bring satisfaction. It seems that he is on purpose confusing, making things overly complicated or too simple, straying to the side, which same thing could have been stated differently, in understandable language. Quasi-identical partners can find common topics of conversation, rally over the same issues. But they see different solutions to difficult situations. Sometimes there is a sense that you are wasting time. Because nothing in particular unites quasi-identicals, these relations break up easily, without regrets. Rather colorless relations, which are described well by a proverb: "You have your own wedding, and we have ours."




Quasi-identical pairs

ILE and LIE
SEI and ESI
ESE and SEE
LII and ILI
EIE and IEE
LSI and SLI
SLE and LSE
IEI and EII


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Yes to the first, it is clearly Ji, and thus, yes to the second, because it could not be anything else.
> 
> "Thy will be done" is literally subjective and because he utterly embraces it is why I say I think he was a Ji-lead, unless it is the will of the universe being done, in which case, you are a scientist or a businessman, but he was neither (though, he thought of himself as both).
> 
> ...


Precisely btw. You cannot tell a Ti dom anything and he is proof. You get Ti. And introverted judging. Never sees any totality or larger picture. Only categories. It is a very concrete and literal function.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> @InSolitude,
> 
> Just to clarify though, the reason I say that is because Ti is very much a function of determination, in which you would say it is like a rudder and your life is the boat, and you are at the helm. That's very subjective, you see, because it places your will in command. Yes the river plays a part, and the earth shapes it's path, but captain of my boat I can sail wherever I want, or run ashore if I please. It embellishes the role of the individual in the decision making process.
> 
> ...


So to backpedal a bit here. Ni sees what is to happen, Ji sees what it wants to happen?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Ksara said:


> So to backpedal a bit here. Ni sees what is to happen, Ji sees what it wants to happen?


Ji doesn't see anything. It just decides what it saw.

Je doesn't really decide either - reality decides for you, and Je conforms with reality.

Pi functions see, but they don't see reality. They reveal the archetypes _in_ reality, as if reality were only a medium through which the archetypes are revealed.

Pe functions see things as they actually are, but that's it. There's no choice involved in this, no "now I will do X" or "now I will believe X". Pe notices merely that a thing exists, and absolutely nothing else gets attached to that until you start to dip into some other function.

The only functions that deal with making personal choices are Ji. You don't make decisions that involve the self with any other functions.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> For what purpose though? That's my point. You disagree for no reason. There's no reason to disagree unless it accomplishes something, voicing a difference of opinion ought to lead to something, but what does it lead to? What is your goal? I wonder if you even have a goal other than stating your opinion. And then what? What happens after that? Nothing. Because that's as far as you looked. Far enough to say something, and then nothing else.
> 
> Ni is laid back because it holds no prejudice or opinion. It's a form of perception, not judgment. If you really differentiated Ni enough you'd just _get_ what I'm trying to say here, but you can't even begin to grasp the essence of my point without framing it in some kind of subjective model you have for understanding what I'm saying. It doesn't just _click_, which is why I said before, we're not really on the same frequency at all. I even noticed it during our video interview. That's why it was me who suggested that we end the video, repeatedly, because you kept wanting to go on and on about the theory, and I'm sitting there thinking, "what more is there to say. What is the point of continuing this."
> 
> ...


I didn't even read through these posts but you so hit the nail on the head. 

*You keep organizing, analyzing, establishing strict dominance of one concept over another, forming a hierarchy of concepts and ideas, so that everything is nice and neat and internally consistent. You care too much about doing that when in reality nothing is at stake, and the whole subject matter itself is so imprecise as to allow for many different interpretations. But you think yours is right, and you have a million reasons why, and that's the bottom line.
*
Exactly. It is a road to nowhere and so obvious Ji. Working their fingers to the bone over something that is interpretive at its root, and incessantly acts like it is NOT with straight up dogmatism. Over and over, without ever incorporating that concept into understanding. It never registers. It never sees it from that angle. I said that communicating with somebody is like picking up a rock and getting underneath them. You can't do that with him. The rock sets back where it was. It is totally unaffected. Watching that video also made me cringe. What Ni dom is so oblivious and like, never picks up new information? lol. Ever. 

He understands it conceptually, not perceptually. Ti again. 

Jung actually associated Ti with philosophical realism. That concepts are reality. That is what is being done through this system. You see these things as very imprecise placeholders. Interesting abstractions to mess around with. Ti doesn't see things that way. It sees reality as the placeholder for these concepts. It chisels the world to fit it. I have an inclination to do that myself sometimes.


----------

