# OCEAN and MBTI : INFJ. I don't think I am ; where have I gone wrong?



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

And one more point. lol. Reason is the cherry on top of the sundae. Words are. What about the mess underneath? As Jung said, reason alone does not suffice. William James put this well:

*Vague impressions of something indefinable have no place in the rationalistic system, which on its positive side is surely a splendid intellectual tendency, for not only are all our philosophies fruits of it, but physical science (amongst other good things) is its result.*
*
Nevertheless, if we look on man's whole mental life as it exists, on the life of men that lies in them apart from their learning and science, and that they inwardly and privately follow, we have to confess that the part of it of which rationalism can give an account is relatively superficial. It is the part that has the prestige undoubtedly, for it has the loquacity, it can challenge you for proofs, and chop logic, and put you down with words. But it will fail to convince or convert you all the same, if your dumb intuitions are opposed to its conclusions. If you have intuitions at all, they come from a deeper level of your nature than the loquacious level which rationalism inhabits. Your whole subconscious life, your impulses, your faiths, your needs, your divinations, have prepared the premises, of which your consciousness now feels the weight of the result; and something in you absolutely knows that that result must be truer than any logic-chopping rationalistic talk, however clever, that may contradict it. *


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> And one more point. lol. Reason is the cherry on top of the sundae. Words are. What about the mess underneath? As Jung said, reason alone does not suffice. William James put this well:
> 
> *Vague impressions of something indefinable have no place in the rationalistic system, which on its positive side is surely a splendid intellectual tendency, for not only are all our philosophies fruits of it, but physical science (amongst other good things) is its result.*
> *
> Nevertheless, if we look on man's whole mental life as it exists, on the life of men that lies in them apart from their learning and science, and that they inwardly and privately follow, we have to confess that the part of it of which rationalism can give an account is relatively superficial. It is the part that has the prestige undoubtedly, for it has the loquacity, it can challenge you for proofs, and chop logic, and put you down with words. But it will fail to convince or convert you all the same, if your dumb intuitions are opposed to its conclusions. If you have intuitions at all, they come from a deeper level of your nature than the loquacious level which rationalism inhabits. Your whole subconscious life, your impulses, your faiths, your needs, your divinations, have prepared the premises, of which your consciousness now feels the weight of the result; and something in you absolutely knows that that result must be truer than any logic-chopping rationalistic talk, however clever, that may contradict it. *


And coming from a man who his whole life was unnerved regarding the conscience. Something about determinism always seemed... off to him, regardless of Darwin, Spencer, Fetcher and Weber. He held the human brain in his hands and likely probed it during medical school. Materialism had reason, yet the idea of not having free will still felt wrong and he could never put this aside. It was science on one end, spirituality on the other, and him. So pragmatism : materialism for his public life, dualism for his personal. 
It makes sense why Jung's work has been so filtered. A professor of mine ignores him when it comes to personality typing. I really admire people who try to best to struggle with words and sort of... "tame them" to their thoughts. It must have not been easy for Jung to put his thinking into words. In a sense, music is cheating lol, its the easy way out. 

About perception though. 

It's interesting when you're capable of getting that "peak". I have an ISFP friend who I'm really close to and I can imagine how she see the world. It is as it is, in all it's colors, liveliness, motion. It's like a never ended film of experience rather than a snapshot. And she, herself, is within that moment. I talk to her about this and she wonders how I can "snap out of it", because she can't : she's in the world, constantly. She's the best at molding within the world, acting within in because she always in it. 

And an Ne dominant friend. She can make everything into putty and mentally mold and connect that putty into really amusing things. And she get's so excited too when she's talking about this (usually sort of... silly things. She's not really connecting anything, just playing with things mentally). She's the best at blending the world.

But people's introverted perceiving functions are much harder to "experience". You can mainly just see the end results of them. But there is a distinct feeling when I'm, in specific, speaking to strong Ni users (of course, depending on their level of intelligence and etc). But whether it's tied along with Te or Fe, there is a general gist to it that I'm aware of because it sort of, I think, unconsciously sets me to a distinct program. Not during small talk or minor topics, but when you actually get into deeper conversation it'll come out: that specific 'Ni' vibe that i can't put into words right. It's like I can actually feel my mind trying to rewire and try to sync up with it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

O_o said:


> And coming from a man who his whole life was unnerved regarding the conscience. Something about determinism always seemed... off to him, regardless of Darwin, Spencer, Fetcher and Weber. He held the human brain in his hands and likely probed it during medical school. Materialism had reason, yet the idea of not having free will still felt wrong and he could never put this aside. It was science on one end, spirituality on the other, and him. So pragmatism : materialism for his public life, dualism for his personal.
> It makes sense why Jung's work has been so filtered. A professor of mine ignores him when it comes to personality typing. I really admire people who try to best to struggle with words and sort of... "tame them" to their thoughts. It must have not been easy for Jung to put his things into words.
> 
> About perception though.
> ...


I think Ni is like a private language. It is primitive in a sense. Archaic. 

I have said that about Ne, it treats everything like silly putty. Stretches it out every way. Or like microwave popcorn. Once you think it has stopped, another goes off. Many of them are underdone or burnt too. lol. 

You should read William James if you haven't. He actually preceded Jung on typing and Jung spends a few pages on him in Psychological Types. I honestly don't even know if you are talking about James or Jung. James also had mental health issues and "doctored" himself with philosophy and psychology. Both also went to med school. They did meet too. James was the guy in America that Freud and Jung were most interested in meeting. James fits in a lot of places. He has somewhat similar relationship to Freud as Jung had with Freud.

James is good. For example, all this talk about sexual theory. Even in religion. James points out that food and drink are just as much present and symbolic in religion. That they could be said to be based on eating and drinking as much as sexual instinct. lol. Which is true. 

According to all accounts, Freud and James were eager to meet each other. The two men ended their brief encounter by strolling alone together to a train station, and a dramatic scene unfolded: James, suffering from heart problems, suddenly felt an attack of angina pectoris coming on, and asked Freud to walk ahead alone so he could gather himself. This appears to have ended their chance for a deeper conversation, and later accounts of the meeting by both men hint at an undefined tension underlying the friendly meeting.

James and Freud shared a fascination with the phenomenon of human consciousness. They both believed entirely in the essential, irreducible willfulness of human nature. It was James’ greatest discovery that our needs, desires, and hopes are the cornerstones of our belief systems. It was Freud’s greatest discovery that our needs, desires, and hopes have a mind of their own—the unconscious mind—and, in this capacity, influence everything we do. On the biggest questions of life, meaning, and existence, Jamesian philosophy and Freudian psychology can be harmonious.

Yet the two could be described as ideological opposites as well. James had great intellectual passion for religion, and Freud was a passionate atheist who wrote a book about religion called _The Future of an Illusion_. James was also decidedly a pluralist, whereas Freudian psychology located sexuality as the singular emotional core (and core trauma) of human existence. A broad, anti-dogmatic thinker like James could never fall for a belief system based on a single cause, a single anything. Life, James believed, was too rich for that.

One can only wonder at the private bemusement with which James might have greeted the outrageously controversial Freud in 1909. In a private letter, he gently mocked Freud’s theories about dreams as the key to psychological revelation. But his own _Principles of Psychology_ inexplicably contains only a simple half page about the phenomenon of dreaming (though it contains painfully long sections about, for instance, the perception of space and the phenomenon of optical illusions).

James knew that Freud’s energetic research had value, whatever its flaws or overreaching. It also seems likely that Freud’s more brazen statements would have pleased James for their audacity. Like Freud, James was no prude, and he didn’t mind shocking the academy every now and then.

Finally, as a father of pragmatism, James admired the fact that Freud’s reputation rested on actual clinical success. Psychoanalysis was the Freudian “pragma,” and it was known to actually cure patients in the field. By generously embracing and lending his credibility to the upstart Freud, James was acting as a pluralist, a pragmatist, and, above all, a man with love to spare for his embattled fellow thinkers.


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

So I do think you're an IxxJ type--and the uncertainty is coming from the fact that you're a dominant perceiver and thus are not as comfortable with a stable conclusion and would rather stay in "data collection" mode. 

I also strongly agree with @FearAndTrembling that you're missing the Ni in your own writing. When I read your Ne description, my gut reaction is that you're actually talking Ti, not Ne. It's in the introverted nature of the process: X happens. X could be due to Y or Z, but I'm using _judging_, not perceiving, to decide--to develop a logical story/explanation for what you observe.

Ne, as a perceiving function, is actually the reverse in a lot of ways. It starts with a conclusion and jumps out to the possible logical extensions of that conclusion. For example, Lorelai Gilmore listing all the fears she has when Rory doesn't come home. The Fi-Te conclusion she starts with is "Rory is at risk when she's not at home," and her dominant Ne starts developing all the scenarios that result from this conclusion. None are real, or totally correct, but that's what dominant Ne does. Another ENFP example is Barry Allen in the Flash--he starts with the conclusion that "my superpowers let me help others" and then his Ne begins to develop all the potential ways of doing so. That's why Ne-doms are inventors and brainstormers yet at the same time are scattered and unfocused. They extravert ideas and conclusions and aren't particularly wedded to the success/failure of any individual idea. Ne doesn't connect; it extends.

Si and Ni are both connecting--that's the introverted part of perception. They take the sensations/symbols and connect them to something greater than the individual moment. Si _immediately_ classifies that perception according to its own arbitrary rules/ideals/tropes; Ni does the same according to its own arbitrary vision/form/metaconstruct. Si is a relativizing function; Ni a universalizing one. That means that Si users tend to place the perception in terms of how it fits into their preexisting notions of how the world should work, while Ni users place the perception in terms of how it builds there vision. For example, an ISTJ might tell you that she judges fashion based on ideas like "good people don't spend lots of money on fashion," while an INTJ will be absolutely convinced that "fashion maketh the man," with all that entails. The ISTJ sees the label as a label--too expensive! The INTJ sees the label as a representation of society's crass commercialism. If you update their beliefs ("I got it at Goodwill for $3), the ISTJ will change their mind--what a bargain! while the INTJ--who still sees it symbolically--thinks that doesn't matter. It's about the meaning of buying something with that label, not the act of buying itself.

I think you are an INFJ, and probably falling prey a bit to the same thing that ISTPs do (but backwards). The thing about Ni-Ti is that having both introverted means that both the way you process ideas and patterns AND the way you reason are subjective. Introverted thinking is more than happy to develop "just so" stories for introverted intuition, and without an extraverted function to "check," it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. So dominant Ni nags you--based on the way I'm intuiting the functions, something feels off about INFJ. So Ti develops a narrative to reinforce this: let me try to define functions like this...let me try to explain away problems like why ENTP feels so far off...Do I understand Ni enough to be a user of it? This (ironically) serves as confirmation for your Ni to convince yourself you're not using Ni! ISTPs often convince themselves they're INTPs for the same reasoning: I've got a hunch I'm intuitive, and good story as to why, that proves my hunch right.

I do see Ni throughout your writing--the way you don't need words. The way you use metaphorical language (not analogical language). The way you speak universally, timelessly, not drawing examples and connections to other perceptions. This:


> And coming from a man who his whole life was unnerved regarding the conscience. Something about determinism always seemed... off to him, regardless of Darwin, Spencer, Fetcher and Weber. He held the human brain in his hands and likely probed it during medical school. Materialism had reason, yet the idea of not having free will still felt wrong and he could never put this aside. It was science on one end, spirituality on the other, and him. So pragmatism : materialism for his public life, dualism for his personal.
> It makes sense why Jung's work has been so filtered. A professor of mine ignores him when it comes to personality typing. I really admire people who try to best to struggle with words and sort of... "tame them" to their thoughts. It must have not been easy for Jung to put his thinking into words. In a sense, music is cheating lol, its the easy way out.


Is so Ni-Ti: playing with oppositions, dichotomies, subjective valuations--all Ti--to an Ni aim, not of selecting one the way an INxP might, but of embracing the inconsistencies. That's pure dominant intuition. The end bit is why it's Ni, not Ne--it's not a reductive approach the way Ne users tend to function--you don't eliminate branches just because there are problems, but work it into a greater whole.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I'm thirding the others. You certainly communicate like an INFJ. I'm not really seeing much Ne at all - if you have Ne, it's not dominant. My first suggestion after reading your OP was going to be to consider ISFJ, but after reading your following posts, you do speak heavy N. Maybe your e-type is making you feel less holistically-emotionally-affected than some INFJs? 3 is a more pragmatic e-type and clamps down on unnecessary emotion as a coping strategy. Theoretically that could make you seem and feel like less of a pie-in-the-sky INFJ than some.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

O_o said:


> I can definitely agree with
> N > F > T > S
> Though if forced to change, I can tolerate N > T > F > S while still feeling comfortable.
> 
> ...


I think there's a tendency to over-associate with some functions - Fi being one of those, in that any importance afforded to deep personal convictions is viewed as being necessarily tied up with introverted feeling. With that said, what you described _does_ match up to the idea of Fi seeking "harmony of action and thoughts with personal values"... but, as you've acknowledged, there's a far stronger basis for Fe.

I have (you might recall, actually) similar issues with trying to conceptually process what Ni is, and given the link, that makes knowing what exactly Ne constitutes difficult also, so I'm not sure what exactly to make of this. I would say that what you describe here re: Ne does seem quite convergent (examination of the possibilities to determine their similar characteristics and come to particular conclusions about the cause of X), apart from perhaps the last part (re: potential implications of behaviours), which doesn't seem to me to strongly indicate anything in particular. There's always the standard argument that the dominant is so characteristic of the way you function that you don't truly notice it - so perhaps those things you "can't really get through your head" are just _too_ obvious to see - and I guess that would sit well with what you describe, "snapping" into what you perceive to be Se and that being a "very obvious" thing... but then, such arguments never seem satisfactory, do they? The whole point of this exercise is for you to _see_ that you are a particular type, not simply to accept that you may have a blind spot...

_"trust me. It's there. it's there all the time but I don't know how to.. sort of... explain that"_ = Trusts flashes from the unconscious, which may be hard for others to understand, perhaps? It definitely sits comfortably with that description, if nothing else... how well do you find yourself able to articulate precisely why INFJ doesn't feel as though it fits right? This analysis certainly makes it _seem_ like it matches pretty well across different strands of the theory... or, the more pertinent question, given the point about malleable perspectives before: _does_ it still feel like an ill fit?


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think Ni is like a private language. It is primitive in a sense. Archaic.
> 
> I have said that about Ne, it treats everything like silly putty. Stretches it out every way. Or like microwave popcorn. Once you think it has stopped, another goes off. Many of them are underdone or burnt too. lol.
> 
> ...


William James's book is on my list, I've only read about him through biographies but never his actual work. I actually didn't know James and Freud had that sort of relationship. I didn't know they even met. In my mind I can't see them getting along that well, honestly. I know James believed habit resulted when active choices were repeated enough and then pushed towards the back to leave more room for execute thinking/novelty/etc. Freud's "unconscious" sounds fairly similar to James's idea of "habits" but not really.. enough. I guess Freud managed to find his own mix there in a different way; free will and determinism at the same time: Kind of like "battle of the minds" ; you have the free will to try and understand the deterministic nature of your unconscious. Why choose when you can split them up? James really couldn't, I'm pretty sure he died without comfortably finding his answer.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

TyranAmiros said:


> So I do think you're an IxxJ type--and the uncertainty is coming from the fact that you're a dominant perceiver and thus are not as comfortable with a stable conclusion and would rather stay in "data collection" mode.


At this point, and with everything, going back and forth. I can see IxFJ. But The "problem of fluidity" is still sort of engraved in me. Look how my communication style changed when FearAndTrembling entered the conversation. @_FearAndTrembling_, you must have noticed it, you know I respond to your messages differently than I do to other people around the forum. At least I think I do. That's kind of what I meant about words before as well: it's so easy to mask yourself with them and use them to turn into someone else. When I was around ENTPs all the time, I 'talked' like one. I think that as soon as I get a feeling for another person's form of expression that I try to mimic it. I wonder if this could... be Fe in a sense... but having it in the back of my mind always makes me wonder which is genuine, and I think maybe only an outside observer could note it better than me. Which is a horrible way to look at this all to begin with. 



> I also strongly agree with _FearAndTrembling_ that you're missing the Ni in your own writing. When I read your Ne description, my gut reaction is that you're actually talking Ti, not Ne. It's in the introverted nature of the process: X happens. X could be due to Y or Z, but I'm using _judging_, not perceiving, to decide--to develop a logical story/explanation for what you observe.
> 
> Ne, as a perceiving function, is actually the reverse in a lot of ways. It starts with a conclusion and jumps out to the possible logical extensions of that conclusion. For example, Lorelai Gilmore listing all the fears she has when Rory doesn't come home. The Fi-Te conclusion she starts with is "Rory is at risk when she's not at home," and her dominant Ne starts developing all the scenarios that result from this conclusion. None are real, or totally correct, but that's what dominant Ne does. Another ENFP example is Barry Allen in the Flash--he starts with the conclusion that "my superpowers let me help others" and then his Ne begins to develop all the potential ways of doing so. That's why Ne-doms are inventors and brainstormers yet at the same time are scattered and unfocused. They extravert ideas and conclusions and aren't particularly wedded to the success/failure of any individual idea. Ne doesn't connect; it extends.
> 
> ...


This was really interesting to read and I'm still sort of... thinking about it (which is why I didn't respond until now). 

I was thinking about Pe in general and something we had to do recently :
A management professor of mine gave us materials and had us trying to create the sturdiest yet tallest building from them. I thought I would be great at this but our tower came out... very unimpressive. About a week ago, a customer came to the store I help out in last week... she asked for 5 separate sheets of paper. I started rolling them all up separately until she said "why don't you just roll them all up together". You can just imagine how stupid I felt : right! You can do that. Why was I rolling them up separately when this clearly saves more time? Looking back now I experience a lot of "stupid" situations like that : I don't think I know how to manipulate objective in my physical world in a productive and quick way. I can come up with theories for things, see reasons others might not, connect things people might not see as related. But I have these really locked moments : "why would you do it like that when you can just do this then this and get a quicker result?" and my mind sort of goes "right. How on earth didn't I think of that?". I'm not good at finding short cuts actually. 

And I like your example with Si and Ni lol. 

It got me thinking about an ENTJ friend I used to have and his relationships with objects. He used to think we had a lot in common which really frustrated me. And the moment I really knew "wow. no we don't" was when I first saw his room. Bed, computer, few clothes, things for school, desk, lamp. impersonal and nothing. And this was the space he spent his whole life in, so I asked him about that. There was no item he could think of which was significant to him in some way: it was all for practical use. It was such a "present" approach that is sort of... blew my mind a bit, even though I know a lot of people are like that. But it said a lot about him as a person. So these are the moments where I wonder about Si in specific, to me I also see it as a "vibe" function: I have a lot of items that I find incredibly significant. There are items I would honestly bawl my eyes out if I lost. There is a bear I grew up with as a child, and the bear is now in some bag in our attic over in Croatia, and thinking about it kills me : my childhood in some dark bag, as if it were irrelevant and forgotten about. I don't have any pictures or etc, but I could never ever throw some things away. I don't think I'm particularly good with details or noticing slight differences in things, but I'm really sensitive to my environment being rearranged and losing something with I think connects me to a past part of my life. A friend of mind is always moving her things around : the thought of that makes me really uncomfortable. As a kid, my mom's haircuts would tramatize me : she looks different, I want her to look the same, I don't want her to change.

Or maybe it could be a result of Ni. Because it could never mean "just a haircut" to me : what else are you willing to change and can I trust you? Of course as I kid I just knew it made me incredibly uncomfortable. Maybe most kids are like that.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

StunnedFox said:


> I think there's a tendency to over-associate with some functions - Fi being one of those, in that any importance afforded to deep personal convictions is viewed as being necessarily tied up with introverted feeling. With that said, what you described _does_ match up to the idea of Fi seeking "harmony of action and thoughts with personal values"... but, as you've acknowledged, there's a far stronger basis for Fe.
> 
> I have (you might recall, actually) similar issues with trying to conceptually process what Ni is, and given the link, that makes knowing what exactly Ne constitutes difficult also, so I'm not sure what exactly to make of this. I would say that what you describe here re: Ne does seem quite convergent (examination of the possibilities to determine their similar characteristics and come to particular conclusions about the cause of X), apart from perhaps the last part (re: potential implications of behaviours), which doesn't seem to me to strongly indicate anything in particular. There's always the standard argument that the dominant is so characteristic of the way you function that you don't truly notice it - so perhaps those things you "can't really get through your head" are just _too_ obvious to see - and I guess that would sit well with what you describe, "snapping" into what you perceive to be Se and that being a "very obvious" thing... but then, such arguments never seem satisfactory, do they? The whole point of this exercise is for you to _see_ that you are a particular type, not simply to accept that you may have a blind spot...
> 
> _"trust me. It's there. it's there all the time but I don't know how to.. sort of... explain that"_ = Trusts flashes from the unconscious, which may be hard for others to understand, perhaps? It definitely sits comfortably with that description, if nothing else... how well do you find yourself able to articulate precisely why INFJ doesn't feel as though it fits right? This analysis certainly makes it _seem_ like it matches pretty well across different strands of the theory... or, the more pertinent question, given the point about malleable perspectives before: _does_ it still feel like an ill fit?


Yes, I do remember~ I remember Ne in specific causing you issues. I don't know if I ever asked you how you sort of came to accept Ne as being more powerful than Si, if you have? But it must be somewhat uncomfortable if you're still not fully sure what its nature is entirely : assuming that you're using it, having others tell you that you're using it, but not really knowing what exactly you're using. 

Ni seems like less of a bad fit than it did before. If anything I think it's definitely more important for me to take it's varying "aptitudes" into account. Some people with Ni can use it in a brilliant way and decipher and find incredibly novel meanings behind things I could never even dream of. Just like some Ne individuals can create wonderfully novel inventions. But obviously not everyone is like that, and some people aren't even close. Some individuals seem to use Ni so... quickly and with such depth (and you can see it from their writings) but others don't. Obviously amplitude doesn't just come with the function's positioning but the persons overall mental capabilities. Not saying that I think I use it necessarily yet, but that it's possible that I filter my world through it, yet generally in subtle ways that don't result in a lot of explosions.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

O_o said:


> Yes, I do remember~ I remember Ne in specific causing you issues. I don't know if I ever asked you how you sort of came to accept Ne as being more powerful than Si, if you have? But it must be somewhat uncomfortable if you're still not fully sure what its nature is entirely : assuming that you're using it, having others tell you that you're using it, but not really knowing what exactly you're using.
> 
> Ni seems like less of a bad fit than it did before. If anything I think it's definitely more important for me to take it's varying "aptitudes" into account. Some people with Ni can use it in a brilliant way and decipher and find incredibly novel meanings behind things I could never even dream of. Just like some Ne individuals can create wonderfully novel inventions. But obviously not everyone is like that, and some people aren't even close. Some individuals seem to use Ni so... quickly and with such depth (and you can see it from their writings) but others don't. Obviously amplitude doesn't just come with the function's positioning but the persons overall mental capabilities. Not saying that I think I use it necessarily yet, but that it's possible that I filter my world through it, yet generally in subtle ways that don't result in a lot of explosions.


One idea I've toyed with before - though it's not entirely clear how comfortably this sits within more established functions frameworks - is that the attitude of a function needn't be a question of "one or the other", that what a person has is X-dominance that is more Xi than Xe... given you can see elements of both N functions without strongly being convinced of either, such a perspective could be a relevant consideration here. As you say, though, it could be a matter of "aptitude" - if every function were only truly present in people who exemplified it "at its best", then few would truly fit within that system - and that the dominance of a function needn't be as overt as observation might suggest it is for some others (which is a similar point to the one about being so accustomed to the dominant as to be blind to it, but different enough to be worth mentioning here, I think). 

I wouldn't say I've accepted Ne being more powerful than Si, so much as I've accepted that the INTP type profile as a whole (encompassing the descriptions, dichotomy preferences, function stack, &c.) fits me better than any other type profile - or, as I like to think of it, carries less cause for doubt than any of the other fifteen. I would still say I relate to Si more than I do Ne (given my own uncertainty, this doesn't shed much light on whether it's Si or not, but I can relate strongly to what you describe above, about wanting to keep things that feel connected to past aspects of yourself around, the loss - or even neglect - of such being rather painful...), and certainly there are still plenty of type- and personality-related matters I've yet to satisfactorily settle - such matters, I think, should always remain open, whether a type label is "accepted" at any given time or not. As a result of this, I do get thrown a bit when people make statements suggesting that something I've posted is "typically INTP" or similar (or even "very Ti", despite my relative confidence that Ti is the best-fitting of the eight functions), since it's usually presented with far more conviction than I myself am comfortable in claiming...

To what extent are you aware of the "fluidity" you discuss above whilst actually writing the responses? The fact that function stacks aren't typically framed so directly in terms of preference as other limbs of the theory makes accounting for "fluctuations" a harder task in that realm, to know what to make of traits such as this... interesting, also, to frame it in terms of genuineness: do you have similar qualms about other aspects of Fe (e.g., the traits you posted in the spoiler of your last response to me), or only in relation to adapting to others' forms of expression?


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

I will be the first to admit I tend to hyperbolize in argumentation. I used to debate in high school and college, where taking things to an illogical conclusion was highly valued. As a teacher (and amateur typer) I sometimes use "very Ti" (for example) to point out something that may be more evident from an objective perspective than from introspection. I suppose this is counter to my larger utilitarian attitude toward type, but I've learned from personal experience that we can be blind to our own ways.

My attitude is that we do have types, but the real value of typing is self-improvement and discovery. If you want to go above just labelling yourself, I think by uncovering our tendencies to think and approach things in certain ways, we learn to be on the lookout for the places we need to be wary of our cognitive style. For example, an INFJ might recognize their tendency to look for hidden meanings and make relationships more complex than need be. An INFP, for example, misidentifying as an INFJ might look at something like that and say, "I don't do that, I must be very healthy." There's just enough overlap (perfectionism, liking organization) that it may seem valid on its face. 

So here's the real test: when the profile gets down to the part about the type's unhealthy tendencies, are they right? Is it hard for you to read them because there's truth in them or are you asking yourself why anyone would struggle with that? Look at related types. For example, one considering INTP and INTJ might consider:


> Think of the people who are closest to you. Remember that they have their own lives going on. Try to visualize what that person is doing, and imagine what kinds of things that person is thinking about. Don't pass judgement, just think about it.


vs


> When you make judgments or decisions, try to be aware of your motivation for making the judgment. Are you more interested in finding fault externally, or in improving your own understanding? Seek first to understand, and then to judge.


The former invokes low level Fe (what does the other person want?), the latter higher Te (don't just pass judgment). The issue of motivation is less a problem for INTP (Ti has already spun a logical story) while the issue of making immediate conclusions is less a problem for INTJ (Ni doesn't want to conclude before it's certain). 
@O_o I stumbled on this quote and it made me think of you and your writing style:


Personality Junkie said:


> INFJs’ propensity for processing information visually may contribute to one of their signature strengths: reconciling opposites. One advantage of visual processing is it doesn’t have the same rules or impediments of verbal processing. In some cases, problems may be better solved by employing images or symbols rather than by other means. It should not surprise us that Jung himself hailed the value of imagery and symbols. For Jung, symbols were critical for dealing with paradoxes, including the challenge of reconciling opposing psychological functions, which he dubbed “the type problem.”


--http://personalityjunkie.com/the-infj/


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

O_o said:


> At this point, and with everything, going back and forth. I can see IxFJ. But The "problem of fluidity" is still sort of engraved in me. Look how my communication style changed when FearAndTrembling entered the conversation. @_FearAndTrembling_, you must have noticed it, you know I respond to your messages differently than I do to other people around the forum. At least I think I do. That's kind of what I meant about words before as well: it's so easy to mask yourself with them and use them to turn into someone else. When I was around ENTPs all the time, I 'talked' like one. I think that as soon as I get a feeling for another person's form of expression that I try to mimic it. I wonder if this could... be Fe in a sense... but having it in the back of my mind always makes me wonder which is genuine, and I think maybe only an outside observer could note it better than me. Which is a horrible way to look at this all to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*"I don't think I know how to manipulate objective in my physical world in a productive and quick way."

*lol one of my biggest problems too. *

*Ni is water/fluid. It is dynamic. It surfs.

"It's pretty hairy in there, it's Charlie's point.."

"Charlie don't surf!"







You are like Kaspar Hauser. Have you seen that movie? 

*Professor Daumer*: Kaspar, what's wrong? Are you feeling unwell?
*Kaspar Hauser*: It feels strong in my heart... The music feels strong in my heart... I feel so unexpectedly old...
*Professor Daumer*: You've been such a short time in the world, Kaspar...
*Kaspar Hauser*: Why is everything so hard for me? Why can't I play the piano like I can breathe?
*Professor Daumer*: In the two short years you have been here with me, you have learned so much! The people here want to help you make up for lost time.
*Kaspar Hauser*: The people are like wolves to me.
*Professor Daumer*: No. You mustn't say that...


Do you not then hear this horrible scream all around you that people usually call silence?

*Kaspar Hauser*: Mother, I am so far away from everything.

*Kaspar Hauser*: Nothing lives less in me than my life.




The subtitle perfectly sums up the world:

*Every man for himself and God against all*.


There is a reason God is against us.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I hope you don't mind me throwing in a few more observations.



O_o said:


> At this point, and with everything, going back and forth. I can see IxFJ. But The "problem of fluidity" is still sort of engraved in me. Look how my communication style changed when FearAndTrembling entered the conversation. [...] I wonder if this could... be Fe in a sense... but having it in the back of my mind always makes me wonder which is genuine, and I think maybe only an outside observer could note it better than me. Which is a horrible way to look at this all to begin with.


To some extent everyone does this, of course. All people are going to vary output slightly based on the input received. And I meant to ask earlier but forgot - do you know your instinctual stacking? As Social-first, I am personally also quick to see and adjust for social norms. That said, interesting that you noted it. I didn't feel any jilt in it. You just seemed to flow from T to N, as we all may do. FearAndTrembling brought in some thoughts that seemed to make your internal process blossom. Like he spoke a language you were more fluent in and you fluidly switched over. This could be indicative of Pi, or Ni, or Fe, or just that you two are Ns on the same page. I have already mentioned my personal opinion so will not press it. 



> So these are the moments where I wonder about Si in specific, to me I also see it as a "vibe" function: I have a lot of items that I find incredibly significant. There are items I would honestly bawl my eyes out if I lost. There is a bear I grew up with as a child, and the bear is now in some bag in our attic over in Croatia, and thinking about it kills me : my childhood in some dark bag, as if it were irrelevant and forgotten about. I don't have any pictures or etc, but I could never ever throw some things away. I don't think I'm particularly good with details or noticing slight differences in things, but I'm really sensitive to my environment being rearranged and losing something with I think connects me to a past part of my life. A friend of mind is always moving her things around : the thought of that makes me really uncomfortable. As a kid, my mom's haircuts would tramatize me : she looks different, I want her to look the same, I don't want her to change.
> 
> Or maybe it could be a result of Ni. Because it could never mean "just a haircut" to me : what else are you willing to change and can I trust you? Of course as I kid I just knew it made me incredibly uncomfortable. Maybe most kids are like that.


This is interesting to me because at first I thought you were sad about the bear itself, but it sounds like you are more sad about what the bear and its location represents. Same with your environment - it not being about the specific things but about the connections. With due respect, I struggle to see why you are considering S. You seem so strongly N in both your language and your content. 

I can borrow my ISFJ later and prod him for information, but suffice it to say for the moment that it is rare that he assigns representational meaning to physical objects. He certainly becomes attached to specific items that he likes, particularly ones that have an emotional history, but I cannot remember many instances of him "creating" symbols. Rather, he has a vivid memory of his childhood, and he often links present cues to past (i.e., _this park reminds me of the park I would go to as a child. That park was like this [description]_). 

PS my _ISTP_ brother used to cry when my mom got her hair colored. ISTP! Lol.  



FearAndTrembling said:


> Ni is water/fluid. It is dynamic. It surfs.


I like that you say this. My best metaphor for Ne is "surfing" on a matrix of Si-dots of information. Indeed Ni could be the fluid.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

angelfish said:


> I hope you don't mind me throwing in a few more observations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who even knows? I said the same thing about Ne. I may even be Ne. lol. Ne is like a tree that branches out amongst all possibilities, but it has deep Si roots it can draw from. Or something. Ni and Se may work in the same fashion.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

StunnedFox said:


> One idea I've toyed with before - though it's not entirely clear how comfortably this sits within more established functions frameworks - is that the attitude of a function needn't be a question of "one or the other", that what a person has is X-dominance that is more Xi than Xe... given you can see elements of both N functions without strongly being convinced of either, such a perspective could be a relevant consideration here. As you say, though, it could be a matter of "aptitude" - if every function were only truly present in people who exemplified it "at its best", then few would truly fit within that system - and that the dominance of a function needn't be as overt as observation might suggest it is for some others (which is a similar point to the one about being so accustomed to the dominant as to be blind to it, but different enough to be worth mentioning here, I think).
> 
> I wouldn't say I've accepted Ne being more powerful than Si, so much as I've accepted that the INTP type profile as a whole (encompassing the descriptions, dichotomy preferences, function stack, &c.) fits me better than any other type profile - or, as I like to think of it, carries less cause for doubt than any of the other fifteen. I would still say I relate to Si more than I do Ne (given my own uncertainty, this doesn't shed much light on whether it's Si or not, but I can relate strongly to what you describe above, about wanting to keep things that feel connected to past aspects of yourself around, the loss - or even neglect - of such being rather painful...), and certainly there are still plenty of type- and personality-related matters I've yet to satisfactorily settle - such matters, I think, should always remain open, whether a type label is "accepted" at any given time or not. As a result of this, I do get thrown a bit when people make statements suggesting that something I've posted is "typically INTP" or similar (or even "very Ti", despite my relative confidence that Ti is the best-fitting of the eight functions), since it's usually presented with far more conviction than I myself am comfortable in claiming...
> 
> To what extent are you aware of the "fluidity" you discuss above whilst actually writing the responses? The fact that function stacks aren't typically framed so directly in terms of preference as other limbs of the theory makes accounting for "fluctuations" a harder task in that realm, to know what to make of traits such as this... interesting, also, to frame it in terms of genuineness: do you have similar qualms about other aspects of Fe (e.g., the traits you posted in the spoiler of your last response to me), or only in relation to adapting to others' forms of expression?


I've thought of it in a similar way. Kind of spectrums of the same thing. Like one of those large flashlight : you turn it in one direction and the light is thin and weak but reaches in all direction, turn it in an opposite and you get a very fine, dense point. But it's light, just light on different settings. One is just temporal while the other is spacial. Now the curious question is what that middle ground might look like if that were the case. 

But I've done this before, the whole "No. You don't understand. They're completely different. They may LOOK the same but they're actually using opposite functions" and a part of that seems so... distracting, honestly. There have been people on here who thought they were INTJs and others argued that they were actually ESFPs, people who questioned being ENTP and individuals arguing they were ESFJs (I've witnessed both of these play out on other people's threads) and they actually made it "sound" like it made sense. Really... in a way I'm with Rectful on this one : there is relevance behind the letters themselves. There is something to those simplistic, 15 question dichotomy tests that make sense. If you take one and get INTJ, chances are you're somewhere within your ballpoint. 

There's a reason people might get really frustrated when others throw out types so off track and with such confidence: we might not know the details but we get the general image. For years I've sided with Ne and sense extroversion in general yet maybe being the most... retreating people I know. And it's really amusing how revered this can be : you can take someone's most basic and fundamental trait, look at it for long enough, and obscure it into something so different. And you can think "yes! I've analyzed this enough, while "basics" say it's X, it's actually Y and here's why : ! . Other people on this website go through this every day. And I'm sure you've met some of the typers out there that are like this; you can't crack a hole through their argument, it's bullet proof but the conclusion still manages to seem so humorously off. 

The INxx aspect of the personality never seemed wrong. Ni did. Introversion and intuition never seemed wrong to me : introverted intuition did. *LOOK AT THAT. That's sort of insane. T​hat's what its come down to. *That's why Myer's introduced the fifth dimension of "J" to begin with, actually. Not that it takes away from the point, really. 

I think I told you before that I respect that, there's a lot of honesty and fluidity in that. Even in your posts thought, in general. What some people do is try to violently stir their way around the Si if they were in your position, or in general any function causing a "bump". It's the very nature of the whole thing to begin with, so I agree and I guess it's important to have a healthy relationship with that doubt. They're complicated concepts incapable of ever being described without subjectivity. 

Regarding fluidity. And going back to what I said about words. It takes me a long time to respond to these sort of posts because of what they require me to do. I can't just crack my knuckles and power away. Imagining this conversation in real time... me trying to turn it onto myself and explain myself (who I am as a person), would be... so painfully slow and confusing that it would probably never actually happen. Regarding Fe and fluctuation, I think it's more "disruption" than anything. It's the function assuming roles : I am good at "playing roles" according to settings, sort of naturally syncing up to people (amping myself up, being just a listener, etc). It's fairly consistent when I look back at myself before and now. But I think I've always been bumpy with it; I've made people feel really intimidated by my presence, whether it's from trying to dig too much into them or from just being very distant. But I think I've typically been aware of what I'm doing wrong and how to tweak it : I know what it would take to get an X social result. There is a certain social code acting on each of us, and I frustrated when others are sort of "blind" to it: I have a friend who never offers to drive, so I'm always the one driving us around. I think she assumes that because I don't complain about it that I'm indifferent but I'm not, yet I don't want to say "how about you drive?" because I think she should offer first. This same friend never greets my dad when she walks into my house : that's basic hospitality, you greet the elders, you're stepping into someone's house. Me saying to her "please say bye and hi to my dad next time, he get's upset when people walk right into his home, walk right next to him, and don't acknowledge him" : sounds... weird, that's not my job to tell friends something like that. There was an event about half a year ago where we were meeting up with my homeless uncle's friend in the city (my uncle was in a car accident and we were trying to get him some of his things). The friend helped us and at the end, the man tried to shake hands with all of us and the girl that was with my mom's friend starred at it in the most disgusted way and awkwardly took it without looking him in the face. Her mom seems aloof to it but my mom and I picked up on it right away. 

But, of course, there are situations where I will step outside of it. Under times of stress I will step outside of it. I will step outside of it when I think there's something more important going on : my aunt was over and said something incredibly demeaning about black people in such a "matter-of-fact" way. In situations like this, there's no border of "my aunt : I'm her niece". Borders fall apart : you may be my uncle but I see how you treat the individuals around you, I know how you stole my parents property when they have shown nothing but respect for you. But I know you don't have the ounce of respect for my dad when he turns his back. He's a cold, insecure man who can't bare the thought of individuals who he can't sway into his conversations : my 19 year old cousin irks him because he doesn't laugh at his jokes, so he must "think he's too good for us. He must not like me so I hate him". And I won't say anything, because there's 'too much to lose' if we sever that tie. But whether boss, uncle, professor, friend : all these are masks, masks that are relevant, but everyone is as fair-game as anybody else. Democratic vs aristocratic.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

O_o said:


> I've thought of it in a similar way. Kind of spectrums of the same thing. Like one of those large flashlight : you turn it in one direction and the light is thin and weak but reaches in all direction, turn it in an opposite and you get a very fine, dense point. But it's light, just light on different settings. One is just temporal while the other is spacial. Now the curious question is what that middle ground might look like if that were the case.
> 
> But I've done this before, the whole "No. You don't understand. They're completely different. They may LOOK the same but they're actually using opposite functions" and a part of that seems so... distracting, honestly. There have been people on here who thought they were INTJs and others argued that they were actually ESFPs, people who questioned being ENTP and individuals arguing they were ESFJs (I've witnessed both of these play out on other people's threads) and they actually made it "sound" like it made sense. Really... in a way I'm with Rectful on this one : there is relevance behind the letters themselves. There is something to those simplistic, 15 question dichotomy tests that make sense. If you take one and get INTJ, chances are you're somewhere within your ballpoint.
> 
> ...


Right. It's that malleability, amongst other things, that leaves me wary of the functions side of the theory in general; if so many contrary suggestions can have "convincing" arguments presented for them, then what you treat as constituting "convincing" is surely at fault, because, if there is anything objectively true, then only that position should be capable of being convincingly argued for. It's not that the ideas presented are necessarily wrong - as you say, "you can't crack a hole through their argument" - so much as that, when anything observed "could be" something other than what it appears to be, in what sense is anything to be viewed as certain? What looks categorically like Fi could just be tertiary Ti manifesting through auxiliary Fe, or inferior Fe manifesting through dominant Ti, or actually Fi but as a "shadow function"... because it could, essentially, mean anything, it ends up actually meaning essentially nothing. You're right, of course, that you can mould even the most fundamental aspects of a person into something other than what they are, given enough time, and pass off the seemingly counter-intuitive conclusion as actually being "deeper" than what is obvious... 



> Regarding fluidity. And going back to what I said about words. It takes me a long time to respond to these sort of posts because of what they require me to do. I can't just crack my knuckles and power away. Imagining this conversation in real time... me trying to turn it onto myself and explain myself (who I am as a person), would be... so painfully slow and confusing that it would probably never actually happen. Regarding Fe and fluctuation, I think it's more "disruption" than anything. It's the function assuming roles : I am good at "playing roles" according to settings, sort of naturally syncing up to people (amping myself up, being just a listener, etc). It's fairly consistent when I look back at myself before and now. But I think I've always been bumpy with it; I've made people feel really intimidated by my presence, whether it's from trying to dig too much into them or from just being very distant. But I think I've typically been aware of what I'm doing wrong and how to tweak it : I know what it would take to get an X social result. There is a certain social code acting on each of us, and I frustrated when others are sort of "blind" to it: I have a friend who never offers to drive, so I'm always the one driving us around. I think she assumes that because I don't complain about it that I'm indifferent but I'm not, yet I don't want to say "how about you drive?" because I think she should offer first. This same friend never greets my dad when she walks into my house : that's basic hospitality, you greet the elders, you're stepping into someone's house. Me saying to her "please say bye and hi to my dad next time, he get's upset when people walk right into his home, walk right next to him, and don't acknowledge him" : sounds... weird, that's not my job to tell friends something like that. There was an event about half a year ago where we were meeting up with my homeless uncle's friend in the city (my uncle was in a car accident and we were trying to get him some of his things). The friend helped us and at the end, the man tried to shake hands with all of us and the girl that was with my mom's friend starred at it in the most disgusted way and awkwardly took it without looking him in the face. Her mom seems aloof to it but my mom and I picked up on it right away.
> 
> But, of course, there are situations where I will step outside of it. Under times of stress I will step outside of it. I will step outside of it when I think there's something more important going on : my aunt was over and said something incredibly demeaning about black people in such a "matter-of-fact" way. In situations like this, there's no border of "my aunt : I'm her niece". Borders fall apart : you may be my uncle but I see how you treat the individuals around you, I know how you stole my parents property when they have shown nothing but respect for you. But I know you don't have the ounce of respect for my dad when he turns his back. He's a cold, insecure man who can't bare the thought of individuals who he can't sway into his conversations : my 19 year old cousin irks him because he doesn't laugh at his jokes, so he must "think he's too good for us. He must not like me so I hate him". And I won't say anything, because there's 'too much to lose' if we sever that tie. But whether boss, uncle, professor, friend : all these are masks, masks that are relevant, but everyone is as fair-game as anybody else. Democratic vs aristocratic.


There would be very few psychological "modes", if you will, that people wouldn't step outside of from time to time, and that doing so occurs during times of stress would seem to reinforce the previous conclusion of high Fe (as would the description of the function itself - awareness of a "social code", frustration at others' blindness to it, knowing what achieves particular social results, the specific examples provided...). Though whether the slowness/delay when turning inward is to do with that, or has to do with something else, is hard to say (which, of course, is the issue here, as mentioned above). 

As you've continued to point out, the subjectivity of it all is what makes typing within a system like this so difficult, and in such situations, it's hard to see how anything could be regarded as beyond doubt, even if a leaning sufficient to suggest that a given type were the "best fit" could be discerned. What draws you towards "preferring" a functions-based approach to type, then, given these clear issues? Ideally, of course, the two approaches align, but it seems evident that there's no reason to suppose this assumption actually holds... my apologies if this post seems a touch meandering, or not really addressing much, it felt that way as I wrote it...


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

TyranAmiros said:


> I will be the first to admit I tend to hyperbolize in argumentation. I used to debate in high school and college, where taking things to an illogical conclusion was highly valued. As a teacher (and amateur typer) I sometimes use "very Ti" (for example) to point out something that may be more evident from an objective perspective than from introspection. I suppose this is counter to my larger utilitarian attitude toward type, but I've learned from personal experience that we can be blind to our own ways.
> 
> My attitude is that we do have types, but the real value of typing is self-improvement and discovery. If you want to go above just labelling yourself, I think by uncovering our tendencies to think and approach things in certain ways, we learn to be on the lookout for the places we need to be wary of our cognitive style. For example, an INFJ might recognize their tendency to look for hidden meanings and make relationships more complex than need be. An INFP, for example, misidentifying as an INFJ might look at something like that and say, "I don't do that, I must be very healthy." There's just enough overlap (perfectionism, liking organization) that it may seem valid on its face.


Lol : " college, where taking things to an illogical conclusion was highly valued". It's interesting that you bring up... tendencies. I'm looking back and trying to sort of see what my bad habits around. And then I remember : I'm paranoid! Actually, I'm not sure if you've ever run into it (nor am I sure whether it's even remotely close to be accurate) but regarding auxiliary and tertiary loops but the argument for it... seemed like it made sense. For ISTPs and INFJ it's the same. It's stepping into the unhealthy and I know that's... tricky territory. But it's a "gut" thing : overwhelming feeling that something is off for some reason. My computer shuts down while I'm looking up something : you bet I'll take this to mean more than it does. I think my kitchen is haunted and I don't even believe in the supernatural. Sometimes I'll look at people and think "you're not really the person, you're possessed" and my brain will try to rationalize "no , there's no sense to that.... or is that what they want me to think. There's a chance that this, this and this are happening" and it just... spirals into irrationality. And it's not a minor, weak effect : there have been times that I've been paralyzed in fear in my room, so certain that there was some sort of danger outside my room. But it's an extreme example : I don't think that's really significant or a proper tool, that's not what's meant by "tendencies to look out for" lol. Though I do try to overanalyze people and their actions.. "everything is more than it seems" sort of deal. And when I sense inconsistency, or someone masking themselves, I can't really let this go and just trust that the person is as they say they are. So I "create" stories for people and there is certainly a chance that I've interpreted some things are being more significant than they really were. . I was certain this was Ne though : my ISFP friend always says "stop over analyzing it. Maybe they said X because they actually meant X". God forbid someone I'm, for example, on the date with happens to have some song playing in their car from a CD. Because I will automatically think there is a message in it they're trying to tell me. Why? Because this is the sort of shit I pull : I'll try to time it and have it come up at a specific spot where I know they'll hear it. I consistently "talk" indirectly and think others are trying to do the same. So, whatever my type may be, it's probably something to keep an eye on. 



> _One advantage of visual processing is it doesn’t have the same rules or impediments of verbal processing. In some cases, problems may be better solved by employing images or symbols rather than by other means. It should not surprise us that Jung himself hailed the value of imagery and symbols._


I'll think about this. I can understand why you thought it related to what I said before. But right now there's kind of a disconnect; I'm not really sure if it fits.

In a sense, Ti is the "self" of INFJs. Ni the eyes and Ti the self. 
Ni is perception. It's sight, gut, synchronism, symbolism, etc. But it's sight. Sight just reacts. Fe is external, it's collecting, it's never a representation of the self, it's imprinted. You can notice it but it's not you.
So there's the third function : Ti. Internal judgement. Self generated and personally crafted.

It reminds me of an ENTJ friend I had. He had strong opinions, personality, but you could just tell when he talked that the "self" factor was... weak, I guess.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> *"I don't think I know how to manipulate objective in my physical world in a productive and quick way."
> 
> *lol one of my biggest problems too.


An object is an object. It's almost humorous that I have high spatial intelligence because all I can do is react to it and visualize it; let me drive you to California without a map but God forbid you expect me to build you a house. I look at a door and I'm looking at the door; I don't mold objects. Objects are concrete, they're there, three dimensional and frozen and they can signify a dozen different things at the same time. 

When I was in Boston I got a document of the Constitution of the US. I had a large image of Napoleon's coronation above my piano at one point until my dad ripped it down because he hated what Napoleon represented. I have a golden venetian mask which is hanging above my mirror. Tiny bottles of French perfumes I got in Paris. I have a few candles (a lot of candles.) A very old, victorian tea set, piano, squash and tiny pumpkins. There is nothing morphed in my room. I have no work of art, no pictures of family or friends. Arguably, none of these items represent anything united but I feel like they all perfectly fit. I think when you walk in there, a person can get an overwhelming feeling about the sort of person I am. Not by looking at any item individually, but that first gut feeling that hits you when you look at something before you tune into anything (Ti) : this is how I'm understanding Ni to be right now and I still could be wrong. 
*
*


> Ni is water/fluid. It is dynamic. It surfs.
> 
> "It's pretty hairy in there, it's Charlie's point.."
> 
> ...


I haven't see the movie with Kaspar Hauser, but I'm not sure if you're right. Maybe you are and I don't know enough about him. Kaspar seems confused about his disconnect. Like an alien that's not too sure about the nature of life. 
People being wolves to him? It's an organized view of human kind. Any time people compare others to wolves, I imagine some sort of respect out of that. "People are wolves" vs "People are apes" : Gorillas and apes have wars and kill their own kind, whether within their group or not, just imagine the sounds they make while they're bitting into each others flesh. Wolves are incredibly organized. Both can be violent, but which would you rather represent you? I get frustrated whenever anyone speaks in "People are" terms for some reason.


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

O_o said:


> Lol : " college, where taking things to an illogical conclusion was highly valued". It's interesting that you bring up... tendencies. I'm looking back and trying to sort of see what my bad habits around. And then I remember : I'm paranoid! Actually, I'm not sure if you've ever run into it (nor am I sure whether it's even remotely close to be accurate) but regarding auxiliary and tertiary loops but the argument for it... seemed like it made sense. For ISTPs and INFJ it's the same. It's stepping into the unhealthy and I know that's... tricky territory. But it's a "gut" thing : overwhelming feeling that something is off for some reason.


Paranoia is definitely something that comes with the Ni-Ti loop. Since both ideas and analysis are introverted, when Ni and Ti are looping, there's no grounding there. Ti confirms Ni hunches with no relationship to the real/outside world. A real life example--my INFJ sister ran two experiments for a study. The second one didn't come out as expected, and she started blaming people for not answering honestly. Because she "knew" what the right answer should have been--even the first survey said so--but the second wasn't conclusive enough. So she developed long-winded reasons as to why she didn't get the results she expected. If you want to see a fictional example, I don't know for INFJ, but the ISTP one is well illustrated in The OC-- Ryan Atwood is constantly going through Ti-Ni loops. 

Compare the ENFP's Ne-Te loop--that's all about stubbornness. External ideas. External standards for analysis. It's reductionist--it's Lorelai Gilmore's attitude toward her parents. 



> I was certain this was Ne though : my ISFP friend always says "stop over analyzing it. Maybe they said X because they actually meant X".


The main reason I wanted to reply actually was on this point. This is Ti, not Ne. They key is in the analysis part--as you say below, the perception functions don't analyze/judge. The closest they get is interpretation, but they throw it to the judging functions to conclude. It's Ti that tends to over analyze things, because unlike Fi, Ti is neutral to the morality of the argument. And Ti relies on Fe to judge not the correctness but the social acceptability of the matter. Your ISFP friend is likely reacting to your Fe-Ti need to "check in" about things because they don't need to. Listen to _Judge Judy_ or _Dr. Laura_ (both ExTJs)--I guarantee you'll hear a lot of things like "you're making this more complicated than necessary". That's generally the FJs who want to provide context for Fe decisions and the TJs who are like, "context generally doesn't matter, I have a rule I follow."


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

O_o said:


> An object is an object. It's almost humorous that I have high spatial intelligence because all I can do is react to it and visualize it; let me drive you to California without a map but God forbid you expect me to build you a house. I look at a door and I'm looking at the door; I don't mold objects. Objects are concrete, they're there, three dimensional and frozen and they can signify a dozen different things at the same time.
> 
> When I was in Boston I got a document of the Constitution of the US. I had a large image of Napoleon's coronation above my piano at one point until my dad ripped it down because he hated what Napoleon represented. I have a golden venetian mask which is hanging above my mirror. Tiny bottles of French perfumes I got in Paris. I have a few candles (a lot of candles.) A very old, victorian tea set, piano, squash and tiny pumpkins. There is nothing morphed in my room. I have no work of art, no pictures of family or friends. Arguably, none of these items represent anything united but I feel like they all perfectly fit. I think when you walk in there, a person can get an overwhelming feeling about the sort of person I am. Not by looking at any item individually, but that first gut feeling that hits you when you look at something before you tune into anything (Ti) : this is how I'm understanding Ni to be right now and I still could be wrong.
> *
> ...


You don't know his background. He fell out of the sky. It is actually the story of Jesus imo. It was about an innocent man who was corrupted by the world and killed by an unknown father. Who we now dismiss as a lunatic.

It is very Jamesian. When that freak Kaspar dies they find something wrong with his liver. That explains it all. That explains what is wrong with him. They have their answer. Never thinking it is something wrong with society but something wrong with him. It mocks that world of "medical materialism" as James put to within an inch of its life. 

He is like an alien in this human world. One part that made me lol, but greatly fits in the larger point: they are showing him how the world works. They pick some apples off the tree. One of the guys drops a few apples. And reaches to pick them up, and Kaspar says, "No! Let them be. They are tired. They want to rest." And they have to explain to them, "No Kaspar, apples do not have a will. They are here for us." Just like everything else. 

It is ironic that the liver is the organ used because James used that example too. Medical materialism:



We are surely all familiar in a general way with this method of discrediting states of mind for which we have an antipathy. We all use it to some degree in criticising persons whose states of mind we regard as overstrained. But when other people criticise our own more exalted soul-flights by calling them 'nothing but' expressions of our organic disposition, we feel outraged and hurt, for we know that, whatever be our organism's peculiarities, our mental states have their substantive value as revelations of the living truth; and we wish that all this medical materialism could be made to hold its tongue.

Medical materialism seems indeed a good appellation for the too simple-minded system of thought which we are considering. Medical materialism finishes up Saint Paul by calling his vision on the road to Damascus a discharging lesion of the occipital cortex, he being an epileptic. It snuffs out Saint Teresa as an hysteric, Saint Francis of Assisi as an hereditary degenerate. George Fox's discontent with the shams of his age, and his pining for spiritual veracity, it treats as a symptom of a disordered colon. Carlyle's organ-tones of misery it accounts for by a gastro-duodenal catarrh. All such mental over-tensions, it says, are, when you come to the bottom of the matter, mere affairs of diathesis (auto-intoxications most probably), due to the perverted action of various glands which physiology will yet discover.




Let us ourselves look at the matter in the largest possible way. Modern psychology, finding definite psycho-physical connections to hold good, assumes as a convenient hypothesis that the dependence of mental states upon bodily conditions must be thorough-going and complete. If we adopt the assumption, then of course what medical materialism insists on must be true in a general way, if not in every detail: Saint Paul certainly had once an epileptoid, if not an epileptic seizure; George Fox was an hereditary degenerate; Carlyle was undoubtedly auto-intoxicated by some organ or other, no matter which,- and the rest. But now, I ask you, how can such an existential account of facts of mental history decide in one way or another upon their spiritual significance? According to the general postulate of psychology just referred to, there is not a single one of our states of mind, high or low, healthy or morbid, that has not some organic process as its condition. Scientific theories are organically conditioned just as much as religious emotions are; and if we only knew the facts intimately enough, we should doubtless see 'the liver' determining the dicta of the sturdy atheist as decisively as it does those of the Methodist under conviction anxious about his soul. When it alters in one way the blood that percolates it, we get the methodist, when in another way, we get the atheist form of mind. So of all our rapturer, and our drynesses, our longings and pantings, our questions and beliefs. They are equally organically founded, be they of religious or of non-religious content.

To plead the organic causation of a religious state of mind, then, in refutation of its claim to possess superior spiritual value, is quite illogical and arbitrary, unless one have already worked out in advance some psycho-physical theory connecting spiritual values in general with determinate sorts of physiological change. Otherwise none of our thoughts and feelings, not even our scientific doctrines, not even our dis-beliefs, could retain any value as revelations of the truth, for every one of them without exception flows from the state of their possessor's body at the time








It is needless to say that medical materialism draws in point of fact no such sweeping skeptical conclusion. It is sure, just as every simple man is sure, that some states of mind are inwardly superior to others, and reveal to us more truth, and in this it simply makes use of an ordinary spiritual judgment. It has no physiological theory of the production of these its favorite states, by which it may accredit them; and its attempt to discredit the states which it dislikes, by vaguely associating them with nerves and liver, and connecting them with names connoting bodily affliction, is altogether illogical and inconsistent.

Let us play fair in this whole matter, and be quite candid with ourselves and with the facts. When we think certain states of mind superior to others, is it ever because of what we know concerning their organic antecedents? No! it is always for two entirely different reasons


----------

