# What Introverted Intuition Ni is and how it works



## Annie Anthonio (Sep 27, 2014)

Ni is like how one putting jigsaw puzzles together. There is always a vision. a big picture. the finished picture on the puzzle box. The information perceived are the puzzle pieces. Ni will place the piece in an appropriate spot in order to fit the vision. Ni seems mysterious to others because others don’t have that vision, that finished picture of the puzzle. Ni does not need all the puzzle pieces to know what the picture is like. But when questioned, Ni cannot provide proof unless all the pieces are presented.

Meanings, and how all seemingly unrelated ideas and information are all connected and can be united to one universal truth.

For example, I watched an episode of Xfile (Season 10 Ep.3), then followed with a Chinese martial arts comedy. Like usual, Ni seek subsurface meaning of the two seemingly unrelated idea and connect.

The Xfile episode was one of those comedy ones (you will know if you used to watch Xfile) Mulder caught a monster that accidentally turned into a human (instead of a human turned into a monster). And the monster begged Mulder to kill him because of how miserable a human’s life is. He had to put clothes on, found a job, did a job that he hated, paid bills, watched porn, had a pet, ordered food from drive thru……..in his perspective, human society make no sense at all! and it was hell for a “monster”.

Followed with a martial art comedy “ King of the beggars”, about a son of one of the wealthiest man. He made enemies because of his arrogance and finally it came back around and bite him in the ass. The emperor made him to be a beggar his whole life. His enemy broke his arms and legs. Losing all his wealth and pride, a mysterious old beggar asked him, “what was so good in your previous life that is such a big loss?” (The character didn’t answer but my Ni filled in the blank - He had everything but he had nothing. He didn’t know how it was like to accomplish something when everything was handed to him, couldn’t have connection with others when everyone was after his money. He was handcuffed by his own wealth because without his wealth he was nothing. Robert Durst popped into my mind) Then the old man taught him a set of very powerful martial art called “Sleeping Buddha”. He had to be asleep when he used it. My Ni then “ saw” the meanings of “Sleeping Buddha”, which is letting go of superficial things in life, will give you power, in yourselves.

Ni then proceed to fit the two pieces into a big picture. This is where it gets interesting. Ni does not need the Ti to add things up, if Ni doesn’t need to explain “ why” to other people. As for how the Xfile and the “Sleeping Buddha” related, I am afraid my attempt to explain it in terms of a+b=c, will defeat its purpose. If you get it, you get it.

However, this vision is vary. I can see how this mind set can lead to conspiracy theory and paranoid, if an INFJ or INTJ shuts the physical reality out, which the Ni doms are prone to do

Another example of Ni is learning style. Ni’s ability to see through the ultimate purpose of everything make me a great self learner. I usually figure things out myself. I can always provide insight of how things work and people would confuse I really am good at certain skills. The insight can be so convincing for some that I sometimes was asked “Where did you get your training from?”. But really my only skill is to provide insight. I have to admit my skill of the actual application, the technique aspect of things I am bad at. For example, my cooking is always a hit and miss. I understand the purpose of each method and I can flexibly use it. But I don’t always taste my food!!

My previous jobs were a great example. I did really good at customer service at a law firm and selling cosmetics. Both jobs did not give me any intial training. I worked by myself the first weeks at both jobs. I also worked as an merchandiser and a hostess, which I had a hard time. There were too much mundane details and procedures and no flex room. Same thing with the hostess position, I had a very hard time to work within an existing system which I saw as ineffectient. Having to constantly look at the seating chart killed me.

Even with my paintings, I never got around to actually learn the technique. Although it usually comes out fine to wow non artists, the painting usually were not what I visioned, due to the lack of technique.

All in all, because of Ni, I am a great “bullshiter”, a theorist, with very little practical skills.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

You seem to have a solid foundation for understanding this function, and I applaud the desire to explain it to people, given the amount of Ni myth that floats around in the MBTI cosmos. There are few authentic INxJs in the world, and as a result the amount of these sorts of texts explaining our psyches is rather little, which is sad thing.

However, I don't think what you've written here can be seen as a definitive explanation because, in a way, you're not really talking about a function. You've listed certain thought processes or traits, which, while they may be frequently present in INxJs, are not definitive about their cognition. You should be asking yourself _why_ these processes occur, not so much what they are. A function isn't, as the name would suggest, an amalgamation of processes, but a mental perspective. It tells you what sorts of information your brain naturally focuses on, how your brain metabolizes that information (to steal some terminology from Socionics), and what you mental assumptions are as a result of that information.

Let me put in terms of Ni: as an introverted intuitive, my mind is focused on intuitive information: possibility, connections, basically anything beyond the direct experience of the information or event. To quote Jung, intuition tells you "from whence [an object] comes and whither it goes"; intuition is "perception via the unconscious", unconscious here meaning the periphery of sensation--things that our attention doesn't normally fall on. Introversion focuses it inward, abstracting from reality and putting it squarely in the realm of the mind and the unconscious: introverted intuition, rather than perceiving from whence an external object comes and whither it goes, perceives the same for inner objects, those being mental experiences or images, and especially with respect to the archetypes in the collective unconscious. It's a bit difficult to explain, because often times these objects or images have no actual form within the mind, but are intangible and invisible collections of thoughts and characteristics that the introverted intuitive is unconsciously aware of in most situations.

Obviously what I just wrote is highly abridged, but my point is that functions are something more elemental than just making a person good at guessing. They explain the fundamental, more base considerations of someone's mind, and deciphering those sorts of things takes a lot of introspection and thought. Don't take this as me bashing your post, though; you have a solid foundation here. All I'm saying is that you should keep working to build it up.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

I'm still trying to understand Pi, but as a Pe-aux I haven't grasped it as easily. I had a brainstorm today at work and I'm just now writing it down. Pi-doms, please let me know what you think of it 

If iNuition is attracted to ideas, then it seems to me that Ni is attracted to its own ideas, and Ne is attracted to other people's ideas. (Neither one is better, it's just an orientation.) Of course there's a lot more going on, but that seems to be the difference in a nutshell.

As for Ni vs. Si, they are similar in that both are attracted to internal perceptions, but while Ni is attracted to ideas, Si is attracted to practices: not just traditions, but also new systems that have promise... how tangible results in the real world affect them internally. So then Ni is about one's own impression of theories, and Si is about one's own impression of practices.

Am I close?


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

Verity3 said:


> If iNuition is attracted to ideas, then it seems to me that Ni is attracted to its own ideas, and Ne is attracted to other people's ideas. (Neither one is better, it's just an orientation.) Of course there's a lot more going on, but that seems to be the difference in a nutshell.


I'm not sure that's completely fair, although it does remind me of something Lenore Thomson once said. Ni types, in the discovery process, tend to be very inaccessible in their thinking, and what they have to contribute tends to be introduced "fully formed" to others. Ne types, on the other hand, are very accessible in the discovery process, getting excited and quickly involving others before anything has been pinned down.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Verity3 said:


> If iNuition is attracted to ideas, then it seems to me that Ni is attracted to its own ideas, and Ne is attracted to other people's ideas. (Neither one is better, it's just an orientation.) Of course there's a lot more going on, but that seems to be the difference in a nutshell.


A better way of putting this would be to say that Ni views meaning as dependent on the individual and is more concerned with the unexpressed aspects of an object (mental or otherwise). In the case of an idea that has been expressed, Ni is going to be asking why a person thought that or chose those words to describe it because those are insights that push the intuition deeper into the mind of the person who created the idea. Ne, on the other hand, views meaning as intrinsic to the object itself and is really only concerned with what has been expressed. It isn't nearly as meta as Ni would be in this respect.

I take issue with saying that intuition is attracted to ideas. Not because that's necessarily wrong, but because intuition doesn't necessarily mean that they like ideas or are inherently abstract. (The latter is more commonly associated with introversion.) It would be better to say that intuitives are concerned with what is not directly in front of them, what goes beyond the direct experience of something. In that case, Ni would be concerned with going beyond its own experience insofar as the possibilities it perceives maintain its focus inward, and conversely, Ne would be concerned with going beyond its own experience insofar as the possibilities it perceives maintain its outward focus. I recoil from defining intuition by ideas simply because that term is kind of fuzzy and it doesn't really capture everything that intuition is about.



Verity3 said:


> As for Ni vs. Si, they are similar in that both are attracted to internal perceptions, but while Ni is attracted to ideas, Si is attracted to practices: not just traditions, but also new systems that have promise... how tangible results in the real world affect them internally. So then Ni is about one's own impression of theories, and Si is about one's own impression of practices.


Similar to why I refrain from defining intuition by ideas, I refrain from defining sensation by practice. Again, it's much better to define sensation as direct experience and intuition as going beyond that direct experience. At their basest, Si directly experiences the inner world and Ni goes beyond the direct experience of the inner world. Consider it like this: Se is to the outer world as Si is to the inner world (and I think you can figure out what I would say for intuition). That means that Si has the same direct connection to the inner world as Se has to the external reality. While Si is more abstract than just internal physical events, that is still part of it. However, it has a similar relationship to mental events or other non-physical phenomena. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure where the stereotype of tradition comes from for Si. It prefers stable environments, and tradition provides that, but I don't think that defining Si as such is really a fair maxim since it doesn't give due consideration to the causes of those behaviors.

With respect to Ni...I've sort of articulated this already, but I'll restate it. Intuition goes beyond direct experience, whether internal or external. It perceives from the periphery of our awareness; if you've ever entered a room and gotten a 'vibe', that's intuition. Furthermore, it perceives the past and future of an object or event, but not necessarily the present. This stems from that same focus on our unconscious perceptions over that which we are consciously aware. So Ni, being introverted, orients this mental focus inward. It's sort of a hard concept to grasp, but it does its intuiting with inner images and experiences, not so much things that are plainly expressed in external reality. Part of the difficulty is that this is high abstract, but also because Westerners don't normally think about connecting our inner experiences to other inner experiences. I've mentioned the collective unconscious and archetypes before, and that also ties in here. Many of these 'objects' that Ni goes beyond the direct experience of are these archetypes that Jung mentions quite often. Again, this is difficult to understand because they are so separated from reality, but this is nonetheless a fundamental aspect of Ni. It is also quite true of Si, though I imagine that ISxJs directly experience this archetypes as opposed to Ni's intuitive approach to their existence. How that works for Si-doms, however, I have no idea.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

VagrantFarce said:


> I'm not sure that's completely fair, although it does remind me of something Lenore Thomson once said. Ni types, in the discovery process, tend to be very inaccessible in their thinking, and what they have to contribute tends to be introduced "fully formed" to others. Ne types, on the other hand, are very accessible in the discovery process, getting excited and quickly involving others before anything has been pinned down.


That's interesting; I do find that I resonate with Thomson's model more than with other models. So are you saying that she may be overstating the link between N and ideas, or the links between Ni and their own ideas vs. Ne and others' ideas?


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> A better way of putting this would be to say that Ni views meaning as dependent on the individual and is more concerned with the unexpressed aspects of an object (mental or otherwise). In the case of an idea that has been expressed, Ni is going to be asking why a person thought that or chose those words to describe it because those are insights that push the intuition deeper into the mind of the person who created the idea. Ne, on the other hand, views meaning as intrinsic to the object itself and is really only concerned with what has been expressed. It isn't nearly as meta as Ni would be in this respect.
> 
> I take issue with saying that intuition is attracted to ideas. Not because that's necessarily wrong, but because intuition doesn't necessarily mean that they like ideas or are inherently abstract. (The latter is more commonly associated with introversion.) It would be better to say that intuitives are concerned with what is not directly in front of them, what goes beyond the direct experience of something. In that case, Ni would be concerned with going beyond its own experience insofar as the possibilities it perceives maintain its focus inward, and conversely, Ne would be concerned with going beyond its own experience insofar as the possibilities it perceives maintain its outward focus. I recoil from defining intuition by ideas simply because that term is kind of fuzzy and it doesn't really capture everything that intuition is about.
> 
> ...


So, S is linked to experience, and N is linked to beyond-experience (which can include ideas but not necessarily)? Is there a clearer way to put that succinctly?

Yeah, I was actually trying to buck the "tradition" stereotype for Si, but may have sacrificed too much nuance for brevity. But apparently I missed it altogether on the core of Si. So you're saying that Si has just as much potential for abstraction vs. concreteness as Ni, but it is more focused on its own experience than Ni, and more focused on how the outer world affects the inner world than on the outer world itself, compared to Se? So would you describe Si as dealing with the stabilizing of inner experience, or just dealing with inner experience (or something else)?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Verity3 said:


> So, S is linked to experience, and N is linked to beyond-experience (which can include ideas but not necessarily)?


Yup.



Verity3 said:


> Is there a clearer way to put that succinctly?


In theory, but admittedly I'm still having trouble finding a way to do that myself.  I used to just say concrete perception for sensation and abstract perception for intuition, but as I already alluded to, concrete is associated with extraversion and abstract with introversion. I think that, for sensation at least, direct experience is the best way to put it. So Se would be "perception via direct experience of the outer world", and Si would be "perception via direct experience of the inner world". Given that much of Western society is very S, our language is therefore much more conducive to succinctly describing S-related things. Defining intuition in this way is tricky, because we don't really have a word for that beyond-experience in English. The closest definition that comes to it is that Jung quote I mentioned before: "perception via the unconscious", but unconscious in Jungian terms is equally tangled (here he's using the noun form as one might use the adjective, and in fact might mean both. It is a linguistic technicality that drastically changes the meaning depending on how you look at it), so that's out. As I was writing, it occurred to me that (no joke) "extrasensory perception" is probably the best words we have in English to describe it, but that is out for obvious reasons, and that it isn't neutral on the I/E spectrum. However, I think that modifying it to "transsensory perception" could work; trans- in Latin means "on the other side of", which fits MBTI's dichotomous nature, and in modern English has also come to mean "beyond" in words such as "transcend". Aside from the annoying double S (which is really ironic if you think about it), I think that the following definition could work: "extra/transsensory perception of the inner/outer world." I don't terribly like using "perception" here, but if I didn't this would become a mess of made-up words since there is no relevant antonym for "direct experience". I also dislike defining intuition essentially as "not sensation", but I think that's about as good as things will get.



Verity3 said:


> So you're saying that Si has just as much potential for abstraction vs. concreteness as Ni, but it is more focused on its own experience than Ni,


Yes.



Verity3 said:


> and more focused on how the outer world affects the inner world than on the outer world itself, compared to Se?


Or just the inner world itself. Its perceptions might be triggered in the way that you mentioned, but it is by no means dependent on external stimuli. Other than that, yes.



Verity3 said:


> So would you describe Si as dealing with the stabilizing of inner experience, or just dealing with inner experience (or something else)?


Possibly. I didn't mean to sound like stability is central to the introverted sensate's psyche--I'm honestly not sure about that. That would seem to go against Si's nature as an irrational function. However, I have observed a strong propensity for stability in the ISxJs that I know, so perhaps I'm just missing something. My current thoughts are that stability, organizing, or otherwise making sense of information is under the purview of the rational functions, and that any sort of stabilizing would almost have to come from something other than Si. Irrational functions focus on information based on the intensity of their perception, so, at least with respect to the inner experience, I have a hard time accepting that Si would be organizational towards it. Si seems to be much more about the subjective experience itself, rather than what is done with it.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Would it be safe to say that Si, more or less, accepts its worldview while Ni questions its own worldview (and that of others)? Si relies on stabilized meaning, tried-and-true methods, but Ni searches for personal truth, overturning accepted systems and modes of thought. I tend to think of Ni as having an internal antenna. It leads me to mental places, insights I didn't know existed, as long as I follow its signals. 

Someone in another thread was writing about a homeless person asking for money, and how they would view him using Fe-Ti vs Te-Fi. Going off of that, here's how I would imagine Ni might view the same situation. So, one might observe and notice that many people don't give out money to homeless people in a city. Ni (and Fe) says, "Why is that? What does this say about us as a society?" At this point, Ni isn't really concerned with discerning the "real" factual answer, but sees in its mind how this person, surrounded by a sea of careless businessmen in fancy suits, is a symbol of the pitfalls of capitalistic society. A lone ship, seeking a harbor. From their view, in their shiny, glass towers overlooking the world, he is merely a crack in the pavement. Height implies power. We are gods among men. Ordinary people are helpless ants. It has always been this way. And it can go on and on, building off of the images conjured in its mind, grasping at its total meaning, unconcerned with anything having to do with what is really there. Se, on the other hand, steps in and says, but what is the reality of the situation as you see it and experience it with your own eyes now? That dude's a bum. Look at him. He smells too. (I admit, this Se example is a bit shallow, but hopefully you get the picture.)

Ni abstracts to please its own imagination (yes, it's true) and to uncover the underlying truth, but can miss what's actually staring them right in the face, and subsequently fail to act on what they know (inf. Se). Se knows what is there, trusts what it experiences, but can miss the deeper, symbolic meaning (inf. Ni). Ni says, "Reality," Se says Reality.

Also, see Stephen Dedalus' thought in Ulysses for a perfect example of Ni-dom w/ Se (really he's in an Ni-Ti loop) in action: http://genius.com/James-joyce-ulysses-chap-3-proteus-annotated


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

mistakenforstranger said:


> Would it be safe to say that Si, more or less, accepts its worldview while Ni questions its own worldview (and that of others)? Si relies on stabilized meaning, tried-and-true methods, but Ni searches for personal truth, overturning accepted systems and modes of thought. I tend to think of Ni as having an internal antenna. It leads me to mental places, insights I didn't know existed, as long as I follow its signals.


Perhaps. As I'm thinking about it, I have no absolute qualms with Si being traditional in this sense. I'm just having trouble calibrating this idea with the direct experience of the inner world piece. I do like how this is dichotomous with what you said about Ni, a view which I think is correct.



mistakenforstranger said:


> Someone in another thread was writing about a homeless person asking for money, and how they would view him using Fe-Ti vs Te-Fi. Going off of that, here's how I would imagine Ni might view the same situation. So, one might observe and notice that many people don't give out money to homeless people in a city. Ni (and Fe) says, "Why is that? What does this say about us as a society?" At this point, Ni isn't really concerned with discerning the "real" factual answer, but sees in its mind how this person, surrounded by a sea of careless businessmen in fancy suits, is a symbol of the pitfalls of capitalistic society. A lone ship, seeking a harbor. From their view, in their shiny, glass towers overlooking the world, he is merely a crack in the pavement. Height implies power. We are gods among men. Ordinary people are helpless ants. It has always been this way. And it can go on and on, building off of the images conjured in its mind, grasping at its total meaning, unconcerned with anything having to do with what is really there. Se, on the other hand, steps in and says, but what is the reality of the situation as you see it and experience it with your own eyes now? That dude's a bum. Look at him. He smells too. (I admit, this Se example is a bit shallow, but hopefully you get the picture.)


That was excellent. I hope I don't seem to liberal with my praise, but seriously, that's a good snapshot of Ni. I actually don't have much to say there; you hit the nail pretty well on the head.

Concerning Se: I think you would do the function a disservice by attempting to make it anything other than what it is. It, by nature, is a shallow function. It is direct and concrete. To say that an xSxP is shallow as a result would be an error in judgment most certainly, but I don't think people should have to worry about offending someone by calling functions shallow. Extraverted functions are all shallow. They make up for that by being broad: a vast and expansive ocean compared to introversion's deep and penetrating puddle. I realize that you said what you did in order to emphasize the point that an xSxP wouldn't necessarily think those things. Admittedly I'm using what you said to speak to a minor quibble I have about the perceptions people seem to have about functions. Either way, whether they would admit it or not, those things you mentioned would probably cross the mind of an xSxP in some fashion. 



mistakenforstranger said:


> Ni says, "Reality," Se says Reality.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... I don't know why, but I find that kind of hilarious. Can I quote you on this?



mistakenforstranger said:


> Also, see Stephen Dedalus' thought in Ulysses for a perfect example of Ni-dom w/ Se (really he's in an Ni-Ti loop) in action: JamesÂ*Joyce â€“ Ulysses (Chap. 3 - Proteus) | Genius


Another excellent illustration. You always impress me by how well-read you are. I wish I had half of your motivation to read; whenever I actually set my mind to read something I always somehow end up reading C.S. Lewis (he's my candy author). I have everything from Dante to Dostoevsky lying around my room, and I haven't finished any of it, so whenever I wake up it all just stares back at me, taunting my and my lack of motivation. Sigh. I don't know what I'm on about anymore. I really shouldn't respond to posts when I'm tired.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> A better way of putting this would be to say that Ni views meaning as dependent on the individual and is more concerned with the unexpressed aspects of an object (mental or otherwise). In the case of an idea that has been expressed, Ni is going to be asking why a person thought that or chose those words to describe it because those are insights that push the intuition deeper into the mind of the person who created the idea. Ne, on the other hand, views meaning as intrinsic to the object itself and is really only concerned with what has been expressed. It isn't nearly as meta as Ni would be in this respect.


Whilst I have rarely ever asked the question why in such instance (why a particular choice of words?), to me its more seeing the situation from that persons perspective. Often that equates to taking what a person means rather than what exactly was stated. Or understanding a persons behaviour and where it seems to come from rather than taking the action at face value. Even before I had really delved into psychology I could see how a girls hurtful comments was an insecurity harboured by her need to be accepted by her peers. Its more observed, rather than a specific thought process (e.g train of thought --> why did they use that word, what do they really mean, seems like they are implying x yet said y, where is this coming from?). Unless I have described something completely different XD


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Whilst I have rarely ever asked the question why in such instance (why a particular choice of words?), to me its more seeing the situation from that persons perspective. Often that equates to taking what a person means rather than what exactly was stated. Or understanding a persons behaviour and where it seems to come from rather than taking the action at face value. Even before I had really delved into psychology I could see how a girls hurtful comments was an insecurity harboured by her need to be accepted by her peers. Its more observed, rather than a specific thought process (e.g train of thought --> why did they use that word, what do they really mean, seems like they are implying x yet said y, where is this coming from?). Unless I have described something completely different XD


This is a good description of Ni, especially the part where you mentioned seeing the thought processes behind the scenes. I would say that it's especially common among Ni-F pairings. I think choice of words is a bit of a more anomalous expression of Ni, so that's my bad for citing an odd example. Overall, though these seem to perceptions very characteristic of a strong Ni.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Let me put in terms of Ni: as an introverted intuitive, my mind is focused on intuitive information: possibility, connections, basically anything beyond the direct experience of the information or event. To quote Jung, intuition tells you "from whence [an object] comes and whither it goes"; intuition is "perception via the unconscious", unconscious here meaning the periphery of sensation--things that our attention doesn't normally fall on. Introversion focuses it inward, abstracting from reality and putting it squarely in the realm of the mind and the unconscious: introverted intuition, rather than perceiving from whence an external object comes and whither it goes, perceives the same for inner objects, those being mental experiences or images, and especially with respect to the archetypes in the collective unconscious. It's a bit difficult to explain, because often times these objects or images have no actual form within the mind, but are intangible and invisible collections of thoughts and characteristics that the introverted intuitive is unconsciously aware of in most situations.


Can I ask, what does constitute inner objects? Is that any sort of mental event? From an emotion, to a thought, to an image, etc. Or is it always a symbolic image?
And rather than just experiencing such mental events as is (more so Si?), Ni jumps between such mental events in search of possibilities (like what Ne does with external objects)?

I don't think it's a process of drawing connections (as judgment begins to get involved here), but more about seeing where the mental event came from, or what mental event is next to go in their own psyche? And this perhaps where the notion of Ni seeking truth comes from.

Say someone has some sort of mental event, rather than experiencing this in all its intensity and taking it as it is, there is a sense of stepping back to observe but remaining open in which a sense of knowing occurs about where this mental event originated.
Or perhaps a person jumping into a situation beforehand can accurately predict what the mental event will be, knowing how what's about to happen will affect them?
Hmm except often the relation to the self is often missed unless judgment has been sufficiently developed.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Can I ask, what does constitute inner objects? Is that any sort of mental event? From an emotion, to a thought, to an image, etc. Or is it always a symbolic image?


Honestly, this is one my own biggest problems with Jung, but I'm forced to use his language because English doesn't very well express what these are. This is a difficult question to answer because it is so subjective and abstract. I am inclined to believe that an inner object, whatever that is, is highly dependent on the individual. What I think we can derive from the language, at least, is that whatever these inner objects are, they are essentially similar to an outer object in terms of their behavior and their interaction with the inner world. They have to be distinguishable--one must be in some way different from another, and the differences should be obvious. To an observer they might not be, but to the person interacting with these objects, he should be able to tell one apart from another. They can be interacted with and altered, and exist outside of conscious creation. This is probably very abridged, but those are the criteria for what constitutes a mental object. I would say that anything that meets those could be considered a mental object. Hmm. Perhaps I will have to create a more exhaustive list of criteria.

In any case, I would not say that they are limited to symbolic imagery. There is indeed a lot of that, but, if it does happen to me, I'm not very aware of it. Either that or I'm just taking the imagery for granted. Speaking from my own experience, the object and the possibilities thereof are rather invisible. I don't necessarily 'see' it in my mind, but just have an awareness that this object exists in my psyche. The issue with stating it like that is that I most definitely do see it. It's quite difficult to explain, and possibly much more difficult to wrap your mind around that concept, but that's the best I can do. These sort of invisible...things...often to have some sort of image associated with them, now that I think about it, but that's also highly abstract and equally difficult to express in any form.



Ksara said:


> And rather than just experiencing such mental events as is (more so Si?), Ni jumps between such mental events in search of possibilities (like what Ne does with external objects)?


Yeah, I would say so. A note about this process of Ni's, though: I'm not sure how aware an Ne-dom would be of their process (maybe @randomshoes can help me out here!), but I'm largely unaware of Ni's machinations. The way it most often works is that I am aware that my brain is doing something (and I infer Ni because I'm not focused on the external sensory experience, internal sensory experience or experiencing the mental events themselves, or the possibilities of objects), but the content of these perceptions is largely unknown to me. That is until eventually something bubbles to the surface, which takes a variable amount of time, depending on the day. I've used the example of perspective jumps before, but I think that it's relevant here. For anyone reading who has not read my description of perspective jumps before, here you go:

Essentially a perspective jump is when my brain leaps into a hypothetical person's head and looks at an object or situation through their eyes. For example, if I'm driving and I see a field with an old farmhouse and a barn on it, my mind might create a farmer and imagine how he would see the field--how a certain unnatural depression in the land is due to him removing a stump one time, or how one summer it was especially hot and planting was a bear, or how that same summer crops didn't come in well due to the extreme heat.

With the perspective jumps, they stand out to me because most often they come in the form of some kind of realization or epiphany. Not that they actually have any real bearing on reality or that they're even useful, but they're best described as moments of clarity, because they all of a sudden impede upon my consciousness and expel everything else out. Generally my approach to such images is to try seeing through them, thinking about other situations through that hypothetical person's eyes (I would imagine that an ISxJ in such a situation would be more content to enjoy the experience; it is often pleasant).

What I've said is rather evocative of the INxJ 'ah-ha' stereotype, which I personally am not terribly fond of, mostly because it doesn't always happen like that, and I think that calling what we experience an epiphany of sorts is untrue and misplaces the idea of sudden realizations. I say that it's untrue because the epiphany language implies that we have some sort of profound realization every twenty minutes or so, which is not the case. For me, at least, they just _feel_ like ah-ha moments, even though it could be about something as trivial as breakfast food. More to the point: epiphanies exclude what content INxJs normally receive in their realizations. We might have epiphanies, but what we actually think of in those moments isn't always what a layman would consider worthy of an epiphany. Furthermore, they are only ah-ha moments because of Ni's nature as an irrational function. It responds to intensity, just like Ne, Se, and even Si. Our epiphanies are only worthy of being revelations as much as Se's sudden rush of adrenaline is worthy of being called a unique experience. Sure, the Se might actively pursue activities that would cause an adrenaline high, but to consider that rush something unique or special simply because it came to them in a rush is asinine and ignorant. So it is for Ni, or any irrational function.



Ksara said:


> I don't think it's a process of drawing connections (as judgment begins to get involved here), but more about seeing where the mental event came from, or what mental event is next to go in their own psyche? And this perhaps where the notion of Ni seeking truth comes from.


I think that's correct. Perhaps it would be better to say "sees possibilities of connection" rather than the connections themselves. As far as looking for where a mental came from where it goes, I think that is also true.



Ksara said:


> Say someone has some sort of mental event, rather than experiencing this in all its intensity and taking it as it is, there is a sense of stepping back to observe but remaining open in which a sense of knowing occurs about where this mental event originated.


There is a certain level of detached-ness to Ni's machination, I think, perhaps lacking Si's level of intimacy with the self. I liken it to the image of the Air Nomads in Avatar the Last Airbender--creating that distance between the self and the psyche so as to draw more out of what's already in there.



Ksara said:


> Or perhaps a person jumping into a situation beforehand can accurately predict what the mental event will be, knowing how what's about to happen will affect them?


I don't see why not. I personally learn a lot from going through a situation before it happens.  I think that this tendency of Ni is twofold: one hand it can inform future decisions and on the other it leads back into the psyche and leads to other possibilities about mental events, like you said.



Ksara said:


> Hmm except often the relation to the self is often missed unless judgment has been sufficiently developed.


Yes. I think there are many INxJs (well that's an oxymoron if I've ever written one ) in this situation because we live in a society that doesn't teach us to be self-analytical or self-critical. Learning to use their auxiliaries for self-analysis is key for them, and I think that one failing of the Harold Grant model is that it prevents INFJs, for example, from utilizing Fi as they ought to because they "don't have that function". On the contrary, I would argue that developing a robust Fi (for INFJs) and Ti (for INTJs) is a paramount goal for those types. It forces us to ask questions about ourselves we would not otherwise ask.


----------



## Annie Anthonio (Sep 27, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> You seem to have a solid foundation for understanding this function, and I applaud the desire to explain it to people, given the amount of Ni myth that floats around in the MBTI cosmos. There are few authentic INxJs in the world, and as a result the amount of these sorts of texts explaining our psyches is rather little, which is sad thing.
> 
> However, I don't think what you've written here can be seen as a definitive explanation because, in a way, you're not really talking about a function. You've listed certain thought processes or traits, which, while they may be frequently present in INxJs, are not definitive about their cognition. You should be asking yourself _why_ these processes occur, not so much what they are. A function isn't, as the name would suggest, an amalgamation of processes, but a mental perspective. It tells you what sorts of information your brain naturally focuses on, how your brain metabolizes that information (to steal some terminology from Socionics), and what you mental assumptions are as a result of that information.
> 
> ...


Something are not meant to be define, only to be perceived. You cannot define your travel experience. Only to describe where you went and what you did. Or like a metaphor. The meaning is meant to be perceived and interpretated. Once you try spell it out loud, the meaning become pointless. Because the story take you through it. The definition does not. 

This is the difference between Western and Eastern thinking. Westerners like to examine and define. Taking a scoop of the ocean and define the rest. Whenever I read the Chinese translation of Western psychology, it seems the meaning got caught in the words and terms. Chinese just do not have term like that. Just like how the English word "love", Chinese has three different words for it. What I am saying is, I was raised in a different culture therefore definition in itself seems to be meaningless to me.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Beautiful Ouroboros said:


> Something are not meant to be define, only to be perceived. You cannot define your travel experience. Only to describe where you went and what you did. Or like a metaphor. The meaning is meant to be perceived and interpretated. Once you try spell it out loud, the meaning become pointless. Because the story take you through it. The definition does not.
> 
> This is the difference between Western and Eastern thinking. Westerners like to examine and define. Taking a scoop of the ocean and define the rest. Whenever I read the Chinese translation of Western psychology, it seems the meaning got caught in the words and terms. Chinese just do not have term like that. Just like how the English word "love", Chinese has three different words for it. What I am saying is, I was raised in a different culture therefore definition in itself seems to be meaningless to me.


Oh, you're absolutely right. On some level, any attempt at defining human thought and everything that goes in to that is entirely pointless for a million and one reasons. I don't think that should prevent us from doing so, however. Consider my travel example. It's all well and good to experience it and enjoy it for what it is, but if I must be able to know what it is to be able to communicate the experience to others as effectively as possible. Perhaps just the desire to share that experience in a way that people can understand it is a cultural thing, but it seems to me that, in the spirit of explaining the event to others, the best ways to do so would be to illustrate it in some form of art, or, for the purposes of a forum, define it to the best of my ability so that others might understand it. Going back to your description, I think the same holds true--experiencing the event is one thing (and a good thing, I might add), but there does need to be some level of quantification if someone is to understand what you're trying to communicate. And yes, that does suck the meaning out of it, but any expression of an experience will do that. Not mention the introverted bias in that view; an extravert would probably find the very expression the most meaningful aspect of any event, not the internalization of the event itself.

More to the point though, academic as my approach might be, what I presented in my first post wasn't my attempts to make your inner experience conform to some standing of thinking. My point was that there are experiences to be had beyond just what you wrote, experiences that I at least would consider 'more' Ni simply because they're getting at something more fundamental in a person's thinking.


----------



## Annie Anthonio (Sep 27, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Oh, you're absolutely right. On some level, any attempt at defining human thought and everything that goes in to that is entirely pointless for a million and one reasons. I don't think that should prevent us from doing so, however. Consider my travel example. It's all well and good to experience it and enjoy it for what it is, but if I must be able to know what it is to be able to communicate the experience to others as effectively as possible. Perhaps just the desire to share that experience in a way that people can understand it is a cultural thing, but it seems to me that, in the spirit of explaining the event to others, the best ways to do so would be to illustrate it in some form of art, or, for the purposes of a forum, define it to the best of my ability so that others might understand it. Going back to your description, I think the same holds true--experiencing the event is one thing (and a good thing, I might add), but there does need to be some level of quantification if someone is to understand what you're trying to communicate. And yes, that does suck the meaning out of it, but any expression of an experience will do that. Not mention the introverted bias in that view; an extravert would probably find the very expression the most meaningful aspect of any event, not the internalization of the event itself.
> 
> More to the point though, academic as my approach might be, what I presented in my first post wasn't my attempts to make your inner experience conform to some standing of thinking. My point was that there are experiences to be had beyond just what you wrote, experiences that I at least would consider 'more' Ni simply because they're getting at something more fundamental in a person's thinking.


That's so true. My ESTP husband also get frustrated with me. But he also enlightens me more than anyone else. He always refer my way of internalizing as "ego". He always remind me live life because I always get lost in pondering life. He said I just have to accept sometimes things are just the way they are and there is no individual or personal meaning in it. I agree in the thought of push the meaning back into a bigger picture. I don't know if it is the problem of Ni or just me. I have a hard time to pull myself out of my head and just BE.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

Beautiful Ouroboros said:


> because of Ni, I am a great “bullshiter”, a theorist, with very little practical skills.


There is big money for somebody astute in fertilizer


----------



## Annie Anthonio (Sep 27, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Oh, you're absolutely right. On some level, any attempt at defining human thought and everything that goes in to that is entirely pointless for a million and one reasons. I don't think that should prevent us from doing so, however. Consider my travel example. It's all well and good to experience it and enjoy it for what it is, but if I must be able to know what it is to be able to communicate the experience to others as effectively as possible. Perhaps just the desire to share that experience in a way that people can understand it is a cultural thing, but it seems to me that, in the spirit of explaining the event to others, the best ways to do so would be to illustrate it in some form of art, or, for the purposes of a forum, define it to the best of my ability so that others might understand it. Going back to your description, I think the same holds true--experiencing the event is one thing (and a good thing, I might add), but there does need to be some level of quantification if someone is to understand what you're trying to communicate. And yes, that does suck the meaning out of it, but any expression of an experience will do that. Not mention the introverted bias in that view; an extravert would probably find the very expression the most meaningful aspect of any event, not the internalization of the event itself.
> 
> More to the point though, academic as my approach might be, what I presented in my first post wasn't my attempts to make your inner experience conform to some standing of thinking. My point was that there are experiences to be had beyond just what you wrote, experiences that I at least would consider 'more' Ni simply because they're getting at something more fundamental in a person's thinking.


As for something more fundamental to my thinking. I do have some philosophical writing on my blog.http://beautifulouroboros.tumblr.com/post/128980926671/the-beautiful-ourobolos Though I am not very educated plus this is my second language so I expressed it in a lay man way.

I don't share those thought here because it's personal and I cant communicate with others when most don't relate to it. (I don't want to bored people with my Ni thought. I am not a good writer, nor I can express myself very well. I always think in term of others view as contradicting. But life is paradoxical. The truth lies n the uncertain. And I can't express these thought without sounding like a lunatic. I have learned my lesson to make my point in a tangible way so that I can get my point through.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Beautiful Ouroboros said:


> That's so true. My ESTP husband also get frustrated with me. But he also enlightens me more than anyone else. He always refer my way of internalizing as "ego". He always remind me live life because I always get lost in pondering life. He said I just have to accept sometimes things are just the way they are and there is no individual or personal meaning in it. I agree in the thought of push the meaning back into a bigger picture. I don't know if it is the problem of Ni or just me. I have a hard time to pull myself out of my head and just BE.


Probably all introverts to some extent, but INxJs definitely have this. One thing I noticed about myself is that, if I try to just focus on the immediate details around me, my brain almost instantly slips back in to that default mode I described in another comment somewhere--sort of unknowingly thinking. Even if it starts as something where I'm narrating what I'm doing in my head, even once I become aware of what's happening--I'm retreating back into my mind--that just pulls me in further. So yeah, I definitely feel you here.



Beautiful Ouroboros said:


> As for something more fundamental to my thinking. I do have some philosophical writing on my blog.Lilium — The Beautiful Ourobolos Though I am not very educated plus this is my second language so I expressed it in a lay man way.


You're fine. Honestly, you better than some native English speakers I've seen.



Beautiful Ouroboros said:


> I don't share those thought here because it's personal and I cant communicate with others when most don't relate to it. (I don't want to bored people with my Ni thought. I am not a good writer, nor I can express myself very well. I always think in term of others view as contradicting. But life is paradoxical. The truth lies n the uncertain. And I can't express these thought without sounding like a lunatic. I have learned my lesson to make my point in a tangible way so that I can get my point through.


What I mean fundamental thinking, I'm getting more at your own cognitive perspective. That is shown in the little bit of what I read in your blog, but it's a lot of asking why you think certain thing. Even something as base as, "Why did I just have that thought? What caused it, why did that cause it?" etc. That's the essence of type is trying to explore, why your brain pays attention to some information and omits others. It's terribly focused on perspective, perhaps even to the point of being impossible to actually quantify and still have meaning, like you said. I cringe whenever I see people thinking about this stuff as a system of rules or a science because it sucks the human element right out.

I think what you said about paradox is very true. So many conflicts, so much of life can be resolved be seeking the middle ground between conflicting sides. Paradoxes only exist as a limit of human reasoning--there is always a space in between the two ends where both can be true. It's just a matter of having the will to find it.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@KalimofDaybreak thanks for your response. So thorough and really helps me to bounce my understanding off to see where potential errors are.

Its interesting what constitutes an inner object. That is why I say emotions, thoughts, perhaps concepts, ideas, even that sense of knowing. I'd say all can be distinguishable but not necessarily something seen in ones minds eye.


I do believe I know what you mean by perspective jumps.
For me it isn't necessarily through another's eyes, rather a shift in my perspective, and yes it adds clarity.

Its where I have an opinion about something then a shift occurs where I see the same situation completely differently, and hence not really coming to a firm conclusion. Or seeing a completely hopeless situation shifts to an experience about balance.

Sometimes it seems like I am seeing through another's eyes or a realisation of how another is seeing the same situation.

Sometimes there is a symbolic image, or have had a sense of feeling like I'm wearing another's face, and sometimes its a change in understanding a concept or new realisation.


Is this mental detachment specifically an Ni thing?
I find this interesting. Its a practice I find myself often aware of observing my mental land scape (or day dreaming  haha). Even being aware of changing what my inner voice and how it chances my emotional state and perspective.


Haha yes you can learn a lot by mentally going through a situation. I do too. Though at times it does kill any excitement as I have just mentally done the event mentally. I find it useful to increase effectiveness and reduce time taken to do something. Great saving 10 minutes in the morning to sleep in as I know already how I'm going to do something.


I agree with the last part. I guess its realising these insights are in someway related to the self. Its rather than moving through the world based on fore thought and future insight, taking time to discover what one actually wants in life and learning how to actualized this.


----------



## Pat73 (Nov 23, 2015)

I am "quite" sure I am an INTP, but what you described in the OP is something I experience quite often, I just "get" how things relate to each other, but whenever I explain it, the other person doesn't understand what I'm saying. 

E.G I was once explaining something in physics class (I got the answer right), and then I sat back down. My classmate who sat next to me said "dude you sounded like you were high, no one got what you were on about". It all made sense in my head, but no one else seemed to make the connections. 

I tend to always connect the dots between things in my head, but when I explain the connection in my head people look at me like I'm just talking rubbish. The sleeping Buddha and that x-files episode are connected because the monsters sees how attached humans are to routine and material possession, which is the opposite of what Buddha would teach? 

This also reminds me of my LSD trips, when I was sitting on a log with a friend, letting my thoughts drift. Then I suddenly arrived at a breakthrough, my jaw dropped my eyes popped out. I started stuttering to my friend (ENTJ), then just ended up saying "do you get this too?" and he said yes, I didn't even need to finish my sentence. It was extremely difficult to explain but to an Intuitive, it would just "click".

Hopefully this post doesn't sound like blabbery, but is this Ni at work or just Ti-Ne working together? Am I a mistyped INTJ?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Its interesting what constitutes an inner object. That is why I say emotions, thoughts, perhaps concepts, ideas, even that sense of knowing. I'd say all can be distinguishable but not necessarily something seen in ones minds eye.


Yeah. I personally don't do much connection between emotions, which I why I strayed away from that in my definition, but I certainly think they can be classified as inner objects, in the same way a group sentiment could be classified as an external object. I do think that there is a certain fruitlessness in aiming to define it, though, because of the inner reality's subjective nature. I doubt a culture such as the West, with the current language that we have, will ever be able to fully and accurately express what these things are.



Ksara said:


> For me it isn't necessarily through another's eyes, rather a shift in my perspective, and yes it adds clarity.


Clarity seems to be the essential element to this for me. There's a cleanness or brightness to the event, a state of mind I don't normally occupy.



Ksara said:


> Its where I have an opinion about something then a shift occurs where I see the same situation completely differently, and hence not really coming to a firm conclusion. Or seeing a completely hopeless situation shifts to an experience about balance.
> 
> Sometimes it seems like I am seeing through another's eyes or a realisation of how another is seeing the same situation.


Seems like Ni to me.



Ksara said:


> Sometimes there is a symbolic image, or *have had a sense of feeling like I'm wearing another's face*, and sometimes its a change in understanding a concept or new realisation.


I bolded what I most often experience in this jumps. I'm curious, what is this symbolic image for you?



Ksara said:


> Is this mental detachment specifically an Ni thing?
> I find this interesting. Its a practice I find myself often aware of observing my mental land scape (or day dreaming  haha). Even being aware of changing what my inner voice and how it chances my emotional state and perspective.


I'm tempted to say that it is. I think a case could be made for any of the introverted functions having this quality, but the rational functions will likely not be as removed simply because the very nature of their apperception forces them to judge and omit certain experiences, thus they lose out on the whole of mental observation, and Si would be too intimate with the experience to be considered detached in really any way. Ni seems to be the only one that will be aware of whatever is most intense within the mind, but not so focused on that intensity that it looses sight of everything else.

As far as what you said about perceiving your mental states: how are you aware of it? What information are you paying attention to?



Ksara said:


> Haha yes you can learn a lot by mentally going through a situation. I do too. Though at times it does kill any excitement as I have just mentally done the event mentally. I find it useful to increase effectiveness and reduce time taken to do something. Great saving 10 minutes in the morning to sleep in as I know already how I'm going to do something.


I feel you. I'm never bothered by spoilers in movies or books simply because I usually know they're going to end anyway. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever been surprised by a book. I did watch the Steins;Gate anime a while back (which, if you ever get the chance, definitely do that), which is about time travel. Without spoiling anything (irony), the final episode is a really cool twist, and while I watched I was excited and interested to see all the threads weave together, but I can't say that my socks had been blown off or anything like that.



Ksara said:


> I agree with the last part. I guess its realising these insights are in someway related to the self. Its rather than moving through the world based on fore thought and future insight, taking time to discover what one actually wants in life and learning how to actualized this.


Yeah.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Pat73 said:


> I am "quite" sure I am an INTP, but what you described in the OP is something I experience quite often, I just "get" how things relate to each other, but whenever I explain it, the other person doesn't understand what I'm saying.
> 
> E.G I was once explaining something in physics class (I got the answer right), and then I sat back down. My classmate who sat next to me said "dude you sounded like you were high, no one got what you were on about". It all made sense in my head, but no one else seemed to make the connections.
> 
> ...


It's possible you're an INTJ (but then again, it's also "possible" that I'm an ENTP, so take that for what it's worth). I think a lot of what you said here can be chalked up to introversion and intuition--things making more sense in your head than out loud, connecting the dots spontaneously, making connection, etc.

The difference between an INTP and INTJ is that the former prefers thinking and the latter intuition. A crucial difference, then, is that INTPs repress feeling and INTJs repress sensation. Because of the way the functions are structured, an INTP will not have the same difficulties with sensation as an INTJ would, and an INTJ wouldn't have the same difficulties with feeling (shocking, I know).

Inferior sensation is characterized by a strong apathy towards the sensory world. This can manifest itself in a number of ways, but, me personally, it makes me rather hypochrondrial and neurotic about sensory things. There have been points in my life where I would wash my hands for long periods of time just because I could still *feel* the germs on my hands. I'm also really nitpicky about keeping my things nice, although I can be entirely oblivious to my own body (Se vs. Si; an ENxP would probably say the opposite). One exercise that I've found to be helpful is just to fixate on something (or someone ) and see how long your brain can focus on the details of that object. Me personally, it takes fewer than two seconds sometimes to slip back into my normal state of mind. Perhaps if you have an easy time focusing on external physical details (or internal sensations, if you wanted to test for Si), that would indicate that your psyche does not repress sensation, which in your case probably means you're an INTP.

I can't really say much inferior feeling because I just don't have it, but the same rule applies: your psyche is neutral towards the middle functions and entirely represses the inferior. Whichever function most often trips you up, whichever you have the hardest time thinking about or thinking with, that's you're inferior.


----------



## Pat73 (Nov 23, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> It's possible you're an INTJ (but then again, it's also "possible" that I'm an ENTP, so take that for what it's worth). I think a lot of what you said here can be chalked up to introversion and intuition--things making more sense in your head than out loud, connecting the dots spontaneously, making connection, etc.
> 
> The difference between an INTP and INTJ is that the former prefers thinking and the latter intuition. A crucial difference, then, is that INTPs repress feeling and INTJs repress sensation. Because of the way the functions are structured, an INTP will not have the same difficulties with sensation as an INTJ would, and an INTJ wouldn't have the same difficulties with feeling (shocking, I know).
> 
> ...


Now that you mention it, I struggle like hell with Se tasks. My dad is an ISxP and he is good with things that use Se such as construction work. I am absolutely incompetent in those things. He always gets really annoyed with me being so incompetent. One time we were carrying a desk up the stairs and I was just completely clueless on how to go about it, so he just told me to leave it and he'll do it himself. But Se isn't part of the INTPs structure at all, wouldn't that make us bad users with it? 

Another thing that points to me being INTJ, they have Tert Fi, and I often have a strong urge to call someone out of they're doing something I find morally wrong, and I tend to get really upset if they go through with it, even though its their life and their choice. 

The thing is though, I read that INTJs tend to be much more serious than INTPs, and prefer more down-to-earth topics and interests, as well as trying to master multiple skills. I seem to be the opposite of that, I take life as a joke. I mean I know when it's time to be serious but my default mode is to take everything lightly. 

INTJs are also supposed to be more organised than INTPs, but I am really messy and only sometimes I organised my workplace/room (even though it does tend to annoy me that it is disorganized). 

I'm also annoyed when I can see something being done inefficiently, when with minimal effort and a bit of logic you could make the process much easier. I have the urge to tell the person how to improve but usually refrain from doing so. 

I am also absolutely intrigued by spirituality, and what kind of feelings one could experience on their body. This is what draws me to psychadelic drugs, I'm on a quest to find out the meaning of everything, and if other forces and beings really do exist, or is this world all that there is? This could be Inferior Se? But it could also be Tertiary Si (feelings in my body). I am also always hyper-aware of what is going on in my body, I am hyper sensitive to things like needing a piss, feeling ill, being hungry/thirsty, and I will not continue with my day until those needs are met. 

Hopefully I'm not boring you with my ramblings, I don't know if I should create one of those classic "Am I INTJ or INTP????" threads to find out. The idea that I'm INTJ only recently crossed my mind.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Pat73 said:


> Now that you mention it, I struggle like hell with Se tasks. My dad is an ISxP and he is good with things that use Se such as construction work. I am absolutely incompetent in those things. He always gets really annoyed with me being so incompetent. One time we were carrying a desk up the stairs and I was just completely clueless on how to go about it, so he just told me to leave it and he'll do it himself. But Se isn't part of the INTPs structure at all, wouldn't that make us bad users with it?


I can relate to this quite a bit, and it's not a bad indicator of inferior Se.

What INTPs lack in Se would be made up in their tertiary sensation. Because their sensation function is neither dominant nor repressed, their psyche is neutral towards it: they wouldn't have as much of a problem dealing with sensory things if the need demanded (although their preference would likely be to not do so). If I were you, I wouldn't get too caught up in INTPs not having Se at all; a lot of things that will be said can apply to sensation at large. For instance, what you wrote about having trouble with sensory work could apply to either repressed Si or Se because they are both sensation. First decide what your inferior function is, and then if you're an introvert it will be extraverted and if you're an extravert it will be introverted. The functions and attitudes are much more independent than most models of the psyche will let on.



Pat73 said:


> Another thing that points to me being INTJ, they have Tert Fi, and I often have a strong urge to call someone out of they're doing something I find morally wrong, and I tend to get really upset if they go through with it, even though its their life and their choice.


This could also be a characteristic of extraverted judgment as well: wanting someone to conform to an external standard, especially a legal standard for Te. Fi would call their ethical integrity into question. With that, however, I will say that Ti might do the same thing, but approach it from a different angle. Ti would probably show the person how their beliefs are logically incompatible, whereas Fi would show the person how contradicting their values is inauthentic. However, and INTJ might very well take the Ti approach, because their psyche is neutral towards their middle functions. Consequently, they might sound Ti when it is indeed just an introvert evaluating a situation with both their thinking and feeling, it's just that thinking is slightly more preferred. Incidentally, this can be a major source of mistyping. I've questioned my own INFJ on these grounds because I have sounded Fi in the past, but the difference is that I'm approaching the issue from a standpoint of what is socially acceptable and how their beliefs are contradictory.



Pat73 said:


> The thing is though, I read that INTJs tend to be much more serious than INTPs, and prefer more down-to-earth topics and interests, as well as trying to master multiple skills. I seem to be the opposite of that, I take life as a joke. I mean I know when it's time to be serious but my default mode is to take everything lightly.


I don't think this is necessarily true. People are different despite their type. One of the INFJs I know is the most serious person on the planet and I am the least serious person I know, at least when I'm around others. More than likely your perception of this issue is going to be conflicted for similar reasons, how you are different around other people than when you're alone. In the end, saying someone is 'more serious' is like saying that the Pacific Ocean is 'more oceany' than the Indian Ocean. It's meaningless in terms of actually distinguishing the two.



Pat73 said:


> INTJs are also supposed to be more organised than INTPs, but I am really messy and only sometimes I organised my workplace/room (even though it does tend to annoy me that it is disorganized).


This is another myth. One hand, it is purely untrue because of the same 'more oceany' reasons I just mentioned, but also because, even if we are going to talk about which type is more organized, if anything the INTP would be. Remember, INTJs have dominant intuition, which is an irrational perceiving function. It has _nothing_ to do with organization at all. Contrast this with Ti, which is a rational judging function. It has _everything_ to do with organization. But even this isn't definitive, because one of the ENTJs I know has the sloppiest desk known to man. But here's another, more prevalent question: why would you distinguish two _intro_verts based on how their organize their _ex_ternal environments. Seems counterproductive to me.



Pat73 said:


> I'm also annoyed when I can see something being done inefficiently, when with minimal effort and a bit of logic you could make the process much easier. I have the urge to tell the person how to improve but usually refrain from doing so.


Sounds like thinking to me.



Pat73 said:


> I am also absolutely intrigued by spirituality, and what kind of feelings one could experience on their body. This is what draws me to psychadelic drugs, I'm on a quest to find out the meaning of everything, and if other forces and beings really do exist, or is this world all that there is? This could be Inferior Se? But it could also be Tertiary Si (feelings in my body). I am also always hyper-aware of what is going on in my body, I am hyper sensitive to things like needing a piss, feeling ill, being hungry/thirsty, and I will not continue with my day until those needs are met.


Hypersensitivity to bodily things could either preferred or repressed sensation, and I don't think you prefer it. Your quest you spoke of definitely seems intuitive, and based of what I've seen so far I'm actually inclined towards calling it Ni.

Here's a question: why are you hyper-aware of your body? Can you point to any one reason?



Pat73 said:


> Hopefully I'm not boring you with my ramblings, I don't know if I should create one of those classic "Am I INTJ or INTP????" threads to find out. The idea that I'm INTJ only recently crossed my mind.


Trust me, you're not boring me. I enjoy answering these sorts of questions. You could create such a thread; it might prevent this one from getting too cluttered with our thoughts.


----------



## Pat73 (Nov 23, 2015)

> Here's a question: why are you hyper-aware of your body? Can you point to any one reason?


Because I can just feel everything that goes on inside, and it tends to take over and I just focus on it completely if something is wrong. I know some people can hold piss for a really long time and be just as productive while holding it. For me it keeps distracting me. Sounds like inferior sensing right?

BTW I created a thread: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/784530-am-i-intj-intp-sorry-about.html
if you wanna move our discussion there


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Yeah. I personally don't do much connection between emotions, which I why I strayed away from that in my definition, but I certainly think they can be classified as inner objects, in the same way a group sentiment could be classified as an external object. I do think that there is a certain fruitlessness in aiming to define it, though, because of the inner reality's subjective nature. I doubt a culture such as the West, with the current language that we have, will ever be able to fully and accurately express what these things are.



I can see the fruitlessness of defining every aspect. Defining what does constitute an inner object is useful. Essentially a criteria that can be applied to determine what an object is rather than a list of all objects.

I guess this is where art and music come into it.



> Clarity seems to be the essential element to this for me. There's a cleanness or brightness to the event, a state of mind I don't normally occupy.


Haha yes. Sometimes so opposite it 'hurts' my head. The brief moment though allows a greater picture of what's happening.




> Seems like Ni to me.
> 
> I bolded what I most often experience in this jumps. I'm curious, what is this symbolic image for you?


Well I'm glad Im not crazy. I have yet to come across another who has felt as if wearing another's face.

Hmm. Well I tend to think in images and language.

When I say symbolic image I see an image in my minds eye. Often briefly and suddenly appears. It isn't literal to the situation, and really the connection is only going to make sense to me. Often attached is a realisation that changes my perspective.
I often then start questioning it and reasoning what it may actually mean. This may spark a new realisation/sense of knowing. The questioning to me seems a different faculty and is always uncertain. Not always necessary to lead to another realisation which accompanies a sense of knowing.

A few examples:
One day on the bus I see [minds eye) the clouds part and the sun shine through, a sense that something had lifted and things were going to be easier.
I then spent time thinking more about why I would have felt that way. Perhaps I noticed a change in weather? Or someone else in my life was happier? Or maybe I had shifted to a positive view point.

In intense situation where my frustration was getting to me I saw (minds eye again) a rotting corpse where a crow was picking the flesh away, piece by piece. Yeah in that moment symbolic of what I was internally experiencing.

Another time I'm taking my time walking at uni, observing people around me in a hurry to get to class. What are they rushing to?
Getting on the bus I see (minds eye) a woman, white hair, grey ragged dress a bloodied bandaged wrapped around her head covering her eyes. Realising people were blind, rushing through life towards death. Willingly wishing time away to get closer to wants/goals.
Again thinking follows on where it had come from. I believe one of my thoughts sparked a realisation its my own distastes towards mortality.

Or another time. This was uncanny for me. Everytime I looked at my boxing instructor, all I could see in my minds eye was my partner. It was quite strong in the sense it almost felt like I was looking at my partner.

These are images I do see every once in a while. Right now I can look inwards and choose to see my inner state. Right now a calm ocean of water, clear sky. A lot of shades of blue.



Wish I had a better art skill for reproducing what's in my head onto paper. Never looks the same lol.




> I'm tempted to say that it is. I think a case could be made for any of the introverted functions having this quality, but the rational functions will likely not be as removed simply because the very nature of their apperception forces them to judge and omit certain experiences, thus they lose out on the whole of mental observation, and Si would be too intimate with the experience to be considered detached in really any way. Ni seems to be the only one that will be aware of whatever is most intense within the mind, but not so focused on that intensity that it looses sight of everything else.
> 
> As far as what you said about perceiving your mental states: how are you aware of it? What information are you paying attention to?


Inner monologue, images, concepts, emotions, sense of knowing, desires.

I'm aware of it by either visualising, language or that sense of knowing.
There is a sense of observing.

I find there is a real difference between reasoning through to an answer and knowing an answer. The first is often leaves questions/uncertainty, the second is confident and sure. The two don't necessarily happen at similar times haha. Can be weeks apart or without each other.

At my best I can see within myself how an emotions response has a component of choice.



> I feel you. I'm never bothered by spoilers in movies or books simply because I usually know they're going to end anyway. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever been surprised by a book. I did watch the Steins;Gate anime a while back (which, if you ever get the chance, definitely do that), which is about time travel. Without spoiling anything (irony), the final episode is a really cool twist, and while I watched I was excited and interested to see all the threads weave together, but I can't say that my socks had been blown off or anything like that.


I'll note that down.
I tend to see a lot of movies/books/games these days as formulaic. Its the same story often dressed up differently. At times my friends will be excited about a movie and tell me how cool it is. I refrain from sharing my opinion as I find there was nothing fundamentally interesting. Don't want to kill their mojo lol.
I can tell what movies I will like, those I wont. And what sort of storyline I'll get.
Nothing these days is that exciting.

Actually I didn't mind transcendence or inception.



> Yeah


Yeah, I would say I have spent too long navigating potential scenarios to happen than asserting what I actually want.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> I can see the fruitlessness of defining every aspect. Defining what does constitute an inner object is useful. Essentially a criteria that can be applied to determine what an object is rather than a list of all objects.
> 
> I guess this is where art and music come into it.


Yeah. I'm working on that last one. 



Ksara said:


> Well I'm glad Im not crazy. I have yet to come across another who has felt as if wearing another's face.


Well, I am definitely crazy, so that doesn't look too good for you... Kidding. Anyway, yeah, you're not alone in that.



Ksara said:


> Hmm. Well I tend to think in images and language.
> 
> When I say symbolic image I see an image in my minds eye. Often briefly and suddenly appears. It isn't literal to the situation, and really the connection is only going to make sense to me. Often attached is a realisation that changes my perspective.
> I often then start questioning it and reasoning what it may actually mean. This may spark a new realisation/sense of knowing. The questioning to me seems a different faculty and is always uncertain. Not always necessary to lead to another realisation which accompanies a sense of knowing.
> ...


Yeah, this is Ni. Pure and clear Ni. I don't really know what to tell you beyond that. I can relate most to the first one you described (I'd say that's the most common image I see), but I also remember similar experiences like the ones you mentioned thereafter, especially about your boxing instructor. And, now that I'm looking at it again, the last one as well. I definitely think you're Ni-dom or aux.



Ksara said:


> Wish I had a better art skill for reproducing what's in my head onto paper. Never looks the same lol.


I feel you.



Ksara said:


> Inner monologue, images, concepts, emotions, sense of knowing, desires.
> 
> I'm aware of it by either visualising, language or that sense of knowing.
> There is a sense of observing.
> ...


All of this I personally relate to as well. Like with your comment about the disparity between reasoning through an answer and perceiving it. For instance, I _cannot_ write or plot my novels without having that surge of inspiration. Part of it is a bad writing habit I've developed by listening to my Ti inner critic too much, but then the other part is that I've grown so dependent on the intuition that anything else I come up with feel contrived or silly. Same thing with music, although having the theory and knowing techniques makes bridging two sections of music a minor task, at least compared to writing.



Ksara said:


> I tend to see a lot of movies/books/games these days as formulaic. Its the same story often dressed up differently. At times my friends will be excited about a movie and tell me how cool it is. I refrain from sharing my opinion as I find there was nothing fundamentally interesting. Don't want to kill their mojo lol.
> I can tell what movies I will like, those I wont. And what sort of storyline I'll get.
> Nothing these days is that exciting.


I kind of despise doorstopper fantasy for this very reason. Granted, I've always preferred more intimate stories to the world-encompassing, epic tales that are most often woven in contemporary literature, but honestly that's only because those seem to more soulful and, well, artistic. To do anything anymore on a massive scale means submitting to tropes at some point, which when not the ends in of themselves are probably fine, but writing an epic fantasy story because "I want to write an epic fantasy story" is, at least in my mind the equivalent of saying "I'm going to build a house all by myself with fine granite in a late Gothic style because I want to." There's nothing inherent wrong with it, but there are a few problems: 1) odds are this person has no architectural training, 2) odds are he has no skills necessary to build a house, 3) no one should be moving stone or even trying to build a house on their own, 4) Gothic architecture is difficult and working it in stone would be a waste of money. The reason no one is idiotic enough to try and build their own Gothic cathedral (because it's a cathedral now?) is because that is very clearly a terribly awful a idea. This is not so with storytelling because of its intrinsically abstract nature. Thus, we resort to cliches and what essentially amounts to truisms: this character exists because he is an antihero. That is all. But ooh, look, he does bad things for good reasons! Look how interesting that makes him! To that I say, No, he's a conceited jerk who should be locked up because he clearly has no moral compass aside from what he has so thoughtlessly set up in his mind as what is good, and I would rather not be friends with him. I don't like him, I don't want him to win, and the only connection I have with him is the visceral emotional reaction that comes with inhabiting the same headspace as him for 800 odd pages, which you, dear writer, are so mercilessly exploiting while I have to read another massacre scene (in between the chapters describing the food and the meaningless traveling) for no blasted reason except that 'ooh, it's gritty and realistic'.

Side note: why do people think Game of Thrones is realistic? It's a story about magic and dragons and over-the-top violence towards anyone related to Sean Bean, and most other humans as well. Sure it's more morally gray and doesn't always let what few good guys there are win, but it's equally unrealistic to say that a) there are no good and bad guys ever and b) the world is all morally gray. And, speaking of the show now, women do not look like in real life; they hired a porn star to play a character for heaven's sake. Not to mention the inherent misogyny in the show's whole sex appeal, which if we're being honest is the only reason much of the audience watches it. It's really kind of sick.

And there I go on another rant. After that Game of Thrones piece I kind of lost where I was going with all of this; I actually find myself getting angry over it. Especially the show's tendency towards naked women. Not men, nor women and men equally, just women. I'd prefer if I didn't see naked anything, but that's why I don't watch it. What makes me angry is the fact that it is clearly not making any attempt at seeing a women are more than the sum of her parts (I honestly don't care how much character they dump onto her. If she is that easily disrobed, she has lost my respect because the character clearly has none for herself), and the show sells itself on this very objectification.



Ksara said:


> Actually I didn't mind transcendence or inception.


After all of that I feel strange going back to what we actually talking about. Ahem. Anyway, I haven't seen Transcendence, but I loved Inception, and most of Christopher Nolan's other work. The Prestige was a fantastic film.



Ksara said:


> Yeah, I would say I have spent too long navigating potential scenarios to happen than asserting what I actually want.


Story of my life right there.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

@KalimofDaybreak, Do you identify with how Lenore Thomson describes Ni? It seems to differ remarkably from most other writings on Ni, in that it de-emphasises any sort of "unconscious" or visual nature, and describes it more as an ability to "see-through" immediate interpretation.



Lenore Thomson said:


> p. 225: "For INJs, patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered. They're part of us--the way we make sense of the riot of energy and information impinging on our systems. A disease syndrome is a useful construct, but that's all it is--an aggregate of observations attached to a label, telling us what to see and how to deal with it."
> 
> p. 225: "Where Extraverted Intuitives see many behavioral options, INJs acknowledge many conceptual standpoints. They experience no need to declare one inherently better than another. Indeed, these types have the disconcerting habit of solving a problem by shifting their perspective and defining the situation some other way."
> 
> p. 234: "For INJs, truth isn't about logic. Truth is a frame of reference, a way of organizing information, which serves one set of needs or another."


I would post the link from where I got this, but I don't have enough posts to do so.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

VagrantFarce said:


> @KalimofDaybreak, Do you identify with how Lenore Thomson describes Ni? It seems to differ remarkably from most other writings on Ni, in that it de-emphasises any sort of "unconscious" or visual nature, and describes it more as an ability to "see-through" immediate interpretation.


I think Thomson wrote a good introduction to what Jung was talking about, and I find it helpful for consolidating a lot of those more abstract concepts. I still reference her, albeit indirectly, when I explain Ni to others because the heart of what she said, about switching perspectives and, as you said, seeing through interpretation is correct, and something I identify in myself perhaps more than what Jung wrote. I've found with Jung you have to look quite deeply to the trends he noticed within oneself, thinking specifically here of the symbolic images. I definitely do this, quite often in fact, but there are often so divorced from reality that I can't simply say that "I saw a women soaked in blood which represented my unconscious fear of intimacy and love" because so often they aren't nearly that concrete. I think that this is one thing that Jung omits from his description that can be rather confusing, especially for those of us that really, _really_ have a hard time with sensation. (I cannot have discussions with ESxPs. I make intuitive leaps in my arguing that seem obvious to me that are complete asinine to them, but to explain it in a way that such a type would understand is often more trouble than it's worth.)

My point with all of this is, that while I strongly identify with Thomson's ideas, I don't think it was necessarily correct to omit the unconscious and visual aspects of the function. While I am hardly a representative sample (well, for INxJs I might be ), my own brain is highly visual, and the seeing aspects are fairly crucial to how I think. I think the reasons for nixing those elements are because they assume the existence of the collective unconscious (though I do think there are some theoretical leaps and bounds one might take to account for its potential nonexistence), and it all sounds rather psychospiritual, and reading Jung it's fairly obvious he had his own spirituality in mind a lot of the time. To get at what he was talking about, you really do have to see those spots and try to reverse-engineer them out of that psychospiritual mindset. (Incidentally, I think this is probably why typology is so popular among Ni-doms.)

So the short answer to your question is yes, I identify with Thomson's writing. However, I will add that what she wrote is simplified, and as such it misses some of the deeper aspects that I think Jung was getting at, even if it was from a rather strange perspective. It's a stepping stone, one of the better, but it shouldn't really stand on its own simply because the visual elements are there in people, as Ksara and I have been discussing. Those deeper parts aren't necessarily found in Jung, either, but they are there, and I do think they're worth seeking out for any function, not just Ni.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Yeah. I'm working on that last one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Identification of Ni, awesome 
As for dom vs Aux, I'm not sure yet. The INTP forum didn't quite feel like home exactly.

I don't know if this is an Ne perspective: Seeing all the possible ways the current situation could develop or looking backwards to all the different ways the current situation could have been changed (butterfly effect). Constantly updating this for each moment.
This viewpoint can be tiresome. I look forwards or change how I look at something, not in every direction at once lol.



> I feel you.
> 
> 
> 
> All of this I personally relate to as well. Like with your comment about the disparity between reasoning through an answer and perceiving it. For instance, I _cannot_ write or plot my novels without having that surge of inspiration. Part of it is a bad writing habit I've developed by listening to my Ti inner critic too much, but then the other part is that I've grown so dependent on the intuition that anything else I come up with feel contrived or silly. Same thing with music, although having the theory and knowing techniques makes bridging two sections of music a minor task, at least compared to writing.


Yeah. The reasoning for me feels more forced than silly. Its not the same as feeling the "yes, this is it" moment full of certainty.
Though sometimes the exploration does spark spark something.
Whilst I have never really taking writing seriously, I find listening to music can help a mental plot develop and grow. It adds to the intensity of what's imagined.



> I kind of despise doorstopper fantasy for this very reason. Granted, I've always preferred more intimate stories to the world-encompassing, epic tales that are most often woven in contemporary literature, but honestly that's only because those seem to more soulful and, well, artistic. To do anything anymore on a massive scale means submitting to tropes at some point, which when not the ends in of themselves are probably fine, but writing an epic fantasy story because "I want to write an epic fantasy story" is, at least in my mind the equivalent of saying "I'm going to build a house all by myself with fine granite in a late Gothic style because I want to." There's nothing inherent wrong with it, but there are a few problems: 1) odds are this person has no architectural training, 2) odds are he has no skills necessary to build a house, 3) no one should be moving stone or even trying to build a house on their own, 4) Gothic architecture is difficult and working it in stone would be a waste of money. The reason no one is idiotic enough to try and build their own Gothic cathedral (because it's a cathedral now?) is because that is very clearly a terribly awful a idea. This is not so with storytelling because of its intrinsically abstract nature. Thus, we resort to cliches and what essentially amounts to truisms: this character exists because he is an antihero. That is all. But ooh, look, he does bad things for good reasons! Look how interesting that makes him! To that I say, No, he's a conceited jerk who should be locked up because he clearly has no moral compass aside from what he has so thoughtlessly set up in his mind as what is good, and I would rather not be friends with him. I don't like him, I don't want him to win, and the only connection I have with him is the visceral emotional reaction that comes with inhabiting the same headspace as him for 800 odd pages, which you, dear writer, are so mercilessly exploiting while I have to read another massacre scene (in between the chapters describing the food and the meaningless traveling) for no blasted reason except that 'ooh, it's gritty and realistic'.


Seems a sore spot for you.

...but I want to write an epic story to write an epic story...
Haha, not seriously anyway. Another problem to add to your list, often such a story has been done before. So how does one make it epic and big without recreating another gothic cathedral?
As for creating your own gothic cathedral, the Sims is good for that. Same style with neither the high cost or time haha.

When you say antihero...(again 
well versed in writing)...do we mean characters such as Archer? Or Deadpool?
Pretty much narcissists with very few morals doing things that just happen to coincide with being 'good'. Often a lot of reckless behaviour just cause (or sometimes some perceived justice).
Eh, not my cup of tea.



> Side note: why do people think Game of Thrones is realistic? It's a story about magic and dragons and over-the-top violence towards anyone related to Sean Bean, and most other humans as well. Sure it's more morally gray and doesn't always let what few good guys there are win, but it's equally unrealistic to say that a) there are no good and bad guys ever and b) the world is all morally gray. And, speaking of the show now, women do not look like in real life; they hired a porn star to play a character for heaven's sake. Not to mention the inherent misogyny in the show's whole sex appeal, which if we're being honest is the only reason much of the audience watches it. It's really kind of sick.


I have wondered about the realism. The magic, dragons, and unrealistic portrayal of women aside, are there some parts of the world now or past that are that cut through and violent? Slave labour, warzones, famine, crime, etc do currently exist. I can see people being treated in a similar manner. This is what tends to irk me.



> And there I go on another rant. After that Game of Thrones piece I kind of lost where I was going with all of this; I actually find myself getting angry over it. Especially the show's tendency towards naked women. Not men, nor women and men equally, just women. I'd prefer if I didn't see naked anything, but that's why I don't watch it. What makes me angry is the fact that it is clearly not making any attempt at seeing a women are more than the sum of her parts (I honestly don't care how much character they dump onto her. If she is that easily disrobed, she has lost my respect because the character clearly has none for herself), and the show sells itself on this very objectification.


Some of it to me does seem thrown in for the hell of it. That is some of the naked/sexual encounters don't actually impact on the story. Purpose? Me thinks 'sex sells'...which apparently is a myth anyway.
The other aspect however, the story is not set in the here and now (all types of sexes are equal) rather a world where men having power. Woman forced to marry, woman only valuable based on beauty or blood, etc. In that world woman are objectified which is why the show is objectifying woman. To attempt other wise is to paint a picture of equal power which is not how the story was written. But then it seems the whole thing is written to 'impact' the audience.

I think I actually prefer the Vikings series more. Woman are actually much more respected and fight along side the men. Does push my conceived notion of what is morally right/normal. That is the winner of a battle has the right to take slaves, or they will kill the defenseless because they believe the strong should live. Not sure how much is based on Viking culture.


The one to watch out for is Disney 
Really though, IMO a child is more likely to take at face value what they are watching and consider it 'normal'.

In Disney movies woman are often discouraged from being independent and are repressed, of course they push back and as a result an evil villain takes advantage of this. The hero in the end being prince charming. (more focused on the little mermaid here). Oh and the idea if what 'love' is *cough* infatuation *cough*

Kikki's delivery service is so different in comparison. There is an underlining theme of woman being encouraged to be independent and to explore the world. They aren't exploited by this desire at all. Also there is more an aspect on friendship...not falling deeply in love and giving up your whole world for someone you just met.

Hmm so what are children being taught?




> After all of that I feel strange going back to what we actually talking about. Ahem. Anyway, I haven't seen Transcendence, but I loved Inception, and most of Christopher Nolan's other work. The Prestige was a fantastic film.
> 
> 
> 
> Story of my life right there.


I'm working on it. So I'm learning to be more assertive...seems to lead to conflict currently ><
I need to accept that my decisions which are best for me are going to upset others, rather than let others potential reactions give my course in life.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

VagrantFarce said:


> @KalimofDaybreak, Do you identify with how Lenore Thomson describes Ni? It seems to differ remarkably from most other writings on Ni, in that it de-emphasises any sort of "unconscious" or visual nature, and describes it more as an ability to "see-through" immediate interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> I would post the link from where I got this, but I don't have enough posts to do so.


Reading Jung's Ni description I believe there is a small part where he speaks of perspectives, which is where Lenore Thomson expands upon much more in the above quotes you gave. Jung had more of a focus on the unconscious image and the search for possibilities of inner objects, perhaps the inner possibilities is what leads to these perspective shifts.
Hmm I'll have to reread Jung to pinpoint this.

Another point I have come across, that Myres Briggs who created the MBTI put Jung's work to the test and adjusted function definitions to better fit and categorise people. Apparently current functional theorists expand on Myte's definition. I can't confirm this, but may account for the variation seen.

Also welcome to the forum


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> That was excellent. I hope I don't seem to liberal with my praise, but seriously, that's a good snapshot of Ni. I actually don't have much to say there; you hit the nail pretty well on the head.
> 
> Concerning Se: I think you would do the function a disservice by attempting to make it anything other than what it is. It, by nature, is a shallow function. It is direct and concrete. To say that an xSxP is shallow as a result would be an error in judgment most certainly, but I don't think people should have to worry about offending someone by calling functions shallow. Extraverted functions are all shallow. They make up for that by being broad: a vast and expansive ocean compared to introversion's deep and penetrating puddle. I realize that you said what you did in order to emphasize the point that an xSxP wouldn't necessarily think those things. Admittedly I'm using what you said to speak to a minor quibble I have about the perceptions people seem to have about functions. Either way, whether they would admit it or not, those things you mentioned would probably cross the mind of an xSxP in some fashion.


Thank you for that. On Se, I believe there is more to it than I had described, so I was worried that Ni from a dominant perspective might inherently see Se as shallow. Though, Se (in the dominant position) might view Ni as unnecessary too. Se says to Ni, "What are you doing sitting here thinking all the time? Go out and do something!"




KalimofDaybreak said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... I don't know why, but I find that kind of hilarious. Can I quote you on this?


You can quote me, but then you're really quoting Vladimir Nabokov, who gave me the idea when he refers to "reality," as "(one of the few words which mean nothing without quotes)".



KalimofDaybreak said:


> Another excellent illustration. You always impress me by how well-read you are. I wish I had half of your motivation to read; whenever I actually set my mind to read something I always somehow end up reading C.S. Lewis (he's my candy author). I have everything from Dante to Dostoevsky lying around my room, and I haven't finished any of it, so whenever I wake up it all just stares back at me, taunting my and my lack of motivation. Sigh. I don't know what I'm on about anymore. I really shouldn't respond to posts when I'm tired.


Thank you again. Though, I assure you as Stephen Dedalus says towards the end of "Portrait", "Have read little and understood less." There's so many more books I'm looking to read, but I do enjoy quoting and using literature as a way to understand type. Dante (like Joyce) is an Ni-dom artistic visionary, and Dostoevsky is very good too, with a lot of psychological insight, but can be a little melodramatic at times. Both worth your time, though. I haven't read any C.S. Lewis, unfortunately. I always highly recommend Ulysses, because you can really see how some of the functions work, since Joyce was so brilliant at writing from his characters' internal perspectives. If Stephen represents Ni, then Bloom is Ne, and Molly in the last chapter is Se. There's even a term within Ulysses, parallax, and used by Joyce as a literary device, that is representative of Ni. A quick introduction on it: Parallax in Ulysses

Another quote speaking about Ni from Saul Bellow:

"Only art penetrates what pride, passion, intelligence and habit erect on all sides - the seeming realities of this world. There is another reality, the genuine one, which we lose sight of. This other reality is always sending us hints, which, without art, we can't receive. Proust calls these hints our "true impressions." The true impressions, our persistent intuitions, will, without art, be hidden from us and we will be left with nothing but a "terminology for practical ends which we falsely call life."


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@mistakenforstranger
I read Parallax in Ulysses. I had never seen the term used in that way before (came across it in astronomy). It was actually uncanny, how it describes the reader almost making a judgment just to receive a different point of view that unsettles such judgment. I think that has parallels my life lol.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Ksara said:


> Whilst I have rarely ever asked the question why in such instance (why a particular choice of words?), to me its more seeing the situation from that persons perspective. Often that equates to taking what a person means rather than what exactly was stated. Or understanding a persons behaviour and where it seems to come from rather than taking the action at face value. Even before I had really delved into psychology I could see how a girls hurtful comments was an insecurity harboured by her need to be accepted by her peers. Its more observed, rather than a specific thought process (e.g train of thought --> why did they use that word, what do they really mean, seems like they are implying x yet said y, where is this coming from?). Unless I have described something completely different XD


Observed vs. thought process sounds like the distinction between perceiving and judging functions. The thought process you describe would be more on the Ti/Fe axis, I think. (also, Ti is notorious for semantics, lol). For example, I experience things as observations that it seems INTP's experience as a thought process. When we land on the same conclusion, it's like we've read each other's minds. (Either I note an observation on something they've thought about (such as "that person seems insecure", or they're walking me through a thought process on something i happens I've "observed" but never really looked at the process of it the way they have).


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Observed vs. thought process sounds like the distinction between perceiving and judging functions. The thought process you describe would be more on the Ti/Fe axis, I think. (also, Ti is notorious for semantics, lol). For example, I experience things as observations that it seems INTP's experience as a thought process. When we land on the same conclusion, it's like we've read each other's minds. (Either I note an observation on something they've thought about (such as "that person seems insecure", or they're walking me through a thought process on something i happens I've "observed" but never really looked at the process of it the way they have).


So you believe Ti is more likely to engage thought processes (even using inner monologue as a tool) to reason through to a conclusion? Where as Ni will simply observe such a conclusion? Seems kind of like the INTP is talking you through the recipe and the INTJ already see cake haha.

For me I can do the former, but there is a distinct uncertainty with it. I feel like I am guessing or forcing a conclusion. If it becomes to taxing I drop it entirely assuming I don't know (or google it). I prefer the latter, when the conclusion comes to me, or an instant realisation, or the dots just connecting in a certain way I can see the conclusion.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Ksara said:


> So you believe Ti is more likely to engage thought processes (even using inner monologue as a tool) to reason through to a conclusion? Where as Ni will simply observe such a conclusion? Seems kind of like the INTP is talking you through the recipe and the INTJ already see cake haha.
> 
> For me I can do the former, but there is a distinct uncertainty with it. I feel like I am guessing or forcing a conclusion. If it becomes to taxing I drop it entirely assuming I don't know (or google it). I prefer the latter, when the conclusion comes to me, or an instant realisation, or the dots just connecting in a certain way I can see the conclusion.


Yeah kind of.. I dunno if I'd call it a recipe myself, because sometimes I hate following recipes or any type of instruction, as they're illogical and/or way too detailed. :laughing: But I notice they go on explaining something and I'll say "yeah I've thought about that before" but often, it's just a passing thought I had and didn't dig into it. Sometimes I don't say anything because it happened somewhat unconsciously and they're triggering some "implicit knowledge" I didn't know I had. But I'll have this instant reaction in my head like "yup". Which I think is Ni because it's kinda the same as if I'm reading a news story or something, and out of nowhere I'll get "something here doesn't make sense" or "yeah that doesn't surprise me". But I'm not always sure the reasoning behind the reaction. 

On the flip side though and INTP will also say "yeah, I've been thinking the same thing" or something to that effect.

And yeah I know what you mean about the uncertainty. There are times I try to emulate the Ti process and I'm like "but I'm just making up stories in my head... how is that logical?" haha

Edit: 
Te is incredibly linear but IME, that's only to break down Ni in an organized way. Ni is better at zooming out on something and seeing it in its entirety, beginning to end. Maybe not necessarily how it ends (that's not always possible), but envisioning a process and then putting order to it. It might go into composing a piece of music, for example, considering the entire progression of the piece in a general sense. Whereas I think Ti is looking in a linear way, so it may be more concerned with the more immediate parts of a process, rather than the later ones. It figures out the later ones..later.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Identification of Ni, awesome
> As for dom vs Aux, I'm not sure yet. The INTP forum didn't quite feel like home exactly.


That probably says something. If you find that you are unlike INTPs, odds are you are not one. How about INTJs?



Ksara said:


> I don't know if this is an Ne perspective: Seeing all the possible ways the current situation could develop or looking backwards to all the different ways the current situation could have been changed (butterfly effect). Constantly updating this for each moment.
> This viewpoint can be tiresome. I look forwards or change how I look at something, not in every direction at once lol.


I don't think so. Socionics would tell you absolutely not, I'm just going to say that it's either just intuition, either orientation, or Ni. I don't see it being necessarily Ne. It's not concerned with the events themselves as they transpired, but the other possibilities of how event might have played out if the variables had been different. Seems more like inward motion than outward motion to me. I do this a lot when an emotional situation doesn't turn as I had wanted, so I go back and think about where I might have gone differently to achieve a better outcome.



Ksara said:


> Yeah. The reasoning for me feels more forced than silly. Its not the same as feeling the "yes, this is it" moment full of certainty.
> Though sometimes the exploration does spark spark something.
> Whilst I have never really taking writing seriously, I find listening to music can help a mental plot develop and grow. It adds to the intensity of what's imagined.


Yeah. I guess the problem is that it's unpredictable, but such is life for the irrational functions. 



Ksara said:


> Seems a sore spot for you.


A bit of one, I'm realizing. Maybe I should talk to someone about it.

I'm actually laughing as I write this. It's a silly thing to get worked up over.



Ksara said:


> ...but I want to write an epic story to write an epic story...


Just a point of clarification--I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to write an epic story, I myself have this desire. I just think that writing a epic just because it needs to be epic without trying to say anything else is pointless. I'm waiting to combine it with a message worthy of an epic telling to do it.



Ksara said:


> Haha, not seriously anyway. Another problem to add to your list, often such a story has been done before. So how does one make it epic and big without recreating another gothic cathedral?
> As for creating your own gothic cathedral, the Sims is good for that. Same style with neither the high cost or time haha.


Haha, yeah, you speak truth. What you said about it being the same, I think, is a ramification of what I said above, writing epic for epic's sake, not because the message needs to be epic. It all gets samey because there's no unifying theme except for epicness. The paradigm has gotten backward. It shouldn't be that the medium influences the message, the message should influence the medium.



Ksara said:


> When you say antihero...(again
> well versed in writing)...do we mean characters such as Archer? Or Deadpool?
> Pretty much narcissists with very few morals doing things that just happen to coincide with being 'good'. Often a lot of reckless behaviour just cause (or sometimes some perceived justice).
> Eh, not my cup of tea.


Defining antiheroes is a bit difficult. Most superhero movies these days implement the antihero archetype to some extent, even in things like Man of Steel. The Dark Knight trilogy is probably the best example of an antihero, at least one that I wouldn't consider 'pulp antiheroism'. Batman is a good person, we don't question that, but we find his methods disturbing. (Like the scene at the end of the first movie where he tells Ra's al Ghul that he won't kill him, but doesn't have to save him from death.) That scene probably made most moviegoers cringe.

I distinguish Nolan's Batman's antihero persona from characters like Deadpool or Archer because Batman's aims are ultimately different than theirs. I call the latter two pulpy because of what you mentioned about them being narcissists. I haven't seen much of either character; I haven't seen Deadpool and I watched the first episode or two of Archer before I decided that I didn't want to be putting that show into my head, but from what I saw of Archer (can't really speak to Deadpool), he's very clearly not a good person and has little interest in being one, and to me represents the negative aspects of this generation concentrated into a single man-child. He seems to exist to gratify those negative aspects, and I can't get behind that (and because every other antihero in fiction seems to be in the same boat). Compare to Batman, whose intention, at least, are noble, and who actually wrestles with doing the right thing not because being a good person is difficult for him, but because he walks a fine line between hero and villain (a fact of which he is painfully aware), and has to constantly monitor his behavior to make sure he stays as close to hero as possible. We sympathize with him because he's a good man struggling in the circumstances that his life has thrust upon him, by others and himself, and his own savior complex. He's an interesting character for it. Many other antiheroes a la Archer are just hedonists.

Broadly speaking, though, antiheroes represent rebellion (Source: 



), and so really any incarnation of this archetype is going have the more narcissistic aspects because that's sort of intrinsic to the ideologies these characters hold because they ultimately set themselves up to be their own judges of right and wrong (lots of Fi-Te in these characters). I just don't find the narcissistic elements attractive in their own right, and worries me that Archer characters are so popular among youth these days. Not because I think that such characters create narcissists, but that the very popularity of these characters are only popular because of latent narcissism.



Ksara said:


> I have wondered about the realism. The magic, dragons, and unrealistic portrayal of women aside, are there some parts of the world now or past that are that cut through and violent? Slave labour, warzones, famine, crime, etc do currently exist. I can see people being treated in a similar manner. This is what tends to irk me.


You mean the show's cavalier attitude towards those real and pressing issues is irritating?



Ksara said:


> Some of it to me does seem thrown in for the hell of it. That is some of the naked/sexual encounters don't actually impact on the story. Purpose? Me thinks 'sex sells'...which apparently is a myth anyway.


Yeah. I remember a scene where Petyr is in his room thinking, and there are just two female prostitutes going at it in the background while he occasionally throws out commands for how they should have sex. It was pointless, and at least from an artistic standpoint, the scene would have been better off without the sex. But no, it got put in there. I can't imagine being one of the actresses, having to film that over and over again...it would have been degrading.

Sex sells...as I man, I can all but guarantee that it does. Where did you hear that it's a myth?



Ksara said:


> The other aspect however, the story is not set in the here and now (all types of sexes are equal) rather a world where men having power. Woman forced to marry, woman only valuable based on beauty or blood, etc. In that world woman are objectified which is why the show is objectifying woman. To attempt other wise is to paint a picture of equal power which is not how the story was written. But then it seems the whole thing is written to 'impact' the audience.


I can see the argument for the show trying to stay authentic to its more savage roots, but here's the catch: if the writers actually cared about gender equality, or at least anything beyond just the shock factor, their attitude towards the gratuitous parts of the show would be entirely different. Their ends are very clear in how liberally they throw out the nudity. Perhaps there was an attempt to subvert this at some point (perhaps through character development, but I've been over that point already), but any such attempts are overshadowed almost entirely by ever needless moment of nudity on screen. As far as I know, though, no such attempts have been made, and the show does nothing to point out how awful and terrible it is that women are objectified and degraded in this way (again, I can't imagine being one of the actresses; it would horrible). I can't see the show as anything but regressive as a result.



Ksara said:


> I think I actually prefer the Vikings series more. Woman are actually much more respected and fight along side the men. Does push my conceived notion of what is morally right/normal. That is the winner of a battle has the right to take slaves, or they will kill the defenseless because they believe the strong should live. Not sure how much is based on Viking culture.


I haven't had the chance to see it, but as far as I know, it's fairly accurate towards Viking culture, and if it's not, the practices of taking slaves or killing off entire populations were not uncommon for conquerors in the past, if not necessarily in the viking age.

As far as women...I'm at a loss for how viking's actually treated them, but I can see it going either way.



Ksara said:


> The one to watch out for is Disney
> Really though, IMO a child is more likely to take at face value what they are watching and consider it 'normal'.


Yeah. I don't personally mind the princess is saved by the prince archetype, but it really depends on how it's done--if the princess makes a good faith effort to actually alter her own situation or is otherwise impeded from doing so for actual reasons, not because "the prince will save me". At least from a child's perspective, I think the takeaway of such a story would be that, regardless of whether you're a princess or prince, you should actively be trying to make the situation better. That's how normal humans behave anyway.



Ksara said:


> In Disney movies woman are often discouraged from being independent and are repressed, of course they push back and as a result an evil villain takes advantage of this. The hero in the end being prince charming. (more focused on the little mermaid here). Oh and the idea if what 'love' is *cough* infatuation *cough*
> 
> Kikki's delivery service is so different in comparison. There is an underlining theme of woman being encouraged to be independent and to explore the world. They aren't exploited by this desire at all. Also there is more an aspect on friendship...not falling deeply in love and giving up your whole world for someone you just met.
> 
> Hmm so what are children being taught?


This might sound contradictory at first, but let me explain. I actually don't necessarily have a problem with this in of itself. It is a realistic situation that a villain might exploit someone's desire to change his/her circumstances. I have hard time saying that any one particular story is 'wrong' because I don't see why artificial limitations should be imposed upon an artist. This puts a lot of faith in the artist to use their creative license wisely, but I can see how someone might represent a woman well, even in the situation you mentioned. Really it comes down to the intent of the creator, which people have a hard time judging. In the case of the Little Mermaid, it's been a while since I've seen it, but given Disney's approach, I can see how someone might take it poorly, and I can see where it might have been rewritten to be kinder towards women, even in Ariel's rather crappy situation.

One thing I do not terribly like, though, is that it's always men who save the women. I think Tangled is a good example of that kind of story done well: two people working together, even though Flynn is technically 'saving' Rapunzel. However, I don't like the message that it sends to young girls, that a man will save her. More than just implying that she needs a man, it teaches her to be passive but at the same time have unrealistic expectations for her future 'savior'. It teaches the girl that she doesn't need to be active in her romantic life, and it makes my job as a gentleman much more difficult. 

I have a hard time saying that stories should be written in certain ways, though. I certainly appreciate things like Kikki's Delivery Service, which encourages women to be independent and so on, but I find that stories which are explicitly feminist fall into the same trappings as "epic for epic's sake". For starters the fact that things need to be "feminist for feminism's sake" is just sad to be begin with, but feminism itself can't be the end in of itself. If the story exists solely to give strong female characters, they either become unrealistically amazing, and are therefore flat and uninteresting because they have no flaws, or the story becomes so caught up in its feminist ends it forgets to actually tell a story about people. And that's really the rub for me: why not tell a story where the woman is a human being with flaws and strengths? That seems like the best way to go about it, rather than being intentionally (and achingly politically correct) feminist. In my mind, the older stories and feminist stories sit on two ends of a spectrum, and the way to actually tell a good story is to walk the middle: don't get so caught up in female 'empowerment' that you can't let your characters have flaws and therefore be interesting (heaven forbid that a woman _ever_ be in a situation where a man has to save her! How terrible it would be to tell a story where the sexes are united and working together to deal with their own flaws, however different those are!), but don't be so old-school that your female characters exist solely as sex objects or plot devices. It seems to me that if you view men and women as equally valuable this shouldn't really even be an issue; you'll instinctively write good characters, and that's really what makes them equal or not. You could write a story where the female lead gets saved by a man ever single time something goes wrong, but I would still consider it fine if the woman was human enough to actually try and deal with her situation without sighing and waiting to be rescued. This is why I recoil from calling myself feminist and talking about female 'empowerment' and whatnot. For starters, part of feminism is just not being a jerk. I've known feminists that missed that and have left a bad taste in my mouth ever since. Secondly, empowerment is a ridiculous concept. Both men and women alike find themselves impotent in their lives at some point. Perhaps we should be less concerned about empowering one sex and more concerned with loving one another for who we are, differences and all, helping one another in our own situations in love and acknowledging the fact that we are all broken and helpless and sometimes you need the opposite sex to give you a hand. Crazy, I know.



Ksara said:


> I'm working on it. So I'm learning to be more assertive...seems to lead to conflict currently ><
> I need to accept that my decisions which are best for me are going to upset others, rather than let others potential reactions give my course in life.


Yeah, it's a struggle to balance those two out. It's another middle-road situation, I think.


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

Example of Ni:

There's this person in one of my classes who I think is interested in me, but we have yet to talk to one another. I was talking to my friend a couple of days ago in that same class about music that we liked and I mentioned a band. Today, that person was wearing that band's shirt. Immediately, I thought "I know why you're wearing that shirt. You heard me mention them and now you want to try to get my attention". Note that this may not have been their intention, but my subjective interpretation of them wearing that shirt would not be obvious to anyone else, and if I told somebody, they would say "oh whatever you say. Maybe they're just wearing that shirt because it was the only shirt that they had left to wear..." etc.

The best way that I can define Ni is a subjective interpretation of what can be readily seen by anyone (Se). 

Like Jung said, "for the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality."

From my perspective, I knew the psychological process of why that person wore that shirt and it might not even be the reality of why they did, but I'm sticking with my insight.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

It's tough for me to properly delineate Ni succinctly.


It's introverted perception, meaning a perception unique to the individual that is invoked from within
It's intuition, meaning an apprehension of associations over the literal form
Beyond this, it's difficult for me to say anything except in comparison to other functions.


Se apprehends a literalized outer "surface", as the world appears to be, and acts as a conceptual opposite to Ni
Si shares the subjective inner-source, but what is perceived is also a kind of literalized surface, the same as Se (e.g. running your fingers across a desk invokes similar, tactile feelings)
Ne shares the associative & catalysing nature of Ni, but it's concerned with the outer world, and is accessible to others. It comes across as more broad, reactive, and throw-away.

Is this all fair to say?


----------



## RaisinKG (Jan 2, 2016)

edit: Eh, I'll do my interpretation of Ni later when I do have the time for such things.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

So I totally forgot to respond to this. Sorry about that.



mistakenforstranger said:


> Thank you for that. On Se, I believe there is more to it than I had described, so I was worried that Ni from a dominant perspective might inherently see Se as shallow. Though, Se (in the dominant position) might view Ni as unnecessary too. Se says to Ni, "What are you doing sitting here thinking all the time? Go out and do something!"


My ESFP and I have the exact conflict you described. We actually got into a pretty heated argument about the merits of philosophy the other evening, and this was essentially the conflict. I've found that neither him nor my ESFP sister can really have discussions with me because of this. I make intuitive leaps they don't follow, and normally my arguments hinge on some abstract function of something real, and they just don't see that because they're only focused on what's tangible.



mistakenforstranger said:


> You can quote me, but then you're really quoting Vladimir Nabokov, who gave me the idea when he refers to "reality," as "(one of the few words which mean nothing without quotes)".
> 
> Haha, still. That's great.
> 
> ...


Once again, more good stuff. I probably should try Ulysses at some point, although I find that I really need to read an analysis of a work before I dive into it. The parallax as used in Ulysses is definitely Ni, that's for sure.

Yeah, if you ever get to read Lewis, definitely do it. _The Four Loves_ is my usual recommendation, but I think you might like _The Great Divorce_ or the _Screwtape Letters_. Both of those are interesting from the parallax idea.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> That probably says something. If you find that you are unlike INTPs, odds are you are not one. How about INTJs?


In all fairness I haven't spent much time there. Did ask about Ti after discussing with you but the INTPs who did answer my question seemed to think how I went about my decisions were more intensive. They appeared more distractible/scattered.

Another said they would still be analysing the thread I had linked to, to the point of coming to some thorough understanding/conclusion. I seem to be gathering more data lol.

I'll sit on INTJ at this point.



> I don't think so. Socionics would tell you absolutely not, I'm just going to say that it's either just intuition, either orientation, or Ni. I don't see it being necessarily Ne. It's not concerned with the events themselves as they transpired, but the other possibilities of how event might have played out if the variables had been different. Seems more like inward motion than outward motion to me. I do this a lot when an emotional situation doesn't turn as I had wanted, so I go back and think about where I might have gone differently to achieve a better outcome.


I've noticed my Ne dom partner do this a lot. It's as if he enters a situation and scans all potential problems. To me sounds tiring.

Myself I don't really do this. I tend to be more solution orientated. Mote a focus on what I can change to reach a desired outcome. In essence I see one possibility that will work. I may manipulate that possibility into something more desirable.







> Yeah. I guess the problem is that it's unpredictable, but such is life for the irrational functions.


Haha yes.
I guess its finding what inspires you to trigger such intuition.

Oh the random times when the answer comes to you, and the moment it was useful long gone lol.



> A bit of one, I'm realizing. Maybe I should talk to someone about it.
> 
> I'm actually laughing as I write this. It's a silly thing to get worked up over.


From my perspective such reactions I see tends to either suggest an underlying insecurity being triggered or perhaps a deeply held value is being violated.
Perhaps something you have passion for is being slandered and such find it offensive?

I don't think silly though. Emotions are an alarm to alert us when something is off.




> Just a point of clarification--I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to write an epic story, I myself have this desire. I just think that writing a epic just because it needs to be epic without trying to say anything else is pointless. I'm waiting to combine it with a message worthy of an epic telling to do it.


Yeah, its adding more meaning. Pointless painting on a large canvas just to paint on a large canvas.





> Haha, yeah, you speak truth. What you said about it being the same, I think, is a ramification of what I said above, writing epic for epic's sake, not because the message needs to be epic. It all gets samey because there's no unifying theme except for epicness. The paradigm has gotten backward. It shouldn't be that the medium influences the message, the message should influence the medium.


The medium is the conduit of the message. Without a strong foundation (message) then all there is is just medium.

Though another interesting aspect is how others project their own meaning into things. There have been times I have drawn somethin with no real intent behind it. It was interesting what others read into it.



> Defining antiheroes is a bit difficult. Most superhero movies these days implement the antihero archetype to some extent, even in things like Man of Steel. The Dark Knight trilogy is probably the best example of an antihero, at least one that I wouldn't consider 'pulp antiheroism'. Batman is a good person, we don't question that, but we find his methods disturbing. (Like the scene at the end of the first movie where he tells Ra's al Ghul that he won't kill him, but doesn't have to save him from death.) That scene probably made most moviegoers cringe.
> 
> I distinguish Nolan's Batman's antihero persona from characters like Deadpool or Archer because Batman's aims are ultimately different than theirs. I call the latter two pulpy because of what you mentioned about them being narcissists. I haven't seen much of either character; I haven't seen Deadpool and I watched the first episode or two of Archer before I decided that I didn't want to be putting that show into my head, but from what I saw of Archer (can't really speak to Deadpool), he's very clearly not a good person and has little interest in being one, and to me represents the negative aspects of this generation concentrated into a single man-child. He seems to exist to gratify those negative aspects, and I can't get behind that (and because every other antihero in fiction seems to be in the same boat). Compare to Batman, whose intention, at least, are noble, and who actually wrestles with doing the right thing not because being a good person is difficult for him, but because he walks a fine line between hero and villain (a fact of which he is painfully aware), and has to constantly monitor his behavior to make sure he stays as close to hero as possible. We sympathize with him because he's a good man struggling in the circumstances that his life has thrust upon him, by others and himself, and his own savior complex. He's an interesting character for it. Many other antiheroes a la Archer are just hedonists.
> 
> Broadly speaking, though, antiheroes represent rebellion (Source: ), and so really any incarnation of this archetype is going have the more narcissistic aspects because that's sort of intrinsic to the ideologies these characters hold because they ultimately set themselves up to be their own judges of right and wrong (lots of Fi-Te in these characters). I just don't find the narcissistic elements attractive in their own right, and worries me that Archer characters are so popular among youth these days. Not because I think that such characters create narcissists, but that the very popularity of these characters are only popular because of latent narcissism.


Thankyou for expanding on antihero.

I can respect a character like batman as you described.

I can see the appeal why people like characters like archer. They do what they want (I could see people desiring this due to having many commitments they don't want to do), they ignore authority (how many people like to break rules? I'd say quite a few) say what they think no matter how offensive (again people like the idea of saying exactly what they are thinking to someone that annoys them so much, but usually don't to keep the relationship civil).
People like these characters because they wish they had such freedom to do those things. I guess this is what you mean by the concept of rebellion.

The reality though? I don't think those same people who admire archer would actually enjoy the company of someone like him. A complete disregard of others boundaries. Only befriending someone to fulfill their wants. Seeing others as beneath themself and hence for them to exploit. Do not care about another person, nor care about the relationship. Content with causing physical or mental harm to another. Will never appreciate the efforts of another as it is expected.

Really I wouldn't like such company. Would I like to be someone like that? I couldn't, empathy within me wouldn't have it.
If I could switch off empathy? I don't think I would want to die alone. Nor have nobody to help me through tough times.




> You mean the show's cavalier attitude towards those real and pressing issues is irritating?


Not irritating. More it pops my bubble to see how cruel the world can really be. Yes its just an interpretation. But there are real people who are really suffering living through a real nightmare.




> Yeah. I remember a scene where Petyr is in his room thinking, and there are just two female prostitutes going at it in the background while he occasionally throws out commands for how they should have sex. It was pointless, and at least from an artistic standpoint, the scene would have been better off without the sex. But no, it got put in there. I can't imagine being one of the actresses, having to film that over and over again...it would have been degrading.


Eh, unless the actresses likes that sort of stuff? Camera turns em on or something?
Each to their own. Something I personally wouldn't do.

Yeah seems far to obvious its thrown in for 'shock' factor (like a lot of other things) rather than something purposeful.



> Sex sells...as I man, I can all but guarantee that it does. Where did you hear that it's a myth?


I thought I came across an article that claimed a studied showed people were not any more inclined to buy a product because the advertisement was sexy in some way. If anything it could potentially affect sales negatively due to bad taste.
I'd have to look this up to confirm it though.

I mean would you buy deodorant because the ad says girls would flock to you?
Or a car because it could come with a supermodel?
Or drink coke because you'll look cool and dance with a pretty girl at a party like on TV?

Hmm...actually guy flocking deodorant for myself would be fun...but never see that on tv. It only contains moisture for poor neglected armpits :/
AND THE AD WILL NEVER TELL YOU HOW BAD POUR BLOCKING ALUMINIUM IS FOR YOU...
Or you could just use a salt mixture as it kills the odour causing bacteria.
...
Whilst this get ride of smell, it also creates more space on our skin for other bacteria to take up residence...perhaps a more pathogenic kind...

So turns out we are supposed to smell like humans. Icky aye?
Except the opposite sex with a different immune system to your own actually smells good (yay pheromones).

And now lets circle to the concept of normal. Normal can actually be quite bad for your health (deodorant is just the tip of the iceberg).

I find for me sex does not sell. Actually anything does not sell unless it conveys what it actually does and why I actually need it. Is it economical? is it efficient? Where was it made?
The end of the day do I need it and is it really going to make my life easier?




> But then it seems the whole thing is written to 'impact' the audience.
> I can see the argument for the show trying to stay authentic to its more savage roots, but here's the catch: if the writers actually cared about gender equality, or at least anything beyond just the shock factor, their attitude towards the gratuitous parts of the show would be entirely different. Their ends are very clear in how liberally they throw out the nudity. Perhaps there was an attempt to subvert this at some point (perhaps through character development, but I've been over that point already), but any such attempts are overshadowed almost entirely by ever needless moment of nudity on screen. As far as I know, though, no such attempts have been made, and the show does nothing to point out how awful and terrible it is that women are objectified and degraded in this way (again, I can't imagine being one of the actresses; it would horrible). I can't see the show as anything but regressive as a result.


I actually think it is almost entierly about shock factor.

How far have you watch too?
I found further along there was less nudity and less torcher for the sake of it.

I think there are a few storylines that show woman in power (forget names so dragon lady, the folk beyond the wall, the three assassin ladies, and knight lady)
But I say shock factor is still treated as more important.



> I haven't had the chance to see it, but as far as I know, it's fairly accurate towards Viking culture, and if it's not, the practices of taking slaves or killing off entire populations were not uncommon for conquerors in the past, if not necessarily in the viking age.
> 
> As far as women...I'm at a loss for how viking's actually treated them, but I can see it going either way.


In the show free woman were respected. They got fair trials when crimes happened. Some were famous shield maidens and at a young age taught to fight. They were on the battle field with the men.
This was contrasted with the christian view against women where she was a mans property and could be accused of cheating and hung with no evidence.




> Yeah. I don't personally mind the princess is saved by the prince archetype, but it really depends on how it's done--if the princess makes a good faith effort to actually alter her own situation or is otherwise impeded from doing so for actual reasons, not because "the prince will save me". At least from a child's perspective, I think the takeaway of such a story would be that, regardless of whether you're a princess or prince, you should actively be trying to make the situation better. That's how normal humans behave anyway.


I would like to think that's normal. Such a partnership in life would be great. I tend to see a lot of people complaining about their situation than doing anything about it.




> This might sound contradictory at first, but let me explain. I actually don't necessarily have a problem with this in of itself. It is a realistic situation that a villain might exploit someone's desire to change his/her circumstances. I have hard time saying that any one particular story is 'wrong' because I don't see why artificial limitations should be imposed upon an artist. This puts a lot of faith in the artist to use their creative license wisely, but I can see how someone might represent a woman well, even in the situation you mentioned. Really it comes down to the intent of the creator, which people have a hard time judging. In the case of the Little Mermaid, it's been a while since I've seen it, but given Disney's approach, I can see how someone might take it poorly, and I can see where it might have been rewritten to be kinder towards women, even in Ariel's rather crappy situation.


Well I don't think anyone could truly know the artists intent.
And every chance what is culturally accepted at the time will have its influence on a film.

In and of itself not 'wrong', I can agree with you there. But if all you saw was the message: you would be in trouble if you decided to rebel and follow you desires, and when in trouble need someone to rescue you, then could this be perceived as 'normal'?

Though the complete flop to all of this is I watched Disney movies yet don't seem to have a "to be saved" complex haha.
If anything I'm autonomous enough to achieve my goals regardless if my partner is able to help me or not. Yes I'll accept help, but I'm not going to be dependent on another to make my goals happen for me.



> One thing I do not terribly like, though, is that it's always men who save the women. I think Tangled is a good example of that kind of story done well: two people working together, even though Flynn is technically 'saving' Rapunzel. However, I don't like the message that it sends to young girls, that a man will save her. More than just implying that she needs a man, it teaches her to be passive but at the same time have unrealistic expectations for her future 'savior'. It teaches the girl that she doesn't need to be active in her romantic life, and it makes my job as a gentleman much more difficult.


Sucks for you 
Ah well.

I'm actually coming to terms with what I consider a romantic relationship. It has change from finding an almost perfect partner for companionship to viewing the relationship itself is an investment. The currency being time and the product being a fulfilling life.
Im seeing it less of being with a lover and more as one of partnership working towards a grand goal of building a life together. We do not need to have the same needs/wants/desires but rather the big life stuff in common (where will we live? What lifestyle? Children?). Being different we are able to bring vastly different skills to the table and work as a team to achieve something greater than just the sum of two people.




> I have a hard time saying that stories should be written in certain ways, though. I certainly appreciate things like Kikki's Delivery Service, which encourages women to be independent and so on, but I find that stories which are explicitly feminist fall into the same trappings as "epic for epic's sake". For starters the fact that things need to be "feminist for feminism's sake" is just sad to be begin with, but feminism itself can't be the end in of itself. If the story exists solely to give strong female characters, they either become unrealistically amazing, and are therefore flat and uninteresting because they have no flaws, or the story becomes so caught up in its feminist ends it forgets to actually tell a story about people. And that's really the rub for me: why not tell a story where the woman is a human being with flaws and strengths? That seems like the best way to go about it, rather than being intentionally (and achingly politically correct) feminist. In my mind, the older stories and feminist stories sit on two ends of a spectrum, and the way to actually tell a good story is to walk the middle: don't get so caught up in female 'empowerment' that you can't let your characters have flaws and therefore be interesting (heaven forbid that a woman ever be in a situation where a man has to save her! How terrible it would be to tell a story where the sexes are united and working together to deal with their own flaws, however different those are!), but don't be so old-school that your female characters exist solely as sex objects or plot devices. It seems to me that if you view men and women as equally valuable this shouldn't really even be an issue; you'll instinctively write good characters, and that's really what makes them equal or not. You could write a story where the female lead gets saved by a man ever single time something goes wrong, but I would still consider it fine if the woman was human enough to actually try and deal with her situation without sighing and waiting to be rescued. This is why I recoil from calling myself feminist and talking about female 'empowerment' and whatnot. For starters, part of feminism is just not being a jerk. I've known feminists that missed that and have left a bad taste in my mouth ever since. Secondly, empowerment is a ridiculous concept. Both men and women alike find themselves impotent in their lives at some point. Perhaps we should be less concerned about empowering one sex and more concerned with loving one another for who we are, differences and all, helping one another in our own situations in love and acknowledging the fact that we are all broken and helpless and sometimes you need the opposite sex to give you a hand. Crazy, I know.



Im curious, what message/meaning do you thing someone should write a story for?

I don't think feminism in and of itself is bad. A friend who would call herself that says it isn't about one sex being better than another, it's about both being seen as equal.
But not all think that way, there are even those who call themselves feminist yet perpetrate woman are to be number one completely disregarding men, trans, and may even discriminate against sexual orientation. So I understand that 'bad taste'.

I do agree, I don't think showcasing woman as perfect characters is the answer. And not sex objects either.
I think that middle ground you speak of may actually be most beneficial. Its realistic and allows for character development/growth which is relatable. Even better if both men and woman are portrayed as working together (hey, turns out this idea of partnership is actually the path to a great relationship)

My view though is more one of seeing each gender as equals. I don't necessarily mean on a physical level. That is there are physical differences, and slight behavioural differences. There are going to be roles/jobs that will better suit a particular gender. I don't deny that this difference should be disregarded.

What I mean by equal is about seeing the symbolic traits culture applies to gender as neutral. Historically men have symbolised strength, rational, hardened, etc. where as woman have been symbolised as weak, emotional, soft, etc. The problem I see is where society values what symbolises a man and devalues what symbolises a woman, and compares these values placing one set above another set.

This I believe leads to prejudice where one is judged based on this cultural idea rather than for what skills one actually possesses.

From my perspective what symbolises a man or woman are neutral. Both have value, I don't make a judgment of good nor bad . As for the actual differences, to me these are just like skills/talent one possesses. These aren't inherently better or worst, good nor bad, rather they are useful for some tasks and not so useful for other tasks.

If I had a job to be done that required someone good with logic/numbers/rational reasoning I wouldn't disregard one gender (oh woman are too emotion boo), rather its based on what skills an individual actually does have. Gender is irrelevant.

Now this does not necessarily mean let woman do a 'mans' job is the solution. I think a cultural shift is required where more feminine traits are accepted and respected. Rather than organisations structured where it values male traits (to which woman fit themselves too) an organisation that caters also to female traits.




> Yeah, it's a struggle to balance those two out. It's another middle-road situation, I think


Haha yeah.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@KalimofDaybreak and @mistakenforstranger

We are describing parallax as seeing something from different perspectives, and saying this is representative of Ni?
This actually seems to be in contradiction with what reckful is explaining which would suggest this is Ne (or NP specific)
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...vs-perceiving-real-question-should-asked.html

What do you think?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> @KalimofDaybreak and @mistakenforstranger
> 
> We are describing parallax as seeing something from different perspectives, and saying this is representative of Ni?
> This actually seems to be in contradiction with what reckful is explaining which would suggest this is Ne (or NP specific)
> ...


As I suspected, what reckful is talking about here is looking at a situation from multiple different angles, which I would describe as Ne, no doubt. The idea of parallax is a little different: rather than examining different angles of the situation itself, Ni looks through the eyes of others. It's that inward focus compared to Ne's explosion of different angles based on the nature of the situation itself. Ne says, "Ooh, we could look at this angle, and that angle, and that angle, and so many angles!" Ni says, "How would this person look at this problem?" The difference between parallax and Ne is that Ne turns its thumb around and around looking at it from every possible angle, and Ni holds out its thumb and blinks back and forth, looking at how the perception of the thumb differs based on which eye(s) it looks through. Now that's keeping really closely with the parallax metaphor, but these principles still apply. With Ulysses, it sounds like Joyce's idea of parallax is "How does this character look at this situation? Can I come to a judgment if character X has good, honest motives for doing the things he does?" etc. That's much more Ni, rather than just looking at the situation unto itself, which is more Ne. It's the difference between Ne's curiosity with what has been expressed or has an external form, and Ni's curiosity with the exact opposite: what has _not_ been expressed and going on behind the scenes.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> As I suspected, what reckful is talking about here is looking at a situation from multiple different angles, which I would describe as Ne, no doubt. The idea of parallax is a little different: rather than examining different angles of the situation itself, Ni looks through the eyes of others. It's that inward focus compared to Ne's explosion of different angles based on the nature of the situation itself. Ne says, "Ooh, we could look at this angle, and that angle, and that angle, and so many angles!" Ni says, "How would this person look at this problem?" The difference between parallax and Ne is that Ne turns its thumb around and around looking at it from every possible angle, and Ni holds out its thumb and blinks back and forth, looking at how the perception of the thumb differs based on which eye(s) it looks through. Now that's keeping really closely with the parallax metaphor, but these principles still apply. With Ulysses, it sounds like Joyce's idea of parallax is "How does this character look at this situation? Can I come to a judgment if character X has good, honest motives for doing the things he does?" etc. That's much more Ni, rather than just looking at the situation unto itself, which is more Ne. It's the difference between Ne's curiosity with what has been expressed or has an external form, and Ni's curiosity with the exact opposite: what has _not_ been expressed and going on behind the scenes.


That was brilliantly said, and you already have an implicit understanding of Ulysses without even reading it. I'm impressed. As you describe it here, it's exactly what Joyce was getting at:



KalimofDaybreak said:


> With Ulysses, it sounds like Joyce's idea of parallax is "How does this character look at this situation? Can I come to a judgment if character X has good, honest motives for doing the things he does?" etc. That's much more Ni, rather than just looking at the situation unto itself, which is more Ne.


Throughout the novel, you come to believe in only one interpretation of a character, but as you see it from another character's perspective, or even that character's own perspective, it changes your entire understanding of the situation or character. As Lenore Thomson says here:



> Where Extraverted Intuitives see many behavioral options, INJs acknowledge many conceptual standpoints. *They experience no need to declare one inherently better than another. Indeed, these types have the disconcerting habit of solving a problem by shifting their perspective and defining the situation some other way.*





> For INJs, patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered. *They're part of us--the way we make sense of the riot of energy and information impinging on our systems.*


In this way, Joyce is really trying to increase empathy in his readers, if I had to say there was any "moral" intention to Ulysses, which he didn't say there was, but I'm not sure if he's being entirely serious himself here:_"The pity is that the public will demand and find a moral in my book, or worse they may take it in some serious way, and on the honour of a gentleman, there is not one single serious word in it."_

Furthermore, he will write two different scenes of the exact moment occurring in different head-spaces, and you see how each character interprets the same reality. So, you'll see how Stephen Dedalus goes about this one day (since the entire book takes place within one day) at 8AM, and how Leopold Bloom does too at the same time in a separate chapter. Both have completely different experiences, and there really was no one before Joyce (at least that I know of) who was trying to communicate this in the written word, especially in the way that he did. I would also argue that maybe Joyce's absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths. As Lenore Thomson says,



> Introverted Intuition suggests that absolute meaning is an illusion--the result of having incomplete information.


This chapter might be an example of Joyce writing from Ne since it's less internal: JamesÂ*Joyce â€“ Ulysses (Chap. 10 - Wandering Rocks) | Genius There's more of a birds-eye-view quality to this chapter, as you're getting more of a sense of the whole. Though, it's almost impossible to follow it here, because there are no breaks indicating a shift in the situation like there is in the novel version. It's still taking place within the same time frame, but it's twenty different representations or external situations of that time, and is in line with the way you describe Ne: 



KalimofDaybreak said:


> The idea of parallax is a little different: rather than examining different angles of the situation itself, Ni looks through the eyes of others. It's that inward focus compared to Ne's explosion of different angles based on the nature of the situation itself. Ne says, "Ooh, we could look at this angle, and that angle, and that angle, and so many angles!"


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> As I suspected, what reckful is talking about here is looking at a situation from multiple different angles, which I would describe as Ne, no doubt. The idea of parallax is a little different: rather than examining different angles of the situation itself, Ni looks through the eyes of others. It's that inward focus compared to Ne's explosion of different angles based on the nature of the situation itself. Ne says, "Ooh, we could look at this angle, and that angle, and that angle, and so many angles!" Ni says, "How would this person look at this problem?" The difference between parallax and Ne is that Ne turns its thumb around and around looking at it from every possible angle, and Ni holds out its thumb and blinks back and forth, looking at how the perception of the thumb differs based on which eye(s) it looks through. Now that's keeping really closely with the parallax metaphor, but these principles still apply. With Ulysses, it sounds like Joyce's idea of parallax is "How does this character look at this situation? Can I come to a judgment if character X has good, honest motives for doing the things he does?" etc. That's much more Ni, rather than just looking at the situation unto itself, which is more Ne. It's the difference between Ne's curiosity with what has been expressed or has an external form, and Ni's curiosity with the exact opposite: what has _not_ been expressed and going on behind the scenes.


Unfortunately I don't see the difference.
He quoted Berens giving an example of Ne able to see one friends perspective on an issue, then another friends perspective on the issue, and finding truth somewhere in between. To me this is looking through another's eyes.

Unless what is being alluded too Ni may be aware of other perspectives but will subscribe to a particular perspective based on subjective preference. Where as Ne keeps moving without really settling?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Unfortunately I don't see the difference.
> He quoted Berens giving an example of Ne able to see one friends perspective on an issue, then another friends perspective on the issue, and finding truth somewhere in between. To me this is looking through another's eyes.
> 
> Unless what is being alluded too Ni may be aware of other perspectives but will subscribe to a particular perspective based on subjective preference. Where as Ne keeps moving without really settling?


Sort of. The difference is in how both intuitions approach the matter.

Let me put it like this: suppose you have an Ne and Ni dominant, each trying to solve a problem in their relationships. Say person X is cheating on person Y with person Z. All of these people are friends, and neither Ne nor Ni are the type of person who likes ending friendships. Both of our observers want to see the situation from person X's perspective. Ni thinks, "I've noticed that X seemed uncomfortable around Y for a while before I heard that X and Z were going together. Perhaps there is some sort of relational tension that X had not disclosed about Y? Maybe X and Z talked about it, and that's why they're spending time together now." Ne would think, "I remember X saying things about how Y was being [insert negative adjectives here], and how they had that big fight a few weeks ago. I guess X is frustrated and looking to end things."

Admittedly my Ne is example is subpar, but the difference is in between those two approaches. Ni is focused on X's psyche and the nature of his relationship to Y. Ne is focused on the things that X has said as the end in of themselves. Rather than looking inward based on guesses on the meaning of what X said, Ne is looking at everything that actually happened. Both can arrive at the same place, but the methods for getting there are different.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Sort of. The difference is in how both intuitions approach the matter.
> 
> Let me put it like this: suppose you have an Ne and Ni dominant, each trying to solve a problem in their relationships. Say person X is cheating on person Y with person Z. All of these people are friends, and neither Ne nor Ni are the type of person who likes ending friendships. Both of our observers want to see the situation from person X's perspective. Ni thinks, "I've noticed that X seemed uncomfortable around Y for a while before I heard that X and Z were going together. Perhaps there is some sort of relational tension that X had not disclosed about Y? Maybe X and Z talked about it, and that's why they're spending time together now." Ne would think, "I remember X saying things about how Y was being [insert negative adjectives here], and how they had that big fight a few weeks ago. I guess X is frustrated and looking to end things."
> 
> Admittedly my Ne is example is subpar, but the difference is in between those two approaches. Ni is focused on X's psyche and the nature of his relationship to Y. Ne is focused on the things that X has said as the end in of themselves. Rather than looking inward based on guesses on the meaning of what X said, Ne is looking at everything that actually happened. Both can arrive at the same place, but the methods for getting there are different.


Actually I'm going to be bold here and say Ni is more likely to have a sense at the beginning of the relationship of friend X and Y that it isn't going to last. They may even have a sense person Y isn't trust worthy or something was off, but not be able to quite put their finger on what it is. This sense could be a feeling, or perhaps a thought, or even an inner image that seemed to persist around friend Y.

The above about Ni is something my ENFP partner will also notice, without fail. He is adept at noticing relationships, and will attempt to find hidden meaning to know what's going on.
I know me though, I would have absolutely no idea of what was going on (perhaps there is a feeling aspect in the example?). I might notice something out of place, off, off, contradicts. I may later come to an assumption that to me seems perfectly reasonable to be going on. I'm just not relationship orientated.
Perhaps both Ni and Ne overlap via intuition 

Ni, hmm, talking to my partner about a disagreement over the phone. At a particular point I I saw the sun disappear behind dark grey grey clouds. I knew at this point our conversation was not going to end well and nothing was going to be resolved. Prior to that point there was hope as we were engaging each other in a respectful manner. I was right, the conversation went down the toilet. It was messy :/
There wasn't an aspect of seeing the conversation from his psychological point of view to determine this. It was more what will happen.


EDIT:
This I think is what Beren's seems to stay:
"Ne – extraverted iNtuitingInterpreting situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change “what is” for “what could possibly be”; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts.

Ni – introverted iNtuiting
Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols."

I do see an overlaps, drawn to change and envisioning transformations.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> In all fairness I haven't spent much time there. Did ask about Ti after discussing with you but the INTPs who did answer my question seemed to think how I went about my decisions were more intensive. They appeared more distractible/scattered.


I think it depends on the INTP. In theory, their introversion should keep them pretty well together.



Ksara said:


> Another said they would still be analysing the thread I had linked to, to the point of coming to some thorough understanding/conclusion. I seem to be gathering more data lol.


Could be a Ti-Te difference; you looking for data and them looking for thoroughness. I've been tossing around and idea for a short thread recently, called "Problem Solving by Personality". Te would be "the best answer is the most efficient" and Ti would be "the best answer is the most technically correct."



Ksara said:


> I'll sit on INTJ at this point.


I could see it. INTJ and ENFP is also a pretty common combination, for whatever that's worth.



Ksara said:


> I've noticed my Ne dom partner do this a lot. It's as if he enters a situation and scans all potential problems. To me sounds tiring.


Yeah, it would be to an introvert. 



Ksara said:


> Myself I don't really do this. I tend to be more solution orientated. Mote a focus on what I can change to reach a desired outcome. In essence I see one possibility that will work. I may manipulate that possibility into something more desirable.


In that same thread I just mentioned, I was thinking to write of Ni, "the best answer is the simplest answer." In general introversion is discriminating whereas extraversion is inclusive. Rather than considering every single solution, introverts will pick out one or two that suits them best and then make those work.



Ksara said:


> Haha yes.
> I guess its finding what inspires you to trigger such intuition.
> 
> Oh the random times when the answer comes to you, and the moment it was useful long gone lol.


Yeah. Sad thing is, I don't really think that we can determine what triggers our intuition. We just kind of have to go along with it.



Ksara said:


> From my perspective such reactions I see tends to either suggest an underlying insecurity being triggered or perhaps a deeply held value is being violated.
> Perhaps something you have passion for is being slandered and such find it offensive?


I think so. I'm bothered by the state of contemporary literature because so much of it is so samey or just a waste of space. I don't see why people can't just write to fit their message. Or even better: have a message. What's the point of flooding the market with a million Lord of the Rings copies if all of them forget what made that story great: it's epic scale, to be sure, but also the characters, the worldbuilding, the sheer sense of wonder at entering a new world that was fully realized. The story it told about friendship and brotherhood and what it means to be a human when you're carrying a terrible burden, how to let others carry you when you can't go on..._I_ could go on but I won't.



Ksara said:


> I don't think silly though. Emotions are an alarm to alert us when something is off.


True.



Ksara said:


> Yeah, its adding more meaning. Pointless painting on a large canvas just to paint on a large canvas.


Yeah. Seems like more work than it's worth. I mean, what will you paint? A big canvas? A painting you saw? Both seem redundant and one is technically illegal. I'm sure if you switch the colors around it'll be okay.



Ksara said:


> The medium is the conduit of the message. Without a strong foundation (message) then all there is is just medium.
> 
> Though another interesting aspect is how others project their own meaning into things. There have been times I have drawn somethin with no real intent behind it. It was interesting what others read into it.


That's true, but that should be probably be more of a springboard to creativity than the end in of itself. Although the exercise is certainly valuable.



Ksara said:


> Thank you for expanding on antihero.
> 
> I can respect a character like batman as you described.
> 
> ...


I think that's true. These characters represent the fantasies of the viewers--to be able to shirk commitments on a whim and just follow their impulses.



Ksara said:


> The reality though? I don't think those same people who admire archer would actually enjoy the company of someone like him. A complete disregard of others boundaries. Only befriending someone to fulfill their wants. Seeing others as beneath themself and hence for them to exploit. Do not care about another person, nor care about the relationship. Content with causing physical or mental harm to another. Will never appreciate the efforts of another as it is expected.
> 
> Really I wouldn't like such company. Would I like to be someone like that? I couldn't, empathy within me wouldn't have it.
> If I could switch off empathy? I don't think I would want to die alone. Nor have nobody to help me through tough times.


Same. This part of the reason why I don't see the appeal. These characters are by all rights bad people. I'm not sure why a human would want to be like them or enjoy their antics. More than that, I get frustrated knowing that these characters are popular only because their viewers want to have the same selfish freedoms they enjoy? Is our society that conceited? Granted, most people don't behave like this, but there has to be some desire being filled here.



Ksara said:


> Not irritating. More it pops my bubble to see how cruel the world can really be. Yes its just an interpretation. But there are real people who are really suffering living through a real nightmare.


Gotcha. Yeah, I can see how that would bad. (Bad feels like such a juvenile way of saying it, but for the life of me I can't think of a good word.)



Ksara said:


> Eh, unless the actresses likes that sort of stuff? Camera turns em on or something?
> Each to their own. Something I personally wouldn't do.
> Yeah seems far to obvious its thrown in for 'shock' factor (like a lot of other things) rather than something purposeful.


I have a hard time just giving it a 'to each their own' ruling since cameras necessarily involve other people (or I'm assuming that is the aspect that people might find erotic). And then considering other factors: maybe one enjoys it and the other doesn't, or in the case of just one, does exposing herself have negative impacts on other people? Maybe there's a man out there who find her more attractive than his wife. Obviously both people must make their own choices, but does that remove the actresses part in it entirely? I don't think so. Or then what about family members seeing that sort of thing? Can you tell them not to watch a TV show just because their daughter/sister might be naked in it? Seems like a lot to ask for wanting to be naked in front of a camera. And this isn't even bringing in my religious qualms with the matter. (That's a post in of itself.) I guess my point is that actions are rarely self-contained, and I'm not totally convinced that each person's influence ends at their own actions. There's a Latin American proverb (I forget the Spanish), "He who ties the cow's leg kills it as much as the man who shoots it." Seems like a similar principle applies here, especially considering how meaningless much of this sort of thing is on Game of Thrones/premium TV in general. Heck, I'd even bring things like 50 Shades of Grey into the mix.



Ksara said:


> I thought I came across an article that claimed a studied showed people were not any more inclined to buy a product because the advertisement was sexy in some way. If anything it could potentially affect sales negatively due to bad taste.
> I'd have to look this up to confirm it though.


I'd be interested in looking at it if you ever do find it. Put it under my own microscope.



Ksara said:


> I mean would you buy deodorant because the ad says girls would flock to you?
> Or a car because it could come with a supermodel?
> Or drink coke because you'll look cool and dance with a pretty girl at a party like on TV?


I think that the rhetoric used to describe ads in this light is a bit misleading. It isn't about what the ad says will happen--obviously no man rationally thinks that wearing deodorant will suddenly change his sex appeal, or that there's a slight chance that buying a car will snag you a supermodel in that same deal, etc. Irrationally, however, I think that these sorts of connections are very true. Lots of men are insecure about something usually related to women, so ads that target that in particular speak to that insecurity. The product symbolically masks the perceived imperfection, thus making every single woman twenty square miles of the deodorant-user suddenly realizes that he is an attractive, eligible bachelor and flocks to him. In this way, it's about what ads don't say over what they do actually say. One the surface level an ad might just tell a simple story, but on an unconscious level it's a whole different ball game. Consider the supermodel-car ad, for instance, say this one:






Obviously the joke is that the men think that the car is more attractive than even the supermodels, but the ad creates an important link between the car and attractive women. If a typical male watches this sort of ad, there is a very clear projection: the ad presents what is ostensibly a catfight (I hate that term; forgive my usage) between unrealistically attractive women and another unrealistically attractive 'woman' in the car. In all cases, the models are doing something to turn male attention back on to them, so the ad implies that a man owning said car will achieve similar results. Even broader than that, the sheer appeal of the car is supposed to turn heads, so just having the association with the car bolsters a man's own prestige. The ad even overturns the subjective nature of beauty. It's one of the great lies of our culture that is an objective standard of beauty, a lie perpetuated by ads like this. It doesn't matter who come into contact with this car--attractive supermodel or paint-soaked reporter--it effects their reaction. (To anyone concerned about grammar, that was a proper use of 'effect'.) Clearly this car is objectively beautiful, and that appeals to many different human desires, especially for the male psyche. Sex itself might not sell, but using it as a device certainly does. And that doesn't even mention associations and using sex as a tool make a product stand out to stay in the mind of a consumer; those are also immensely powerful tools at advertisers' disposal. 



Ksara said:


> Hmm...actually guy flocking deodorant for myself would be fun...but never see that on tv.


Exactly. 



Ksara said:


> It only contains moisture for poor neglected armpits :/


Is one normally considerate of their armpits?



Ksara said:


> AND THE AD WILL NEVER TELL YOU HOW BAD POUR BLOCKING ALUMINIUM IS FOR YOU...
> Or you could just use a salt mixture as it kills the odour causing bacteria.
> ...
> Whilst this get ride of smell, it also creates more space on our skin for other bacteria to take up residence...perhaps a more pathogenic kind...


Baking soda works as a substitute for shampoo...I'm just realizing how random that sounded. Seemed relevant. Also, ew. Armpit pathogens.



Ksara said:


> So turns out we are supposed to smell like humans. Icky aye?
> Except the opposite sex with a different immune system to your own actually smells good (yay pheromones).


D: That's why women's bathrooms/locker rooms smell so much better than men's. It all makes sense now.



Ksara said:


> And now lets circle to the concept of normal. Normal can actually be quite bad for your health (deodorant is just the tip of the iceberg).


Haha, don't get me started; I'll keep rambling.



Ksara said:


> I find for me sex does not sell. Actually anything does not sell unless it conveys what it actually does and why I actually need it. Is it economical? is it efficient? Where was it made?
> The end of the day do I need it and is it really going to make my life easier?


I find myself to be generally the same way. I think that the reason sex gets advertised to men, however, is because of the difference between sex drives. It's a lot easier for an ad to be sensually appealing to a man than it is to form an emotional bond with a woman before flaunting the sex. Much easier to exploit the emotional bond to its full capacity at that point.



Ksara said:


> I actually think it is almost entierly about shock factor.


Definitely a lot of that, too.



Ksara said:


> How far have you watch too?
> I found further along there was less nudity and less torcher for the sake of it.


I watched the first season before I stopped. Part of the reason I stopped is because I don't own any of it and I have ethical problems getting any sort of media from an illicit source, but the much larger reasons were the pornographic elements.



Ksara said:


> I think there are a few storylines that show woman in power (forget names so dragon lady, the folk beyond the wall, the three assassin ladies, and knight lady)
> But I say shock factor is still treated as more important.


Yeah. On some level my thoughts still stand about forfeiting any sort of progress due to the explicit scenes, but then on a sheerly pragmatic level, I find Emilia Clarke very attractive. Doesn't seem prudent to put myself into a place of temptation.



Ksara said:


> In the show free woman were respected. They got fair trials when crimes happened. Some were famous shield maidens and at a young age taught to fight. They were on the battle field with the men.
> This was contrasted with the christian view against women where she was a mans property and could be accused of cheating and hung with no evidence.


I respect that sort of things. Good on Viking culture. As far as my own faith...sigh. It saddens me that I have the history I do, especially with gender rights. A deep reading of Biblical texts reveals a very egalitarian outlook on gender, but in the past the church has missed what Jesus Himself called the greatest commandment, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and _love your neighbor as yourself_." If love is indeed the message of the Gospel and the fulfillment of the Law, Christians have been terrible at spreading the Gospel.



Ksara said:


> I would like to think that's normal. Such a partnership in life would be great. I tend to see a lot of people complaining about their situation than doing anything about it.


And the worst part is when women will resist help because "I don't need man's help." Sigh. Such fire, so misguided. Love and unity, people. It's not complicated.



Ksara said:


> Well I don't think anyone could truly know the artists intent.
> And every chance what is culturally accepted at the time will have its influence on a film.


You're right, and really I don't think there's anything that a government can do to influence either of these things, at least not efficiently or easily or even fairly. This is where individuals come in, I think. Too often people don't realize that they have the ability to accept or reject messages. Children are one thing, but adults should be better, and parents especially should be intentional about how they teach a child to handle a message. They shouldn't shelter their kids; that's being lazy about it. It's a matter of education, really.



Ksara said:


> In and of itself not 'wrong', I can agree with you there. But if all you saw was the message: you would be in trouble if you decided to rebel and follow you desires, and when in trouble need someone to rescue you, then could this be perceived as 'normal'?


Maybe. I think that it's a question of what else is in the story. In the case of the Little Mermaid, or any Disney film for that matter, there really isn't much else by virtue of being a children's movie. However in a more complex work, I think that a person's judgment on which position is being upheld--the one who waits or the one who is active. Perhaps we should train our kids to be able to identify with characters of both genders so that becomes less of an issue. In the case of a story that is designed to exemplify the virtue of waiting, then the issue would need to be addressed in some way. That's just good authorship, though; we must be intentional about the messages we are sending, whether intended or not.



Ksara said:


> Though the complete flop to all of this is I watched Disney movies yet don't seem to have a "to be saved" complex haha.
> If anything I'm autonomous enough to achieve my goals regardless if my partner is able to help me or not. Yes I'll accept help, but I'm not going to be dependent on another to make my goals happen for me.


I do think humans have a tendency towards action and motion. It takes a lot, I think, to get a person to state where they don't want to work to better their situation. Sometimes things are simply out of their hands (which actually could be a valid interpretation of most Disney films where this is an issue), but humans are rather dogged.

And there are Disney movies where the paradigm is inverted. In Beauty and the Beast, for example, Belle saves the Beast.



Ksara said:


> Sucks for you
> Ah well.
> 
> I'm actually coming to terms with what I consider a romantic relationship. It has change from finding an almost perfect partner for companionship to viewing the relationship itself is an investment. The currency being time and the product being a fulfilling life.
> Im seeing it less of being with a lover and more as one of partnership working towards a grand goal of building a life together. We do not need to have the same needs/wants/desires but rather the big life stuff in common (where will we live? What lifestyle? Children?). Being different we are able to bring vastly different skills to the table and work as a team to achieve something greater than just the sum of two people.


The romantic in me squirms at putting it that way, but on a practical level, yes, I believe that is correct. My emotions aside, however, I do think that romance *should* be a part of it, but not the end in of itself. It's a balance of finding someone whose life aligns with yours, but then also someone who you'll still want to be buying chocolates and roses when your sixty. Of course, I could also make a rock romantic, so maybe that's just me, but I would hope this principle holds true in all people. Otherwise I'll have to rethink some things.



Ksara said:


> Im curious, what message/meaning do you thing someone should write a story for?


I find myself most often writing about God to some extent. Finding faith, developing a relationship with Him, really whatever happens to be going on in my life at the moment. I sort of limit myself to this rather unnecessarily, though. Really, I think you can write a story for anything, it just shouldn't sacrifice telling a good story. I shouldn't speak on things I haven't read, but Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is a good example of a book that sacrifices narrative for its philosophy. In the end, it's whatever is worth it to the author. My gut tells me that God is the only thing worth writing about then, but that's a shallow way of looking at it; just writing about faith or Christian values gets redundant and, like I said earlier, unnecessarily limiting. And besides, I doubt any of my stuff will ever see the shelves of a Christian bookstore; I can get pretty dark. I don't know when Christian came to mean family-friendly, but I don't think it should be. The Bible certainly isn't, and definitely not the world we're supposed to live in.



Ksara said:


> I don't think feminism in and of itself is bad. A friend who would call herself that says it isn't about one sex being better than another, it's about both being seen as equal.


I don't see it as necessarily bad, either. However,



Ksara said:


> But not all think that way, there are even those who call themselves feminist yet perpetrate woman are to be number one completely disregarding men, trans, and may even discriminate against sexual orientation. So I understand that 'bad taste'.


Yeah. Honestly what it comes down to for me is that it feels too much like building walls as opposed to bridges if a movement is exclusively about one gender or whatever. I'm still not sure why people get so caught up in shallow differences like race and gender and such anyway. It makes no sense.



Ksara said:


> I do agree, I don't think showcasing woman as perfect characters is the answer. And not sex objects either.
> I think that middle ground you speak of may actually be most beneficial. Its realistic and allows for character development/growth which is relatable. Even better if both men and woman are portrayed as working together


Yeah. Part of me is a Taoist, I think, because wherever I look in the world I see this idea of two extremes and walking the path in the between. Ironic, since I think 'middle path' comes from Buddhism (don't quote me on that, though).



Ksara said:


> (hey, turns out this idea of partnership is actually the path to a great relationship)


Haha, mind = BLOWN.



Ksara said:


> My view though is more one of seeing each gender as equals. I don't necessarily mean on a physical level. That is there are physical differences, and slight behavioural differences. There are going to be roles/jobs that will better suit a particular gender. I don't deny that this difference should be disregarded.


Not going to lie, I always die a little when I hear someone say that men and women are biologically equal. I mean...seriously? Haven't they heard of X and Y chromosomes? It's this brand of feminism that really doesn't sit well with me. Frankly, it's what's wrong with American politics these days: ignoring actual facts in the service of their ideas. And I'm N-dom: I hate facts. And I realize that they mean the differences between men being stronger and women being weaker, but that itself is also untrue. It's just...agh. Makes me want to tear my hair out.



Ksara said:


> What I mean by equal is about seeing the symbolic traits culture applies to gender as neutral. Historically men have symbolised strength, rational, hardened, etc. where as woman have been symbolised as weak, emotional, soft, etc. The problem I see is where society values what symbolises a man and devalues what symbolises a woman, and compares these values placing one set above another set.
> 
> This I believe leads to prejudice where one is judged based on this cultural idea rather than for what skills one actually possesses.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I agree.



Ksara said:


> Now this does not necessarily mean let woman do a 'mans' job is the solution. I think a cultural shift is required where more feminine traits are accepted and respected. Rather than organisations structured where it values male traits (to which woman fit themselves too) an organisation that caters also to female traits.


Definitely. And on that same subject, I would there wasn't equal opportunity laws like the ones we have in the U.S. It makes no sense to me for an employer to be forced to have a certain ratio of gender or race or whatever. Really it's just a way of trying quantify the problem, and Te-centric societies are terrible at problems they can't quantify. "What? You mean we can't have a checklist to fill out? How will anything be enforced? How will we _know_ anything?" *Te begins to run around screaming and burning things.* Here's a crazy idea: people stop being concerned with what's only legal and instead of focus on what's right or wrong. This comic sums it up well:









EDIT: I'll to our Ni discussion soon--hopefully tomorrow.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I think it depends on the INTP. In theory, their introversion should keep them pretty well together.
> 
> 
> 
> Could be a Ti-Te difference; you looking for data and them looking for thoroughness. I've been tossing around and idea for a short thread recently, called "Problem Solving by Personality". Te would be "the best answer is the most efficient" and Ti would be "the best answer is the most technically correct."


That's not a bad Idea. I vote for the best answer is the least effort  (no not a band aid solution, the solution that completely solves the problem and minimal effort, so I don't have to solve it again haha).



> I could see it. INTJ and ENFP is also a pretty common combination, for whatever that's worth.


Yeah, I'm not sure why. The opposite point of view can make it hard to work effectively together. I'm not yet at the accept each for our strengths and weaknesses part of the relationship. The bit before where one or both partners demand change, also known as the power struggle.




> Yeah, it would be to an introvert.
> 
> In that same thread I just mentioned, I was thinking to write of Ni, "the best answer is the simplest answer." In general introversion is discriminating whereas extraversion is inclusive. Rather than considering every single solution, introverts will pick out one or two that suits them best and then make those work.


makes sense. I've found only at the start of a decision I may consider all options, then proceed to prune them down eliminating what I can pretty quickly to what suits me. Actually it's annoying when I have come to a select few then someone decides to offer up something new. I may actually disregard it at that point.



> Yeah. Sad thing is, I don't really think that we can determine what triggers our intuition. We just kind of have to go along with it.


I think mentally being open helps. Or trying new things when in a slump. I think the idea is to not be looking for it to allow it to naturally happen when ready. Definitely not as simple as pushing a button and out pops insight haha.



> I think so. I'm bothered by the state of contemporary literature because so much of it is so samey or just a waste of space. I don't see why people can't just write to fit their message. Or even better: have a message. What's the point of flooding the market with a million Lord of the Rings copies if all of them forget what made that story great: it's epic scale, to be sure, but also the characters, the worldbuilding, the sheer sense of wonder at entering a new world that was fully realized. The story it told about friendship and brotherhood and what it means to be a human when you're carrying a terrible burden, how to let others carry you when you can't go on..._I_ could go on but I won't.


I think some of it these days is commercialized. it's about the bottom dollar or meeting a quota, than something meaningful.
I do know what you mean though. In my design classes it was hard to design simply because it was not necessarily something new. Sometimes I just felt some things were useless. I couldn't see how the product was innovative or something that was needed. It was 'samey'.



> True.
> 
> Yeah. Seems like more work than it's worth. I mean, what will you paint? A big canvas? A painting you saw? Both seem redundant and one is technically illegal. I'm sure if you switch the colors around it'll be okay.


Yeah. Though painting big is actually easier. Very difficult to achieve the same level of detail when on a tiny canvas. Haha yes copying is illegal. I do see you point here. I think the artwork itself should dictate the canvas choice.



> That's true, but that should be probably be more of a springboard to creativity than the end in of itself. Although the exercise is certainly valuable.
> 
> I think that's true. These characters represent the fantasies of the viewers--to be able to shirk commitments on a whim and just follow their impulses.
> 
> Same. This part of the reason why I don't see the appeal. These characters are by all rights bad people. I'm not sure why a human would want to be like them or enjoy their antics. More than that, I get frustrated knowing that these characters are popular only because their viewers want to have the same selfish freedoms they enjoy? Is our society that conceited? Granted, most people don't behave like this, but there has to be some desire being filled here.


To an extent we are all selfish. I don't mean it in a negative sense. More we all have needs, and it is our responsibility to meet them. I think perhaps some people aren't meeting their needs and from this feel restricted, frustrated, annoyed, held down. So they feel a desire for the opposite, but tends to come through over exaggerated.




> Gotcha. Yeah, I can see how that would bad. (Bad feels like such a juvenile way of saying it, but for the life of me I can't think of a good word.)


Horrendes? inconceivable? Audacious?
Really it's disappointing. Where I see my actions as a contract with the world, what I do is me say I am happy to have this done to me. I can't fathom how someone can see themselves above another to cause such harm, and feel entitled to it. Yet when they are treated the same way they feel a need for vengeance (oh but what about all the other people you've done wrong too, you are ok with them being hurt but you in turn can't be hurt...makes not sense to me)




> I have a hard time just giving it a 'to each their own' ruling since cameras necessarily involve other people (or I'm assuming that is the aspect that people might find erotic). And then considering other factors: maybe one enjoys it and the other doesn't, or in the case of just one, does exposing herself have negative impacts on other people? Maybe there's a man out there who find her more attractive than his wife. Obviously both people must make their own choices, but does that remove the actresses part in it entirely? I don't think so. Or then what about family members seeing that sort of thing? Can you tell them not to watch a TV show just because their daughter/sister might be naked in it? Seems like a lot to ask for wanting to be naked in front of a camera. And this isn't even bringing in my religious qualms with the matter. (That's a post in of itself.) I guess my point is that actions are rarely self-contained, and I'm not totally convinced that each person's influence ends at their own actions. There's a Latin American proverb (I forget the Spanish), "He who ties the cow's leg kills it as much as the man who shoots it." Seems like a similar principle applies here, especially considering how meaningless much of this sort of thing is on Game of Thrones/premium TV in general. Heck, I'd even bring things like 50 Shades of Grey into the mix.


From my vantage point, it is a choice to do or pretend to do it in front of a camera. These people are choosing for someone they know to see it. I know I would choose differently, far to awkward or weird for me.

It was also the mans choice to watch the show. Granted if he wasn't expecting to see a naked woman on it then I'd say the station airing the program itself did not make this clear. it is also again his choice if he continues to watch.

As for attractiveness, I don't think that's something controllable. Anyone at any time could come in contact with someone they see as more attractive than their partner. To me attraction is suggesting on a physical level that person is viable, but that's not love. Again it's a choice to act on it.


I can see how actions aren't self contained and can influence others. However influencing does still allow for the other to make their choice. Anything thing influential to the point that it robs another of such a choices is manipulation. In the proverb the cow has been restricted and can not choose to walk, that's manipulation.

But I think here we are talking opinions. To me it feels a little risky, many encounters where I find myself talking opinions with another tends to be on the tense side of things where they differ. I don't want any ill feelings here.



> I'd be interested in looking at it if you ever do find it. Put it under my own microscope.


I will have to go find it now haha



> I think that the rhetoric used to describe ads in this light is a bit misleading. It isn't about what the ad says will happen--obviously no man rationally thinks that wearing deodorant will suddenly change his sex appeal, or that there's a slight chance that buying a car will snag you a supermodel in that same deal, etc. Irrationally, however, I think that these sorts of connections are very true. Lots of men are insecure about something usually related to women, so ads that target that in particular speak to that insecurity. The product symbolically masks the perceived imperfection, thus making every single woman twenty square miles of the deodorant-user suddenly realizes that he is an attractive, eligible bachelor and flocks to him. In this way, it's about what ads don't say over what they do actually say. One the surface level an ad might just tell a simple story, but on an unconscious level it's a whole different ball game. Consider the supermodel-car ad, for instance, say this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hmm, interesting.
So it's more an insecurity about sex than sex itself..
Yeah I do see the play on insecurities. I think it's the idea of make the population feel crap about something about themselves so you can them sell them something that solves this problem.



> Exactly.
> 
> Is one normally considerate of their armpits?


That's the latest ad for deodorant. Women shave their armpits which can irritate the area so the ad is playing on this.



> Baking soda works as a substitute for shampoo...I'm just realizing how random that sounded. Seemed relevant. Also, ew. Armpit pathogens.


I haven't tried that yet. I have also heard Vinegar is a great conditioner.
I'm currently using some rocksalt as deodorant. not bad.



> D: That's why women's bathrooms/locker rooms smell so much better than men's. It all makes sense now.


Nah, mens bathrooms are just gross 
jokes.
It's also the same reason why we tend to find family members smell bad. We are genetically similar and have a similar immune system. It's not great variety for offspring.



> Haha, don't get me started; I'll keep rambling.
> 
> I find myself to be generally the same way. I think that the reason sex gets advertised to men, however, is because of the difference between sex drives. It's a lot easier for an ad to be sensually appealing to a man than it is to form an emotional bond with a woman before flaunting the sex. Much easier to exploit the emotional bond to its full capacity at that point.


I wonder how true the sex drive thing is.



> Definitely a lot of that, too.
> 
> I watched the first season before I stopped. Part of the reason I stopped is because I don't own any of it and I have ethical problems getting any sort of media from an illicit source, but the much larger reasons were the pornographic elements.
> 
> Yeah. On some level my thoughts still stand about forfeiting any sort of progress due to the explicit scenes, but then on a sheerly pragmatic level, I find Emilia Clarke very attractive. Doesn't seem prudent to put myself into a place of temptation.


Fair enough.




> I respect that sort of things. Good on Viking culture. As far as my own faith...sigh. It saddens me that I have the history I do, especially with gender rights. A deep reading of Biblical texts reveals a very egalitarian outlook on gender, but in the past the church has missed what Jesus Himself called the greatest commandment, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and _love your neighbor as yourself_." If love is indeed the message of the Gospel and the fulfillment of the Law, Christians have been terrible at spreading the Gospel.


Unfortunately people aren't perfect. And some really have a drive for power and control. I think many religions have such a honest teaching, yet any can be, and have been, used to coerce large masses to control people.



> And the worst part is when women will resist help because "I don't need man's help." Sigh. Such fire, so misguided. Love and unity, people. It's not complicated.


I hear you.



> You're right, and really I don't think there's anything that a government can do to influence either of these things, at least not efficiently or easily or even fairly. This is where individuals come in, I think. Too often people don't realize that they have the ability to accept or reject messages. Children are one thing, but adults should be better, and parents especially should be intentional about how they teach a child to handle a message. They shouldn't shelter their kids; that's being lazy about it. It's a matter of education, really.


I agree with this. The home is where society starts. These are going to be the life lessons taught and where the perceived 'normal' is practiced. The sad part is, it is common place for people to be under some sort of abuse. My friend studying psychology told me the statistics she came across for domestic violence in Australia is quite high. (I may be wrong as I'm going from memory here) but I think it was at least one in four families were in such a situation.
It's actually quite 'normal' to be dysfunctional. Being gender inequality, to not knowing how to be assertive, to dealing with conflict poorly, to other forms of abuse physical/verbal/etc. Even when I look at the way my parents argue. It's actually quite disrespectful. I am not at all surprised both my younger siblings tend to react to and yell when a conversation gets out of hand. It's the same behaviour as my parents.





> Maybe. I think that it's a question of what else is in the story. In the case of the Little Mermaid, or any Disney film for that matter, there really isn't much else by virtue of being a children's movie. However in a more complex work, I think that a person's judgment on which position is being upheld--the one who waits or the one who is active. Perhaps we should train our kids to be able to identify with characters of both genders so that becomes less of an issue. In the case of a story that is designed to exemplify the virtue of waiting, then the issue would need to be addressed in some way. That's just good authorship, though; we must be intentional about the messages we are sending, whether intended or not.


I do think the previous point about the parents has an even bigger impact.



> I do think humans have a tendency towards action and motion. It takes a lot, I think, to get a person to state where they don't want to work to better their situation. Sometimes things are simply out of their hands (which actually could be a valid interpretation of most Disney films where this is an issue), but humans are rather dogged.
> 
> And there are Disney movies where the paradigm is inverted. In Beauty and the Beast, for example, Belle saves the Beast.


I have noticed quite a few people who like to complain about their situation, than actively do something about it. Perhaps there is a turning point where someone becomes motionless? I also think it's perhaps not being to identify what is out of our hands vs what we can actually change.

that is true.



> The romantic in me squirms at putting it that way, but on a practical level, yes, I believe that is correct. My emotions aside, however, I do think that romance *should* be a part of it, but not the end in of itself. It's a balance of finding someone whose life aligns with yours, but then also someone who you'll still want to be buying chocolates and roses when your sixty. Of course, I could also make a rock romantic, so maybe that's just me, but I would hope this principle holds true in all people. Otherwise I'll have to rethink some things.


Yeah I was somewhat expecting that reaction. My INFJ friend had a very similar reaction 
I don't mean for it to sound so cold. The kind gestures are nice and help to maintain a closeness.

Think of it as two pillars. I don't want a relationship where one or both pillars are leaning on each other. There is no support for the roof. Instead two pillars standing tall on their own so they are able to support so much more than just themselves.



> I find myself most often writing about God to some extent. Finding faith, developing a relationship with Him, really whatever happens to be going on in my life at the moment. I sort of limit myself to this rather unnecessarily, though. Really, I think you can write a story for anything, it just shouldn't sacrifice telling a good story. I shouldn't speak on things I haven't read, but Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is a good example of a book that sacrifices narrative for its philosophy. In the end, it's whatever is worth it to the author. My gut tells me that God is the only thing worth writing about then, but that's a shallow way of looking at it; just writing about faith or Christian values gets redundant and, like I said earlier, unnecessarily limiting. And besides, I doubt any of my stuff will ever see the shelves of a Christian bookstore; I can get pretty dark. I don't know when Christian came to mean family-friendly, but I don't think it should be. The Bible certainly isn't, and definitely not the world we're supposed to live in.


It does seem a message worth writing about.

Maybe one day you will own your own book store? 



> I don't see it as necessarily bad, either. However,
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Honestly what it comes down to for me is that it feels too much like building walls as opposed to bridges if a movement is exclusively about one gender or whatever. I'm still not sure why people get so caught up in shallow differences like race and gender and such anyway. It makes no sense.


I think it's the 'us vs them' mentality. Combined with a survival instinct, that is to protect family and resources. Being a part of a group brings safety. Another large group is naturally threatening as they require a large amount of resources. Then there is the added fear, can we trust the other group? are they a threat? will they take all the resources by killing us or pushing us out of our territory?

I think it plays out through discriminating such differences, and also the unconscious (and for some conscious) bias to be prejudice.

From my perspective. It really doesn't matter. We are all human and tend to have similar wants, needs, desires. 



> Yeah. Part of me is a Taoist, I think, because wherever I look in the world I see this idea of two extremes and walking the path in the between. Ironic, since I think 'middle path' comes from Buddhism (don't quote me on that, though).


interesting. I'm aiming more for one of balance and acceptance. I am struggle to accept some things in the world however.



> Haha, mind = BLOWN.
> 
> 
> 
> Not going to lie, I always die a little when I hear someone say that men and women are biologically equal. I mean...seriously? Haven't they heard of X and Y chromosomes? It's this brand of feminism that really doesn't sit well with me. Frankly, it's what's wrong with American politics these days: ignoring actual facts in the service of their ideas. And I'm N-dom: I hate facts. And I realize that they mean the differences between men being stronger and women being weaker, but that itself is also untrue. It's just...agh. Makes me want to tear my hair out.


yeah I know the feeling. There are physical differences, but they don't actually matter. It's the underlying symbolism and values that needs to be equal. I find it hard to explain it being so conceptual.



> Yeah, I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's an attempt to force a change. Problem is now you aren't allowed to take the best of the best. You can take the best of each category of person. But say the best three candidates for the jobs just happened to be male? Now you are forced to the female who happens to really not be as good. To select the males is now seen as sexist, when it's actually about skill that's required for the job.

For change to actually occur company need to also value emotionality/nurturing/soft (more traditional feminine symbolic qualities)

Also I really appreciate the comic. Made my day haha.


> EDIT: I'll to our Ni discussion soon--hopefully tomorrow.


cool


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

So..."tomorrow". Sorry about that. I've had a weird few days.



Ksara said:


> Actually I'm going to be bold here and say Ni is more likely to have a sense at the beginning of the relationship of friend X and Y that it isn't going to last. They may even have a sense person Y isn't trust worthy or something was off, but not be able to quite put their finger on what it is. This sense could be a feeling, or perhaps a thought, or even an inner image that seemed to persist around friend Y.


As I've thought about it more and talked to people about it, I would agree, and in that particular kind of situation, it happens to me a lot. My ISFJ mother has done the same thing about people that my sister and I have dated in the past, so I don't think it's terribly definitive. Mother's intuition, maybe, but I'm skeptical of that because culture expects women to be intuitive.



Ksara said:


> The above about Ni is something my ENFP partner will also notice, without fail. He is adept at noticing relationships, and will attempt to find hidden meaning to know what's going on.
> I know me though, I would have absolutely no idea of what was going on (perhaps there is a feeling aspect in the example?). I might notice something out of place, off, off, contradicts. I may later come to an assumption that to me seems perfectly reasonable to be going on. I'm just not relationship orientated.
> Perhaps both Ni and Ne overlap via intuition


I'd actually be inclined to call this a point of overlap, since they both clearly have the capacity for this sort of thinking.



Ksara said:


> Ni, hmm, talking to my partner about a disagreement over the phone. At a particular point I I saw the sun disappear behind dark grey grey clouds. I knew at this point our conversation was not going to end well and nothing was going to be resolved. Prior to that point there was hope as we were engaging each other in a respectful manner. I was right, the conversation went down the toilet. It was messy :/
> There wasn't an aspect of seeing the conversation from his psychological point of view to determine this. It was more what will happen.


The cloud thing seems Ni; I've done that or something similar on multiple occasions.

I do think that Ni might have a hard time perspective-taking than Ne does. I hesitate to say that Ni is less open-minded than Ne (they're both intuition, so that's not technically true; sensation seems to be more closure-oriented), but Ni is certainly more discriminating. It might have so cognitive blocks that prevent it from seeing a certain perspective because doing so would just be ridiculous to it.

That was really vague. I hope that made sense.




Ksara said:


> EDIT:
> This I think is what Beren's seems to stay:
> "Ne – extraverted iNtuitingInterpreting situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change “what is” for “what could possibly be”; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts.
> 
> ...


Yeah, this is a good way of putting it.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> So..."tomorrow". Sorry about that. I've had a weird few days.


No worries, we all have weird days.



> As I've thought about it more and talked to people about it, I would agree, and in that particular kind of situation, it happens to me a lot. My ISFJ mother has done the same thing about people that my sister and I have dated in the past, so I don't think it's terribly definitive. Mother's intuition, maybe, but I'm skeptical of that because culture expects women to be intuitive.


I wonder how Si came to such conclusion? Perhaps she got sensory impressions of dissonance between the couple in question? (idk, I don't quite get jungian Si, need to read more haha). Hmm it could be a perception thing in general as Ne can be capable of the above too (I have heard my partner say many times he's not surprised), and my ESTP sister will notice when something is off in detail (and proceed to freak-out about it...inferior Ni?).

I've never really noticed such a cultural aspect to be intuitive.
Then again I don't notice much haha.




> I'd actually be inclined to call this a point of overlap, since they both clearly have the capacity for this sort of thinking.


Yeah. Perhaps intuition in general?



> The cloud thing seems Ni; I've done that or something similar on multiple occasions.


Image of profound meaning, check --> Ni.
I wonder why clouds.



> I do think that Ni might have a hard time perspective-taking than Ne does. I hesitate to say that Ni is less open-minded than Ne (they're both intuition, so that's not technically true; sensation seems to be more closure-oriented), but Ni is certainly more discriminating. It might have so cognitive blocks that prevent it from seeing a certain perspective because doing so would just be ridiculous to it.
> 
> That was really vague. I hope that made sense.


I think it makes some kind of sense. The introversion is what can be discriminating. It's about the self, and what's going on internally. That is one perspective but known deeply. In contrast extroversion places the point of view in the environment which encompasses many perspectives of others. This broadens their own perspective but each not as deeply (impossible to really know another).
Though I may have just made that up...



> Yeah, this is a good way of putting it.


That seems to be Beren's interpretation of the functions. Can't seem to find any other functional description of Beren's but these brief ones.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> I wonder how Si came to such conclusion? Perhaps she got sensory impressions of dissonance between the couple in question? (idk, I don't quite get jungian Si, need to read more haha). Hmm it could be a perception thing in general as Ne can be capable of the above too (I have heard my partner say many times he's not surprised), and my ESTP sister will notice when something is off in detail (and proceed to freak-out about it...inferior Ni?).


That's what I chalked it up to. I think part of it is just the experience piece: she's lived more life than my sister and I, so she would naturally have more 'archetypes' to interface with since she's probably seen such couples before. I do remember that I had bad feelings about one guy my sister dated much earlier than my mother, so maybe Si and Ni can arrive at the same conclusion, just through different means, perhaps such that Si is slower to make the intuitive leaps?



Ksara said:


> I've never really noticed such a cultural aspect to be intuitive.
> Then again I don't notice much haha.


How I feel you. I was thinking more along the lines of the archetypal 'desirable woman', at least in America: she's considerate and accommodating of others, maternal and caring, easily recognizes emotions in others. Definitely seems to be an ESFJ or ENFJ, leaning towards ENFJ because of her rather otherwordly awareness of others' needs.



Ksara said:


> Yeah. Perhaps intuition in general?


I'd be okay with saying that. I'd still have to say there'd be a difference in how the two approach it, but perhaps we would need to consult an Ne-dom for that to get anywhere. 



Ksara said:


> Image of profound meaning, check --> Ni.
> I wonder why clouds.


Ethereal, floaty, otherwordly, dreamy, seems to correspond rather well to an INxJ's inner world.



Ksara said:


> I think it makes some kind of sense. The introversion is what can be discriminating. It's about the self, and what's going on internally. That is one perspective but known deeply. In contrast extroversion places the point of view in the environment which encompasses many perspectives of others. This broadens their own perspective but each not as deeply (impossible to really know another).
> Though I may have just made that up...


No, I think that was a good way of putting it. I hesitate to limit introversion to one perspective entirely (it seems like humans are quite capable of looking at more than one, even if it is only one). I always liked Michael Pierce's maxim, "the many (extraversion) and the one (introversion)", but I'd revise that to say "the many and the few".



Ksara said:


> That seems to be Beren's interpretation of the functions. Can't seem to find any other functional description of Beren's but these brief ones.


You'd be hard-pressed to find anything except for short definitions on the internet. Does anyone know where to find Beren's writing?


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> That's what I chalked it up to. I think part of it is just the experience piece: she's lived more life than my sister and I, so she would naturally have more 'archetypes' to interface with since she's probably seen such couples before. I do remember that I had bad feelings about one guy my sister dated much earlier than my mother, so maybe Si and Ni can arrive at the same conclusion, just through different means, perhaps such that Si is slower to make the intuitive leaps?


Well I think all types are capable of arriving at the same conclusions, the journey there is what differs.



> How I feel you. I was thinking more along the lines of the archetypal 'desirable woman', at least in America: she's considerate and accommodating of others, maternal and caring, easily recognizes emotions in others. Definitely seems to be an ESFJ or ENFJ, leaning towards ENFJ because of her rather otherwordly awareness of others' needs.


It may be similar in Australia. My Dad tends to be logical and doesn't do emotions (maybe Ti dom but I'm not sure at this point), and my mother I think may be ESFJ however can be quite blunt so I question the F aspect sometimes. I haven't received any covert message from my parents of how a girl is supposed to be those things. I think that's why I don't recognise it or give the stereotype my attention. I suck at caring or being maternal, do not get emotional hints...but I am accommodating. And I couldn't care less if I'm not the 'desirable woman' haha.



> I'd be okay with saying that. I'd still have to say there'd be a difference in how the two approach it, but perhaps we would need to consult an Ne-dom for that to get anywhere.


CALLING ALL NE USERS! haha.
Maybe another thread topic at some point?



> Ethereal, floaty, otherwordly, dreamy, seems to correspond rather well to an INxJ's inner world.


Yes, floaty 
Don't know why floaty. Listening to music there is often a vast expanse and some form of rising up into the cosmos. Maybe in my past life I was a bird?



> No, I think that was a good way of putting it. I hesitate to limit introversion to one perspective entirely (it seems like humans are quite capable of looking at more than one, even if it is only one). I always liked Michael Pierce's maxim, "the many (extraversion) and the one (introversion)", but I'd revise that to say "the many and the few".


Yeah. I think "the many and the few" is a better way to put. Exploring all options, or the options in some way that resonate with the individual.



> You'd be hard-pressed to find anything except for short definitions on the internet. Does anyone know where to find Beren's writing?


That sucks :/
There are books that can be bought. I'm not sure how regarded Beren's is and if her function definitions are widely accepted. I was able to get my hands on Lenore Thomson's work from the library, however I can only take it with a grain of salt. The book brings into it the left and right brain analogy, however left brained vs right brained idea has since been disproven. It would have been annoying to have made the purchase of the book in that case.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Well I think all types are capable of arriving at the same conclusions, the journey there is what differs.


Absolutely. I hate it whenever I read somewhere that "only type XXXX can think _____".



Ksara said:


> It may be similar in Australia. My Dad tends to be logical and doesn't do emotions (maybe Ti dom but I'm not sure at this point), and my mother I think may be ESFJ however can be quite blunt so I question the F aspect sometimes. I haven't received any covert message from my parents of how a girl is supposed to be those things. I think that's why I don't recognise it or give the stereotype my attention. I suck at caring or being maternal, do not get emotional hints...but I am accommodating. And I couldn't care less if I'm not the 'desirable woman' haha.


Probably a sign of lower/lacking Fe. As for your mother...Jung actually addressed this. He said you can tell a person's inferior function by the things that "accidentally" happen to them. It can be only partially intended, but those kinds of Freudian slips can give an insight into their inferior function. He even used the Fe example: a person who is normally so socially conscious can have moments of profound tactlessness due to their inferior Ti. Your mom is very likely an ESFJ if that's the only thing that makes you question her feeling preference.



Ksara said:


> CALLING ALL NE USERS! haha.
> Maybe another thread topic at some point?


Actually, yeah, that might be a really good idea. Do a sort of AMA between the Ni-doms and Ne-doms...

Ooh, my brain is working now.



Ksara said:


> Yes, floaty
> Don't know why floaty. Listening to music there is often a vast expanse and some form of rising up into the cosmos. Maybe in my past life I was a bird?


Probably because of the dreamy connotations of floating. I actually have a piano sonata in mind that is essentially that feeling concentrated into sound...I should really look at that again. Music theory nerd moment: lots of flat major VII chords. 

Haha, yes, I suppose you must have been.



Ksara said:


> Yeah. I think "the many and the few" is a better way to put. Exploring all options, or the options in some way that resonate with the individual.


Yeah. Always refers back to the self.



Ksara said:


> That sucks :/
> There are books that can be bought. I'm not sure how regarded Beren's is and if her function definitions are widely accepted. I was able to get my hands on Lenore Thomson's work from the library, however I can only take it with a grain of salt. The book brings into it the left and right brain analogy, however left brained vs right brained idea has since been disproven. It would have been annoying to have made the purchase of the book in that case.


Whaaaat...? It wasn't annoying to have to mentally nix every mention of right and left brain psychology whenever she brought it up...

But seriously, there's good stuff in there, you just have to be reminding yourself that functions aren't "located" anywhere. Functions, by definition, can't be quantified, and if they could be located, then therefore they can be quantified. They're kind of like dark matter, actually: we _think_ we can observe of them, but darnit if have no idea how to measure them or if they even exist.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Absolutely. I hate it whenever I read somewhere that "only type XXXX can think _____".


Haha yeah



> Probably a sign of lower/lacking Fe. As for your mother...Jung actually addressed this. He said you can tell a person's inferior function by the things that "accidentally" happen to them. It can be only partially intended, but those kinds of Freudian slips can give an insight into their inferior function. He even used the Fe example: a person who is normally so socially conscious can have moments of profound tactlessness due to their inferior Ti. Your mom is very likely an ESFJ if that's the only thing that makes you question her feeling preference.


Yeah I wouldn't be surprised. I have noticed that when someone suggest I should be a certain way because I am in a certain role (e.g. such as being a 'responsible' person because I am a 'older sister' as that is appropriate) I couldn't care less. May as well have fallen on deaf ears lol.

The problem is, this tactlessness seems so common. It's either she just speaks her mind (which isn't my problem), or much more often it's some sort of passive aggressive jab. I guess inferior episodes can last a while?



> Actually, yeah, that might be a really good idea. Do a sort of AMA between the Ni-doms and Ne-doms...
> 
> Ooh, my brain is working now.


It wasn't before? 



> Probably because of the dreamy connotations of floating. I actually have a piano sonata in mind that is essentially that feeling concentrated into sound...I should really look at that again. Music theory nerd moment: lots of flat major VII chords.
> 
> Haha, yes, I suppose you must have been.


Whilst I have probably heard that chord, would not know which one that is.
I'm just amazed at how sound --> movement --> colour --> feeling --> imagination, or the reverse. 



> Yeah. Always refers back to the self.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's more a case of, if she got that part wrong (which she based upon her whole functional stack idea) what else could be wrong. The whole text comes into question. Maybe I just want to read lazily and absorb the information where I'm now forced to be more critical lol.
That is true. The end of the day the functions are just concepts or models of reality, they aren't reality.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Yeah I wouldn't be surprised. I have noticed that when someone suggest I should be a certain way because I am in a certain role (e.g. such as being a 'responsible' person because I am a 'older sister' as that is appropriate) I couldn't care less. May as well have fallen on deaf ears lol.


Sounds kind of like Fi, actually...have you given INTJ any more thought?



Ksara said:


> The problem is, this tactlessness seems so common. It's either she just speaks her mind (which isn't my problem), or much more often it's some sort of passive aggressive jab. I guess inferior episodes can last a while?


Given how willing xSFJs are to take on others' stress, I'd almost have to wonder if you mother just feels stressed a lot. I know my mother (ISFJ, maybe ESFJ) can be rather blunt and seem a lot like an ISTJ when she just wants to cut to the chase or expel some frustration.

I also think that MBTI sort of misses the inferior function. It's always there, it's just that the manifestation might be more sporadic. I can see how a person might express it more if their life circumstances were more conducive to its use, i.e., if your mother is in a scientific field. Kind of like how Neil deGrasse Tyson (ENFJ) has a very dry and sarcastic twitter account.



Ksara said:


> It wasn't before?


Working *more*.



Ksara said:


> Whilst I have probably heard that chord, would not know which one that is.


A flat major VII is essentially just the IV of IV. So in Bb major (the key this song is in), I go to the IV, Eb major, then I pretend that Eb is the new tonic and go the IV again, Ab major now, but relative to the original key, Ab isn't in that scale: it's a major triad centered around the flattened seventh. Of course, I really like the descending fifths, so I end up taking that progression one further in the first part of the song and play a Db major chord (the IV of Ab) before resolving to an F major triad and going back to the main key. You know what, I'll just embed a video from my phone.






So getting that here turned out to be a lot more complicated that I thought it would be.

Anyway, that's just a really bland progression (not the actual song), but it's essentially the sound. Starts on the I then to IV, then a flat major VII, and then I did one more for a flat major III and added a second just for style (which can be rewritten hilariously: IV of IV of IV) before going to a V and resolving back to I.

/theorynerd.



Ksara said:


> I'm just amazed at how sound --> movement --> colour --> feeling --> imagination, or the reverse.


Oh yeah, it's wonderful. You'll have to tell me if the above sounds floaty. 



Ksara said:


> It's more a case of, if she got that part wrong (which she based upon her whole functional stack idea) what else could be wrong. The whole text comes into question. Maybe I just want to read lazily and absorb the information where I'm now forced to be more critical lol.


No, you're right. Frankly I just ignore her model because what she says about the functions themselves is generally pretty good. For whatever she might have gotten wrong about locations and whatnot, the raw information is useful.



Ksara said:


> That is true. The end of the day the functions are just concepts or models of reality, they aren't reality.


Yeah. Like e = mc^2. Or gravitons. Seriously, how have we not figured out how gravity works yet?


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Sounds kind of like Fi, actually...have you given INTJ any more thought?


Fi was a function I thought I did have, then unsured myself lol.
Make judgments on personal preference, tend to form my own opinion of like/dislike, I'd say I do those things more than follow the general consensus on such matters. Strong Fi types tend to have an affinity towards authenticity/integrity right? I'm only noticing such things within myself now. Being genuine matters more, and I've noticed how respect for individuals can taint how seriously I take them.

Yeah, that's where I am sitting at the moment. I'm taking a step back from this function business for now.



> Given how willing xSFJs are to take on others' stress, I'd almost have to wonder if you mother just feels stressed a lot. I know my mother (ISFJ, maybe ESFJ) can be rather blunt and seem a lot like an ISTJ when she just wants to cut to the chase or expel some frustration.


Yes, definitely takes on other peoples stress. Very good at taking on other's stress when the other person is not even stressed. She has a knack for taking events that have nothing to do with her personally, react off it and creating a negative environment for those around her in a passive aggressive style.
I don't know how to approach it. I end up as the listening ear, saying very little. I offer a solution here or there that tends to be ignored. Perhaps more "that must be tough" statements? Can't giver her what she wants (the "yeah totally agree, how thoughtless of them!") because I don't agree. Pointing it out in a "what I've noticed is you can come across as y which is contributing to the bad situation, how about approaching it in x style instead?" way was a huge mistake lol.



> I also think that MBTI sort of misses the inferior function. It's always there, it's just that the manifestation might be more sporadic. I can see how a person might express it more if their life circumstances were more conducive to its use, i.e., if your mother is in a scientific field. Kind of like how Neil deGrasse Tyson (ENFJ) has a very dry and sarcastic twitter account.


Hmm, so how does one identify an inferior if it is overused?
Identify if the person seems under significant stress?



> Working *more*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice video. All of this just went over my head, and can only sum it up as "sounds nice" haha.



> Oh yeah, it's wonderful. You'll have to tell me if the above sounds floaty.


I think it has the potential to. It was a little to short to get into day dream mode. Layering it, building it up, change in volume, then contrasted with a soft quite part would really sound up lifting as if stalling high in the sky.
I do like those tones.



> No, you're right. Frankly I just ignore her model because what she says about the functions themselves is generally pretty good. For whatever she might have gotten wrong about locations and whatnot, the raw information is useful.
> 
> Yeah. Like e = mc^2. Or gravitons. Seriously, how have we not figured out how gravity works yet?


The problem with gravity is we can't seem to get a consistent measurement of G. We can measure something, but there is no validity when we can't repeat the same measurement and obtain the same value. 
The equations I think can estimate a value for G, however this is not reality and as such not measured, not proved. It's only a model.
I think it's like light. We don't know what it is, but we know through observation how it affects things.

Whether or not cognitive functions exists, patterns in human behaviour can be observed.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Fi was a function I thought I did have, then unsured myself lol.
> Make judgments on personal preference, tend to form my own opinion of like/dislike, I'd say I do those things more than follow the general consensus on such matters. Strong Fi types tend to have an affinity towards authenticity/integrity right? I'm only noticing such things within myself now. Being genuine matters more, and I've noticed how respect for individuals can taint how seriously I take them.


Anyone with Fi is going to value their authenticity. My father, an ENTJ, has the same drive. It's just that those with lower Fi tend to sacrifice that for Te reasons--ENTJs are often out of touch with their own values for much of their lives because their Te makes them think in terms of conforming to the current system, as opposed to their own authentic desires. In an INTJ, this tendency will be less pronounced and they will be more in touch with their feelings, but the general trend in their personality will be efficiency and systems over what they actually want. You mentioned getting a degree you didn't want. Maybe that's an extension of the Te? I also find it interesting that you're just now noticing the more individualistic tendencies in yourself; while any introvert is going to be individualistic to a certain extent (and in different ways), if you value being true to yourself and are only realizing it in your twenties, that could point to a tertiary Fi.



Ksara said:


> Yeah, that's where I am sitting at the moment. I'm taking a step back from this function business for now.


Haha, that's never a bad idea. 



Ksara said:


> Yes, definitely takes on other peoples stress. Very good at taking on other's stress when the other person is not even stressed. She has a knack for taking events that have nothing to do with her personally, react off it and creating a negative environment for those around her in a passive aggressive style.
> I don't know how to approach it. I end up as the listening ear, saying very little. I offer a solution here or there that tends to be ignored. Perhaps more "that must be tough" statements? Can't giver her what she wants (the "yeah totally agree, how thoughtless of them!") because I don't agree. Pointing it out in a "what I've noticed is you can come across as y which is contributing to the bad situation, how about approaching it in x style instead?" way was a huge mistake lol.


I feel you here. It's a hard situation to be in because the person is ultimately trying to do a good thing and they have good motivations. The problem is that the 'service' can become a god in its own right, above what the people around them actually want or need.

Your emphasis on fixing the problem seems to betray a thinking preference--I see this same behavior in my father. Sidebar: this also betrays your mother's own Fe preference; if she were Te-dom she would respond better to saying "You're coming across the wrong way, here's how you might change your behavior" because she wouldn't take it as personally. It often happens that people in these situations have their own identities caught up in how much they help people, and are therefore very sensitive to how they are being received. An ESTJ simply would be less inclined to do this because of their Fi.

The advice I normally give in these situations (because apparently I'm a counselor for those close to me ) is to always be sympathetic. It's very easy to get frustrated and say things you can't take back, but you have to remember to prioritize the relationship over anything else that might be happening, even if you find it hurtful. She is still your mother, and she is doing her best to love you and those around her as she knows how to, and that counts for something. It's hard, but that needs to be valued and reciprocated, otherwise you'll just make the situation worse.

One problem with the "here's how you can fix it" outlook is that she isn't going to respond to that as well. Whether she's capable or not (I'm not going to judge either way), she most likely feels that she can fix the problems she has, so telling her how to might come across as patronizing. And frankly, that's not why she's talking it to you about it. Fe types process emotions externally, and more than likely she just wants to be able to vent. So even though it can be frustrating, it's best to hear her out, and so in that respect more "that's tough" statements could absolutely be a good thing.

I don't think there's much you can do to alter the situation for the better, and I that can be hard to come to terms with. More than likely you mother won't realize that she creates her own problems until she's forced to come to terms with them on her own. That's why I tend to emphasize what you can do to change your own approach to her and not how you can change her. The best thing you can do is to be a loving daughter, regardless of what is going on around you.

Now in terms of actually helping fix the problem, the best thing I could recommend is convince her to see a counselor. She'll probably go through the usual "Oh, I have no time" conversation, but you can probably wear her down. Fe is her dominant function, so appealing to that is the best way to communicate this to her (you can very easily become manipulative doing this, but depending on how you approach the conversation you can just be using it as a means to bridge communication, not to control her behavior). To the "I have no time" statements, you can always remind her that she chooses how to spend her time, and she has the ability to dedicate time to seeing a counselor if she really wants it. You could also tell her that seeing a counselor would be good to untangle her stress and maybe find some solutions to her problems (this would be the drawing Fe into it). I would avoid saying "I'd really appreciate if you went" because that's rather close to full-blown manipulation. You probably wouldn't have to go there, though, since her problems already seem to be relational and she no doubt knows that her stress has adverse effects on those around her, so just reminding her that counseling could help solve those would probably be enough.

If she does end up seeing a counselor, really it's up to them from there. Counselors these days are more like life coaches than anything else, so I certainly think this situation would be appropriate. But hopefully whomever she ends up seeing will be able to help.

It's at this point that I feel morally obligated to remind you that I am not a professional counselor in the United States, let alone Australia. While I think the advice I've given is good, the possibility always remains that I could be wrong. Whatever the case, I do sincerely hope that this situation gets resolved.



Ksara said:


> Hmm, so how does one identify an inferior if it is overused?
> Identify if the person seems under significant stress?


Probably. In general, the rule would be that if the person is acting petulant or out of character, that's a good sign. However, if the inferior is overused, it can become the norm, so to speak, so that approach might not work as well. Really the best sign is if their maturity has seemed to regress. In the grip of the inferior function, the person will act more like a child or teenager because they are unaccustomed to that perspective, which is also repressed undeveloped. If they seem conceited or unaware of others, that can be a sign.



Ksara said:


> Nice video. All of this just went over my head, and can only sum it up as "sounds nice" haha.


Haha, if only all music theory sounded nice:

Tolga Yayalar: Composer

You can preview the score here: Gravity Well - BabelScores | Instrumental Music just to get an idea of what's being played.



Ksara said:


> I think it has the potential to. It was a little to short to get into day dream mode. Layering it, building it up, change in volume, then contrasted with a soft quite part would really sound up lifting as if stalling high in the sky.
> I do like those tones.


Thanks! That's good to know; the one problem with composing is that it's so hard to realize what other people will hear and think.



Ksara said:


> The problem with gravity is we can't seem to get a consistent measurement of G. We can measure something, but there is no validity when we can't repeat the same measurement and obtain the same value.
> The equations I think can estimate a value for G, however this is not reality and as such not measured, not proved. It's only a model.
> I think it's like light. We don't know what it is, but we know through observation how it affects things.
> 
> Whether or not cognitive functions exists, patterns in human behaviour can be observed.


Yeah. The interesting thing about psychology, compared to other natural sciences, is that it is almost entirely subjective (yes, everything psychological is also biological, but that's a technicality here). The only options are to create models that illustrate the patterns observed, but even with neuroscience one cannot go full physicalism. There's so much unknown about the brain.

A random aside: I find it interesting that a society as scientific as the West naturally finds empirical evidence for everything. Seems like some epic-scale confirmation bias to me. Te is just one way of looking at the world.


----------



## lNTJ (Sep 13, 2015)

Wow, I am kind of shocked that you described it as a jigsaw puzzle because I had literally the same EXACT thought a few days ago. Your understanding of Ni is almost identical of my understanding of Ni, in a way. Really cool, shows how similar our minds really are.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

I see it as foresight and meta-perspectives.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Yay knew page 
It was taking a while to scroll down on my phone haha.

Apologies for the delayed response. Been sorting out new furniture for my bedroom.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> Anyone with Fi is going to value their authenticity. My father, an ENTJ, has the same drive. It's just that those with lower Fi tend to sacrifice that for Te reasons--ENTJs are often out of touch with their own values for much of their lives because their Te makes them think in terms of conforming to the current system, as opposed to their own authentic desires. In an INTJ, this tendency will be less pronounced and they will be more in touch with their feelings, but the general trend in their personality will be efficiency and systems over what they actually want. You mentioned getting a degree you didn't want. Maybe that's an extension of the Te? I also find it interesting that you're just now noticing the more individualistic tendencies in yourself; while any introvert is going to be individualistic to a certain extent (and in different ways), if you value being true to yourself and are only realizing it in your twenties, that could point to a tertiary Fi.


In some way there has always been some sense of individuality, whether I noticed it or not lol.

For me I think a better word than authenticity is honesty. It really is more of a value I think fits with me, and I am now realising how it is tied to integrity. I don't like agreeing to something I don't actually agree with. It's dishonest.

You do touch on a conflict I often enough find myself in. Person x discussing ideas, or doing things based on their value of right and wrong. In contrast I automatically look at how the idea would work (to the laws of reality), or will not follow person x as I am adhering to external rules (such as the law). Sure I don't necessarily agree with these arbitrary rules, but that does not matter when I receive a fine I can't afford.
Yes I would say that's confirming to external systems based on external consequences more than doing what I want haha.

Yes a degree I don't want, yet I can't overlook the benefits.
I can put aside momentary wants/desires but that is to achieve a future want/desire. An idea of how I want my future to be, and the stepping stones to achieve this. In a twisted way going for what I want, but I guess this is fitted into the framework of "will it work". I don't think I am so out of touch with my desires, but I will discard a desire that is unobtainable. This resolves any feelings of potential disappointment.

Efficiency for me is due to my lack of inertia. I don't feel it is something would I label myself, lazy yes lol. I just find physically engaging the world tiring so I tend to opt towards making it easier for myself (the outside appearance looking efficient?)

Yeah the 'true to myself' thing seems more recent. As a result, rather than letting things slides in favour of the outcome, I seem to be more stubborn with what I want or value.



> Haha, that's never a bad idea.
> 
> 
> I feel you here. It's a hard situation to be in because the person is ultimately trying to do a good thing and they have good motivations. The problem is that the 'service' can become a god in its own right, above what the people around them actually want or need.


Yup. Even worst when dealing with emotional currency. I helped you (even though you didn't want the help) and now I expect you to help me when I want it.

Its not my currency. Id rather have no help than have someone place me in the debt not by my choice. If they 'want' to help the sure, I'll offer my help when I 'want' to. No repayment necessary.

I have noticed my mum seems to ne in a better mode when she feels she 'gets' to help. Things turn sour when she believes she 'has' to help. What I don't think she realises is her help I not expected or required all the time.



> Your emphasis on fixing the problem seems to betray a thinking preference--I see this same behavior in my father. Sidebar: this also betrays your mother's own Fe preference; if she were Te-dom she would respond better to saying "You're coming across the wrong way, here's how you might change your behavior" because she wouldn't take it as personally. It often happens that people in these situations have their own identities caught up in how much they help people, and are therefore very sensitive to how they are being received. An ESTJ simply would be less inclined to do this because of their Fi.


The want to fix it is because I can't seem to put it aside anymore. It's in my face, I am seeing the affect on others, and I have my own stuff to deal with than to take on another's burden.

Yeah the mismatch lol. That's why I often just say nothing. But saying nothing is not asserting my boundary when I have had enough. It can be easier, but it's allowing the behaviour to continue.

And my mum is great at over stepping personal boundaries. That's what makes her loud, at times opinionated, and contributes to her ease at making friends. She's someone you can get along with really well or just don't know how to take her.

I'd say the identity part is true and I can intellectually emphasize to an extent. She is a mum and has been a mum since us kids were born. The circumstances of the household has changed (dads not working, she is out doing things, us kids able to look after ourselves) and I think she is having trouble of letting go of not being needed, but also feels the household responsibilities aren't shared. She is no longer a stay at home mum so why is she responsible for all the household chores?

But rather than having a conversation to reestablish the roles we all play, its venting galore throwing hints around.

I don't think my mum and dad's relationship is close either, which makes the communication hard between them, and their problems are becoming mine and my siblings problem.




> The advice I normally give in these situations (because apparently I'm a counselor for those close to me ) is to always be sympathetic. It's very easy to get frustrated and say things you can't take back, but you have to remember to prioritize the relationship over anything else that might be happening, even if you find it hurtful. She is still your mother, and she is doing her best to love you and those around her as she knows how to, and that counts for something. It's hard, but that needs to be valued and reciprocated, otherwise you'll just make the situation worse.


I do agree with this. Making the situation worst I avoid as well as I can.
This is the advice I tend to give to my siblings, at least attempt to give them mum's perspective as to why she may be upset. It's good advice, thanks.

It is the reminder I need sometimes myself. To place myself in an understanding mind frame to depersonalise and allow compassion.



> One problem with the "here's how you can fix it" outlook is that she isn't going to respond to that as well. Whether she's capable or not (I'm not going to judge either way), she most likely feels that she can fix the problems she has, so telling her how to might come across as patronizing. And frankly, that's not why she's talking it to you about it. Fe types process emotions externally, and more than likely she just wants to be able to vent. So even though it can be frustrating, it's best to hear her out, and so in that respect more "that's tough" statements could absolutely be a good thing.


The problem is her emotions become overbearing. When I'm in a mentally stable state I can differentiate my emotions from hers, realise to myself this isn't my problem, and completely drop the frustration. When not stable it's very easy to become annoyed.
I just need to get back into the habit of practising mindfulness.

I can see what she wants is to vent. And I'm not going to lie and agree with what she says. I think I can do neutral statements.

How about expressing when I have had enough? 
Sigh, words have too many connotations lol.



> I don't think there's much you can do to alter the situation for the better, and I that can be hard to come to terms with. More than likely you mother won't realize that she creates her own problems until she's forced to come to terms with them on her own. That's why I tend to emphasize what you can do to change your own approach to her and not how you can change her. The best thing you can do is to be a loving daughter, regardless of what is going on around you.


Yeah, easier said than done sometimes.

Reach a place of acceptance (can't expect to change another, not my choice really), realise her problems are hers and it is my choice to take them on or not, and being her problem depersonalising it from myself. Perhaps attempting to emphasize, then ask what can I do? and is this something I want to do?
I think that's my course of action, and to practices being more assertive.



> Now in terms of actually helping fix the problem, the best thing I could recommend is convince her to see a counselor. She'll probably go through the usual "Oh, I have no time" conversation, but you can probably wear her down. Fe is her dominant function, so appealing to that is the best way to communicate this to her (you can very easily become manipulative doing this, but depending on how you approach the conversation you can just be using it as a means to bridge communication, not to control her behavior). To the "I have no time" statements, you can always remind her that she chooses how to spend her time, and she has the ability to dedicate time to seeing a counselor if she really wants it. You could also tell her that seeing a counselor would be good to untangle her stress and maybe find some solutions to her problems (this would be the drawing Fe into it). I would avoid saying "I'd really appreciate if you went" because that's rather close to full-blown manipulation. You probably wouldn't have to go there, though, since her problems already seem to be relational and she no doubt knows that her stress has adverse effects on those around her, so just reminding her that counseling could help solve those would probably be enough.


The response wouldn't be lack of time, it would be "pfft why would I need to see a counsellor?"

I don't know if she can see how her stress is affecting others, rather she sees others are causing her stress. I can see her completely dismissing she has the problem, or be offended :/

Im not great at convincing others lol. Your suggestions are great, personally I find them pushy for myself. My partner is great at convincing in this manner and it drives me crazy when I have made it a clear no.
Putting my personal issue aside here, I think it could work. I think placing it in more the context of someone she could talk to? She I very sociable.




> If she does end up seeing a counselor, really it's up to them from there. Counselors these days are more like life coaches than anything else, so I certainly think this situation would be appropriate. But hopefully whomever she ends up seeing will be able to help.


I think it would help her feel better. She does enjoy the company of others.



> It's at this point that I feel morally obligated to remind you that I am not a professional counselor in the United States, let alone Australia. While I think the advice I've given is good, the possibility always remains that I could be wrong. Whatever the case, I do sincerely hope that this situation gets resolved.


Thanks. What you have said makes sense. At the end of the day either it will work or not work. I don't hold you responsible if things decline (I doubt it thought).



> Probably. In general, the rule would be that if the person is acting petulant or out of character, that's a good sign. However, if the inferior is overused, it can become the norm, so to speak, so that approach might not work as well. Really the best sign is if their maturity has seemed to regress. In the grip of the inferior function, the person will act more like a child or teenager because they are unaccustomed to that perspective, which is also repressed undeveloped. If they seem conceited or unaware of others, that can be a sign.


This inferior business does seem tricky. Not so black or white lol.







> Haha, if only all music theory sounded nice:
> 
> Tolga Yayalar: Composer
> 
> You can preview the score here: Gravity Well - BabelScores | Instrumental Music just to get an idea of what's being played.


I haven't quite got the time yet but will look at this later.

Youtube space music, that's what I have been listening to lately.



> Thanks! That's good to know; the one problem with composing is that it's so hard to realize what other people will hear and think.


Ah yes, the subjective nature of it (esp. for introverted )



> Yeah. The interesting thing about psychology, compared to other natural sciences, is that it is almost entirely subjective (yes, everything psychological is also biological, but that's a technicality here). The only options are to create models that illustrate the patterns observed, but even with neuroscience one cannot go full physicalism. There's so much unknown about the brain.


Ah yes. Our brains haha.
There are probably aspects we don't want to know. 




> A random aside: I find it interesting that a society as scientific as the West naturally finds empirical evidence for everything. Seems like some epic-scale confirmation bias to me. Te is just one way of looking at the world.


Yes true. It being a thinking perspective is based on what something is or isn't, and what is or isn't is based on external facts or evidence.

One way I have looked at the functions is seeing them all a part of a whole. That is what affects us externally also affects us internally. It is all the same phenomenon.

Perception, for example, is simply where one places their attention and what they pay attention to. I don't know why Ni and Si need an extroverted counter part. Or how Se 'works' with Ni. All perception functions perceive the same thing but take a different viewpoint. A four sided die where opposing function and attitude opposite they can not see each others perspective.
So if Ni and Se are perceiving the same thing (they are apart of the same die) then why would they need to inform one another?

I would extend this to the rational functions. 

I'm not sure where I'm going with this...probably just making stuff up


----------



## TimeWillTell (Jan 14, 2015)

Imo, Ni is the attitude of intuition that looks to the data over time in order to predict the future.
Ne is the attitude of intuition that looks at a fixed point of time all the possible meanings of the data set.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Apologies for the delayed response. Been sorting out new furniture for my bedroom.


Apologies for my delayed response.  I kind of vanished there.



Ksara said:


> In some way there has always been some sense of individuality, whether I noticed it or not lol.


Haha, yeah, most introverts have that.



Ksara said:


> For me I think a better word than authenticity is honesty. It really is more of a value I think fits with me, and I am now realising how it is tied to integrity. I don't like agreeing to something I don't actually agree with. It's dishonest.


This is a tricky point in typology and one that I often find myself wrestling with. I try to draw a line between authenticity and honesty/integrity. Too often folks seem to think that only Fi has a sense of integrity because of its authenticity drive and Fe has that more "do what works" mentality with respect to ethics and morals. This bothers me. I'm pretty sure that in practice, those two are switched. I know far more Fi types (mostly xxFPs, funny enough) who would say something along the lines of "You do whatever works for you" and far more Fe types (mostly xxxJs, actually) who would say that there needs to be a set way of doing things (basically the xxFPs I know are almost universally more liberal than the xxxJs, and the Js that are liberal usually take the standardizing approach rather than the "whatever makes you happy" approach). Anyway, my point is that saying that the Fi approach to ethics is to preserve integrity and that the Fe approach is to preserve harmony is just too simple. Part of being a mature adult is having integrity.

So the distinction I draw between authenticity and integrity is that authenticity is uniquely individualistic between the two. It's the "be true to yourself" mentality that I have not seen in myself despite my own drive to be an integrated person. Integrity is just the value of not being a hypocrite. In fact, I would say that authenticity can often compromise integrity if the person feels very strongly about their core identity being something compared to something they believe. Say a person has said on many occasions that they don't believe in abusing alcohol, yet they realize through an extraordinary set of circumstances that they feel more like their "true self" when they're drunk because it lowers their inhibitions and they don't feel like they have to put up an act. In this case, I would say their own drive for authenticity has compromised their integrity.

Anyway, that was just a long way of saying that I don't think honesty/integrity necessarily implicates Fi.



Ksara said:


> You do touch on a conflict I often enough find myself in. Person x discussing ideas, or doing things based on their value of right and wrong. In contrast I automatically look at how the idea would work (to the laws of reality), or will not follow person x as I am adhering to external rules (such as the law). Sure I don't necessarily agree with these arbitrary rules, but that does not matter when I receive a fine I can't afford.
> Yes I would say that's confirming to external systems based on external consequences more than doing what I want haha.


Seems like a good indicator of higher Te.



Ksara said:


> Yes a degree I don't want, yet I can't overlook the benefits.
> I can put aside momentary wants/desires but that is to achieve a future want/desire. An idea of how I want my future to be, and the stepping stones to achieve this. In a twisted way going for what I want, but I guess this is fitted into the framework of "will it work". I don't think I am so out of touch with my desires, but I will discard a desire that is unobtainable. This resolves any feelings of potential disappointment.


This is one of those places where I think that learning to operate this way is part of growing up. In general, I think that when we want something that means we have to slog through things we don't want to do. If I want to write a novel, I actually have to get through the writing stage to finish it, or if I want to plan a beach trip I have to plan a budget, fill out paperwork, etc.



Ksara said:


> Efficiency for me is due to my lack of inertia. I don't feel it is something would I label myself, lazy yes lol. I just find physically engaging the world tiring so I tend to opt towards making it easier for myself (the outside appearance looking efficient?)


Perhaps. This does seem like an Ni problem to have, though, and one I have myself.



Ksara said:


> Yeah the 'true to myself' thing seems more recent. As a result, rather than letting things slides in favour of the outcome, I seem to be more stubborn with what I want or value.


Given your age, it makes sense that you would be developing Fi at this point. (Have I said that already? I can't remember.) Actually, this whole discussion seemed to smack a lot of the T-F conflict that most INxJs have, but you seem to have a T preference there, especially given what you just said. A big thing for INxJs maturing (and I say this because I'm going through it myself) is learning to handle both the T and F perspective in their psyche.



Ksara said:


> Yup. Even worst when dealing with emotional currency. I helped you (even though you didn't want the help) and now I expect you to help me when I want it.


Yeah. Whenever I hear about these situations, I always begin to question the true motivations for the helping. They can so easily be turned into selfish desires, but they can be justified (and an extravert is probably more likely to justify it like this, though an introvert certainly could as well) because what's being done is good.



Ksara said:


> Its not my currency. Id rather have no help than have someone place me in the debt not by my choice. If they 'want' to help the sure, I'll offer my help when I 'want' to. No repayment necessary.


Sounds like your love language isn't acts of service.  But yeah, I think this is the healthier attitude. Expecting something in return for service probably never ends well.



Ksara said:


> I have noticed my mum seems to ne in a better mode when she feels she 'gets' to help. Things turn sour when she believes she 'has' to help. What I don't think she realises is her help I not expected or required all the time.


Another ESFJ-sounding problem. So often they faith to realize that their "needing" to help is all in their head.



Ksara said:


> The want to fix it is because I can't seem to put it aside anymore. It's in my face, I am seeing the affect on others, and I have my own stuff to deal with than to take on another's burden.


Yeah, it's hard. Do you have any siblings who could help you vent/figure out ways to solve the problem?



Ksara said:


> Yeah the mismatch lol. That's why I often just say nothing. But saying nothing is not asserting my boundary when I have had enough. It can be easier, but it's allowing the behaviour to continue.
> 
> And my mum is great at over stepping personal boundaries. That's what makes her loud, at times opinionated, and contributes to her ease at making friends. She's someone you can get along with really well or just don't know how to take her.
> 
> ...


Yeah, this I have seen. It's not fun. (Sorry, that's really glib, but I don't really know what else to say besides "that sucks.")

The worst thing you can do is let things continue to heat up until something explodes. That's when people act irrationally and do stupid things like get divorces and other things. Maybe you and your siblings could instigate a conversation? It doesn't sound like your mom and dad are going to resolve things on their own.



Ksara said:


> I do agree with this. Making the situation worst I avoid as well as I can.
> This is the advice I tend to give to my siblings, at least attempt to give them mum's perspective as to why she may be upset. It's good advice, thanks.
> 
> It is the reminder I need sometimes myself. To place myself in an understanding mind frame to depersonalise and allow compassion.


Hey, just call me the Advice Fairy.



Ksara said:


> The problem is her emotions become overbearing. When I'm in a mentally stable state I can differentiate my emotions from hers, realise to myself this isn't my problem, and completely drop the frustration. When not stable it's very easy to become annoyed.
> I just need to get back into the habit of practising mindfulness.


Yeah, that's not a bad idea. It's amazing how easily it is to break good habits. I used to go to bed at 10 every night. I no longer do that.



Ksara said:


> I can see what she wants is to vent. And I'm not going to lie and agree with what she says. I think I can do neutral statements.


Yeah, that could work. But this is also a situation where perhaps silence is the best thing. That way she can feel listened to, and that way if she asks for your thoughts you can perhaps be more honest about what you think and feel about a situation. I don't doubt that your mom doesn't value your thoughts.



Ksara said:


> How about expressing when I have had enough?


If you do it well, then I think so. It's always hard to predict when something will trigger a reaction, but so long as you make it clear that you mean nothing harmful by what you've said, I think most people with a brain will be okay with what you say.



Ksara said:


> Sigh, words have too many connotations lol.


Sadly, yes. If only we were telepaths.



Ksara said:


> Yeah, easier said than done sometimes.


I live in a world of theoretical ideals that have no being in the real world.  But yeah, I hear you. That's why I always tell people to have a community of people around them (incidentally, I'm currently writing a book about isolation and family). In church once, I remember our Sunday school lesson was about love as it pertains to serving others, especially when the person in question either a) expects to be served or b) takes your service for granted and how frustrating that can be. Something that was said that has stayed with me is that often times God's provision doesn't come from where we would necessarily expect it or even necessarily like it. A person who says thank or you or holds the door open for you as opposed to the person who takes you for granted saying thank you or acknowledging that you're going out of your way to help them (of course, in this case they want your help).

I think this same principle applies here. Given that there is so very little in the way of earthly comfort, we really have to take it where we can get it, and one of the best places I've found (mostly through losing this) is through a community of friends. You shouldn't have to deal with your problems alone.



Ksara said:


> Reach a place of acceptance (can't expect to change another, not my choice really), realise her problems are hers and it is my choice to take them on or not, and being her problem depersonalising it from myself. Perhaps attempting to emphasize, then ask what can I do? and is this something I want to do?
> I think that's my course of action, and to practices being more assertive.


I'd say so. Just do it all with love.



Ksara said:


> The response wouldn't be lack of time, it would be "pfft why would I need to see a counsellor?"
> 
> I don't know if she can see how her stress is affecting others, rather she sees others are causing her stress. I can see her completely dismissing she has the problem, or be offended :/


Yeah. It's all in the delivery, I guess. Although I also have a feeling that she might surprise you. It's possible that she's had similar thoughts, but just needs someone to give her a little push. I just don't know, though.



Ksara said:


> Im not great at convincing others lol. Your suggestions are great, personally I find them pushy for myself. My partner is great at convincing in this manner and it drives me crazy when I have made it a clear no.


Haha, I am learning that I can be quite pushy. But yeah, us xNFx can be quite good at driving our loved ones nuts.



Ksara said:


> Putting my personal issue aside here, I think it could work. I think placing it in more the context of someone she could talk to? She I very sociable.


Yeah. Maybe don't say it exactly like this, but it would be someone who is paid to hear her vent.



Ksara said:


> I think it would help her feel better. She does enjoy the company of others.


Yeah. That might be the biggest selling point of the idea. Most counselors are pretty personable people (try saying that ten times fast), and she'd probably react well to that.



Ksara said:


> Thanks. What you have said makes sense. At the end of the day either it will work or not work. I don't hold you responsible if things decline (I doubt it thought).


Hey, I like helping. But you're right, either it'll work, or I'm just crazy (or both...jury's still out on that one). But I'm glad that you wouldn't hold me responsible. I don't know what it's like over in Australia, but here in the ole' U.S. of A. I swear you could get sued for having an opinion (don't get me started on people being *offended*). I just saw on the news that apparently Bernie Sanders (I don't know how privy you are to the whine-fest that is American politics, but he's running for President; I think our first openly socialist candidate) thinks that the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting a few years ago should be able to sue gun manufacturers because gun owners should be held liable for crimes committed with their weapons.

I...I can't even. Hey, why don't we sue the federal government for creating the circumstances wherein this sort of thing could even happen? Or the media for commodifying this atrocity and indirectly inspiring all of the shooters since then? Or how about Islamic terrorists? I'm just *sure* they had something to do with it, and they're easy to blame.

There's something to be said for blaming the community for the sins of the individual, and something I don't necessarily disagree with, but I don't think this is the way to do it. It just saddens me that my home is so morally and ethically bankrupt.



Ksara said:


> This inferior business does seem tricky. Not so black or white lol.


It so rarely is with people involved. Darn us humans for being messy.



Ksara said:


> I haven't quite got the time yet but will look at this later.
> 
> Youtube space music, that's what I have been listening to lately.


Sounds good (pun intended). What is space music?



Ksara said:


> Ah yes, the subjective nature of it (esp. for introverted )


Oh yes. I've actually finished the piece now, so I might make a video of me playing once I finish learning it.



Ksara said:


> Ah yes. Our brains haha.
> There are probably aspects we don't want to know.


Yes...there are things I wish I didn't know *cough* Freud *cough*.



Ksara said:


> Yes true. It being a thinking perspective is based on what something is or isn't, and what is or isn't is based on external facts or evidence.
> 
> One way I have looked at the functions is seeing them all a part of a whole. That is what affects us externally also affects us internally. It is all the same phenomenon.


Same. I wish so often that cognitive perspectives were more completely represented in society. (INxJs: we are the 2%!)

I've always attributed this kind of outlook to Ni's holism (especially with Fe), so maybe you are in fact Ni-dom?



Ksara said:


> Perception, for example, is simply where one places their attention and what they pay attention to. I don't know why Ni and Si need an extroverted counter part. Or how Se 'works' with Ni. All perception functions perceive the same thing but take a different viewpoint. A four sided die where opposing function and attitude opposite they can not see each others perspective. So if Ni and Se are perceiving the same thing (they are apart of the same die) then why would they need to inform one another?
> 
> I would extend this to the rational functions.
> 
> I'm not sure where I'm going with this...probably just making stuff up


No, I think Jung would agree with you here. I think it's not necessarily true that the inferior informs the dominant. I certainly think it can, and that Ni-Se (either an INxJ or ESxP) has a distinct psyche compared to the other dom-inf pairings. I can certainly see the logic in completely separating the two, though, saying that the inferior is only opposite the dominant because the dominant necessarily repressed that function, and as I'm thinking about it more this definitely seems to be more in line with Jungian thought.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Apologies for my delayed response.  I kind of vanished there.


No worries 
Was it aliens?



> Haha, yeah, most introverts have that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes you nailed. I don't want to be a walking hypocrite or contradiction lol. Regardless of Fi or not, I seem to value integrity.
I think it ties into the concept of fairness for me. 
If I say to someone I'm ok with them doing 'x' thing and later I realise I'm not as ok as I thought I was, I may dismiss such feelings because I had already come to an agreement. It is unfair to now change things up (as in too close to the event or too late) or to be upset with the person. The other option would be to discuss my feelings with the person about 'x' and for future occupancies let them no 'x' is not a good option for me. It would really have to irk me.

Yup this reason above explains me sitting on 'unknown' personality rather than picking something and changing it every month or two lol.

Actually my ENFP partner sees this as me trying to realise and follow a set of rules rather than adapting to the moment. Either finding the rules of reality or making reality conform to rules. Not sure which lol.
This seems more relationships. It's a pain upsetting someone and cleaning up the mess, so I look for the rules of engagement...does not work well when someone's upset and I'm telling them I don't get it, I thought I did it right or wasn't this what you said you wanted earlier? Yup my adaption sucks.





> Seems like a good indicator of higher Te.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those places where I think that learning to operate this way is part of growing up. In general, I think that when we want something that means we have to slog through things we don't want to do. If I want to write a novel, I actually have to get through the writing stage to finish it, or if I want to plan a beach trip I have to plan a budget, fill out paperwork, etc.


Maybe. I see it as a potential type thing.
My ESTP sister has not, and is only somewhat able to see the consequences of her actions. She is very in the moment. She does have a big dream about her career (me thinks intuition creeping in here  it's good to see) on a daily basis however she bouncing from one social event to another. She is young though at 21.
My partner has a different outlook (same age as me, 23), it's important to enjoy the journey. No point writing a novel just to write the novel, you write a novel because you enjoy writing novels. I wouldn't place him in the immaturity box.

But then again, quite possible we have just learnt different things in life.



> Perhaps. This does seem like an Ni problem to have, though, and one I have myself.


Sigh, not good health wise.
Every so often there are spurts of operation or inspiration. I'm productive, achieving a goals, I'm really in my element. I go from a sloth to making stuff happen haha.
Then back to sloth :/



> Given your age, it makes sense that you would be developing Fi at this point. (Have I said that already? I can't remember.) Actually, this whole discussion seemed to smack a lot of the T-F conflict that most INxJs have, but you seem to have a T preference there, especially given what you just said. A big thing for INxJs maturing (and I say this because I'm going through it myself) is learning to handle both the T and F perspective in their psyche.


you may have mentioned it. I'm not good with details 
Well that seems more friendly than a potential inferior dominant battle (for INxP).
Yeah I think the think's work well and the feels confuse. Maybe not my feels, but navigating the feels of others don't make sense ><



> Yeah. Whenever I hear about these situations, I always begin to question the true motivations for the helping. They can so easily be turned into selfish desires, but they can be justified (and an extravert is probably more likely to justify it like this, though an introvert certainly could as well) because what's being done is good.


The real essence of it is a shift in power of the relationship. One person without permission does something to put the other person in their debt. This debt can then be used at any time for their convenience. When the debt is repaid they feel entitled and the other person selfish, which can result in unfair behaviour.

From my perspective you help when it's something you want to do, and you never expect anything in return. Simply the world is not always going to be fair so I avoid setting myself up for disappointment. It's the same as lending money, lend only what you can afford and be ok with it not being returned.



> Sounds like your love language isn't acts of service.  But yeah, I think this is the healthier attitude. Expecting something in return for service probably never ends well.


Touch comes first.
The world could be ending, I'm devastated, and a hug from a loved one just makes everything better.
This one did surprise me as I don't like being touched by most people.

Acts of service does come second. It's something I can do to show appreciation. Annoyingly it does conflict with lack of inertia at times (probably why it is second)
I would argue that love doesn't expect to be paided back 



> Another ESFJ-sounding problem. So often they faith to realize that their "needing" to help is all in their head.


Yup. Not a bad quality when someone does need help. A problem when they don't need help and my mum's offended.

Also MBTI wise my mum's a J. She likes to advise people lol



> Yeah, it's hard. Do you have any siblings who could help you vent/figure out ways to solve the problem?


Yes. They are more concerned with venting. I don't want to fall into the trap of gossiping. 
I'm usually the one offering solutions or how they could better engage mum to affect the dynamic in a positive light. At the very least attempt to give them mum's point of view to better understand why she may be reacting the way she does.



> Yeah, this I have seen. It's not fun. (Sorry, that's really glib, but I don't really know what else to say besides "that sucks.")
> 
> The worst thing you can do is let things continue to heat up until something explodes. That's when people act irrationally and do stupid things like get divorces and other things. Maybe you and your siblings could instigate a conversation? It doesn't sound like your mom and dad are going to resolve things on their own.


Maybe. Mum and dad are both quite opinionated. Actually the whole family issue is we don't listen enough to one another.

To be completely honest, I think my mum would benefit from a divorce. Maybe not that extreme, more the space to herself, and to do things for herself would be beneficial I think.



> Hey, just call me the Advice Fairy.


Ok Mr advice fairy 



> Yeah, that's not a bad idea. It's amazing how easily it is to break good habits. I used to go to bed at 10 every night. I no longer do that.


Why are bad habits so easy to keep 



> Yeah, that could work. But this is also a situation where perhaps silence is the best thing. That way she can feel listened to, and that way if she asks for your thoughts you can perhaps be more honest about what you think and feel about a situation. I don't doubt that your mom doesn't value your thoughts.


I can do that. I already do. Awkwardly sit there. Keep my thoughts to myself.




> If you do it well, then I think so. It's always hard to predict when something will trigger a reaction, but so long as you make it clear that you mean nothing harmful by what you've said, I think most people with a brain will be okay with what you say.


Yup. I find it annoying when I trigger another's insecurity and it's supposed to be my problem. :/



> Sadly, yes. If only we were telepaths.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for this.
I do need a reminder of this as I tend to keep my problems to myself.
And yes to appreciate what Does come my way.



> I'd say so. Just do it all with love.


That's right, learning forgiveness. To drop resentment and to accept who someone really is.



> Yeah. It's all in the delivery, I guess. Although I also have a feeling that she might surprise you. It's possible that she's had similar thoughts, but just needs someone to give her a little push. I just don't know, though.


Maybe. Challenge my perception.



> Haha, I am learning that I can be quite pushy. But yeah, us xNFx can be quite good at driving our loved ones nuts.


Yup 



> Yeah. Maybe don't say it exactly like this, but it would be someone who is paid to hear her vent.


It would be funny though haha.
Well maybe not the consequence.



> Yeah. That might be the biggest selling point of the idea. Most counselors are pretty personable people (try saying that ten times fast), and she'd probably react well to that.


Yeah, she does like people.



> Hey, I like helping. But you're right, either it'll work, or I'm just crazy (or both...jury's still out on that one). But I'm glad that you wouldn't hold me responsible. I don't know what it's like over in Australia, but here in the ole' U.S. of A. I swear you could get sued for having an opinion (don't get me started on people being *offended*). I just saw on the news that apparently Bernie Sanders (I don't know how privy you are to the whine-fest that is American politics, but he's running for President; I think our first openly socialist candidate) thinks that the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting a few years ago should be able to sue gun manufacturers because gun owners should be held liable for crimes committed with their weapons.
> 
> I...I can't even. Hey, why don't we sue the federal government for creating the circumstances wherein this sort of thing could even happen? Or the media for commodifying this atrocity and indirectly inspiring all of the shooters since then? Or how about Islamic terrorists? I'm just *sure* they had something to do with it, and they're easy to blame.


I think we are heading in a similar direction to sue for our problems here in OZ. Yup, story once on the news a guy sued his victim for legal fees, the victim ran out of money to pursue the previous case. (cant remember the crime exactly, something quite terrible). I could not believe the law even allowed this.

I just keep hearing about Trump over here. Not sure about him. Sounds like he will get things done, don't know if these things will be good :\

Yeah your extension of Bernie's logic really shows the silliness of it.

I will say the exception may be IMO company's should be responsible for the waste of their products. I say this due to the fact I can not buy something knew without all the plastic packaging. Oh and here those pvc gift/or credit cards have nowhere I can recycle them. PVC is recyclable, but I cant put them in the recycle bin, nor does the company for their card offer any recycling service. Only option is landfill which is just silly as pvc can be infinitely recycled (apparently).



> There's something to be said for blaming the community for the sins of the individual, and something I don't necessarily disagree with, but I don't think this is the way to do it. It just saddens me that my home is so morally and ethically bankrupt.


I think placing blame isn't taking responsibility for what one can do.
Whilst community and culture can affect what we value or consider right/wrong, etc. At the end of the day the individual made a choice to commit a certain act.

I do know what you mean. One look at society and I see the seven deadly sins placed on a pedestal and people reaching to obtain it.




> It so rarely is with people involved. Darn us humans for being messy.


Oh yes. Why can't us humans be more organised so we can write better theories about ourselves lol.




> Sounds good (pun intended). What is space music?


Ok I like the idea if the music you linked ne too, however not something I would lists to for enjoyment.

Space music is nothing special. Just music that tends to or could back a movie or documentary about space. I just call it that as that's what I typed into YouTube lol.





> Oh yes. I've actually finished the piece now, so I might make a video of me playing once I finish learning it.


Nice 




> Yes...there are things I wish I didn't know *cough* Freud *cough*.


Haha, Im glad I haven't read his stuff then lol.




> Same. I wish so often that cognitive perspectives were more completely represented in society. (INxJs: we are the 2%!)
> 
> I've always attributed this kind of outlook to Ni's holism (especially with Fe), so maybe you are in fact Ni-dom?


Yeah. It would be interesting to know why the perspectives aren't as evenly spread.

I do find it interesting how IRL I come across people and there is that instant connection. Like we talk the same language. I suspect other intuitive when that happens.




> No, I think Jung would agree with you here. I think it's not necessarily true that the inferior informs the dominant. I certainly think it can, and that Ni-Se (either an INxJ or ESxP) has a distinct psyche compared to the other dom-inf pairings. I can certainly see the logic in completely separating the two, though, saying that the inferior is only opposite the dominant because the dominant necessarily repressed that function, and as I'm thinking about it more this definitely seems to be more in line with Jungian thought.


I just keep seeing people sticking functions to a particular attitude. And sticking these functions to other functions.
It all becomes quite static.
We eventually end up with 8 functions all completely different.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I was just struck with a thought of how sad Ni can be when I was reading @VagrantFarce's post in the other thread about describing Ni/Ne. (The tesseract thing)

Basically its like, you can't help but see this huge perspective. You get this idea in your head of what the big picture is, (which can be expanded infinitely until it fills the cosmos), and inside your head it feels beautiful and perfect and you feel like you understand everything-- well, not that you understand the details of everything, but you understand the meaning of everything, the point behind it, etc. 

But the sad thing about it is that you really can never communicate it to somebody else. And building this big picture means that you have to take it out of the typical societal perspective. A lot of people, when they communicate, participate in the standard societal canon, and everything they say makes sense to others.... but to you, that kind of talk is just not correct enough. In order for something to feel "correct enough" you have to look at it in the big picture perspective.... and that means removing it from every day language and using more precise language. That's the only way it makes sense to you. But then you start using all this language that doesn't make sense to other people. 

I've probably written... I don't know... thousands of pages of what I'm going to call "Ni-Ti word vomit"... Taking the perspective of Ni and applying that to things I want to understand better, trying to make it fit a schematic that aligns with my big picture vision.... and when I look back over that, I feel weirdly ashamed. Because none of it makes sense to other people. If other people found it, they'd just be like "what the fuck?"

Maybe five years ago I made a move to start writing in a way, if possible, that was more "normal-sounding." i.e. used more standard-use language rather than put-together (or re-purposed) language. Because, that way, when I look back over it, I feel that somebody else would understand it if they read it, and would understand the fact that I have these ideas. I guess this is the equivalent of self-fulfillment via better Fe or Te that everyone is always talking about for INxJs (but I always sort of dismissed because of what I saw as the _detrimental_ effects of Fe in my life). 

I'm always sad when I'm hanging out with people and I just get random ideas in my head and I start talking about them but then I realized they don't _really_ make sense to other people. Well, on a good day, I'm able to speak the same language as other people, i.e. use good Fe. But there's always those times when something makes complete sense in my head but I realize I really can't ever actually communicate it to someone else. That's usually when I fall silent in a conversation and start to feel awkward XD.

Also, sometimes I'm just sick of my own shit. i.e. I'm always thinking of human nature in terms of its evolutionary background. i.e. taking the biggest picture possible of it. It goes all the way back to anaerobic microbes, I swear to god. Well that's a bit of an exaggeration, even for me. Let's just say it goes back to some hominids on the savanna. But no one else sees it that way-- or at least they don't see it that way as consistently as I do-- and they explain things in much more limited perspectives, that aren't exactly wrong, but just not "correct enough". I get this urge in me to share my perspective with them, because I want to actually express my own ideas, but then I just get sick of all my shit. I get sick of that annoying big picture. I can't really explain why I'm sick of it, I just am. Like, I still know it in my head, but I get sick of that feeling of "I want to explain this to other people so they'll understanndddd!" And I'm sick of it too because the words coming out of my mouth will sound all philosophical and someone will go "wow you're so philosophical" blah blah blah. Whatever. 

I don't even really want to discuss anything, lets say, "metaphysical" with anyone else. I don't really want to discuss anything abstract, spiritual, theoretical, etc. I'd rather just have it inside my head. I don't want to go through the effort of explaining my personal ideas and trying to think of the words to make people understand. It makes me feel like an idiot and I'm sick of it. 
I'm sick of how I could think and think about how to express an idea so other people will understand-- only to have people look at me blankly. Meanwhile, somebody else will just parrot some oft-repeated line they got right out of Oprah magazine, and everybody will go "yeah, you're right, I agree!" ><

That's kind of why I like hard science, even though I'm not great at it- because I can analyze things and talk about ideas, and there's actually a language for it. All that metaphysical/ theoretical stuff in my head can STFU. 

My dad has this meditation group where they read Zen sayings and discuss the meaning of them. i find it impossible to participate in, not because I don't understand the sayings or have ideas about them, but because the effort of explaining my ideas is just too much. 
Maybe I need to learn some way to somehow take things ideas and condense them into a "sound-bite" that incorporates as much "normal" language as possible. 

Its the work involved to actually participate in the world around you in a way that you'll know people will understand and having the will to "play along" with society. Instead of removing yourself from it and obsessing over you own Ni-visions and also the proper ~expression~ of your ~identity~. (that last part probably applies to INFJs not INTJs).


----------

