[Eu_citzen]

First, if you need any pointers on what to read next when it comes to Jung, I can help you depending on what you'd like to learn about next. His entire theory of personality is spread out all over his works and isn't confined only to typology.

Second, I'm interested. Now that Dissy has explained what I was trying to, I'm wondering what you meant by this:

"And I doubt Jungian typology would significantly alter my arguments. I base a lot of my insight on Jung anyway."

Does it alter your arguments significantly? And what insight exactly were you basing on Jung? Are you referring to "concrete" intuition vs "abstract" intuition or something else?

I've read Psychological types. What would you recommend next?
Wanting to learn more about how the cognitive functions might manifest in an individual.
Yes, the spread of his theory has indeed been an issue for me.

It does not change my direct belief that my arguments are correct. But I do still need to sort through and ponder on a few things. -thick skull-
Basically, it's hard to verbalize, but it seems to be a mixture of "hunch" and "observation". And cross-referencing with Jung's Psychological types.
I'm not even sure if was related to a specific "system" as such, now. In a stage of re-evaluation.

And finally, let's not forget to throw a pinch of projection into the mix. I don't really related to what you described as loosing touch with reality.
Well, I used to as a kid, but not so much anymore.

 

[Blue Flower]

I don’t want to wade too far into the discussion between @brightflashes and @Eu_citzen because I admit to not having a terribly deep background in this. But I do want to address the comments about the idea of being an N as opposed to the alleged Ne/Ni thing.

I am a very strong intuitive (something like 90+% if I take a test that puts your results in that type of weighted format). I am INFP and according to interpretations I see of MBTI that would mean that I should have strong Ne but not Ni. And Si should be my third function, I think?

But when I take function tests, I am very strong in both Ne and Ni, and Se and Si are both virtually non-existent.

And that all ties in nicely with the thought that MBTI is measuring whether you are N or S, period, and not assigning you “functions” as the theory is so often interpreted.

I am in my head. My sensing functions are not very well utilized. I read lengthy descriptions of Ne and Ni and relate strongly to both.

Between my work day and my personal life, I would say I spend about three-quarters of my waking hours with either an INTJ or ENTJ and I can honestly say that the way they use N is not terribly different from the way I use N. Both use what is referred to as Ne regularly and easily (wheeling off into tangential relationships between things).

Because they are both very strong Js they tend to want to hone in on an answer much more quickly than I do, but the ability to free-associate is very strongly there. ENTJ, as one would expect, is much heavier on the “T” aspect and INTJ more on the “N” aspect, as an introvert is more inclined to look inward and an extrovert outward.

But for me, the easiest difference to spot of the four letters is N vs S. By far. S is also far more common in the general population, though that is neither here nor there.

In my job, I do a lot of problem-solving. I won’t get into the details, because I don’t like to give identifying information, but basically my job in general is meant to be very dry, fact-based, but there are in fact problems to be solved and many of those fall to me and a few others who are naturally inclined this way.

Most of my department is S types. They want to know how I figured something out and it’s more of a “Well this looked weird so I looked at this and this and this over here, then, um, sort of thought ‘Well, that can’t be true, if this is also true...’ and then looked at this other thing and went ‘a-HA’ and verified the other thing over there and that you see is how I got the answer.”

They get a bit annoyed with me. They think there is some information I am withholding. They want steps. They want a black-and-white path that they follow. They don’t like grey. What I do is all shades of grey. I am trying to recreate where something went wrong after the fact, using pieces of information pulled together from various sources.

This is how N types problem-solve. We gather data, and wait for something to happen in our brains, the Aha moment. What is happening is that behind the scenes, our minds are processing lots of information faster than we can consciously follow it and crunching probabilities to arrive at solutions. That is why we have trouble explaining how we arrived at an answer. S types lay out a trail. A to B to C. Checklists, steps, that sort of thing. They can then pass this easily on to others, if they have any basic grasp of communication.

N types can seem arrogant because it seems as if we are withholding, as if we don’t try to explain because we think the other party wouldn’t understand. That isn’t true. We don’t explain because we don’t quite understand it ourselves. I explain best using analogies and figurative speech to help illustrate how I got from A to M without having to go through a whole bunch of “and that is where the magic happens” stuff in the middle.

Edit: and it took me four attempts to get Eu_citzen’s username right here... :tongue:

 

[lilysocks]

That isn’t true. We don’t explain because we don’t quite understand it ourselves.

i'll add that in my own dealings with colleagues who i suspected of being sensors - mostly because of this incredibly persistent way they had of demanding A Process for things that were just not process-based - i don't not-explain because i don't understand what happened. i don't explain because a process is not going to provide what they seem to be looking for.

i could make them a 'process' for a specific insight. hell, it's what i do every time i fill in the 'steps to reproduce' part of a bug report.

i just refuse to do it because . . . just like the repro steps for a given bug, it would be a process for just that insight. it would be worthless for anything else, and i just can't get some of them to accept that it's so.

some of them never give up trying to extract the mythical skittles from me. it's the main reason why i have a genuinely ptsd-ish reaction to hard sensors now. they leave me feeling like the victim of an incompetent biopsy. performed by people trying to locate and bottle my soul.

 

[Blue Flower]

i'll add that in my own dealings with colleagues who i suspected of being sensors - mostly because of this incredibly persistent way they had of demanding A Process for things that were just not process-based - i don't not-explain because i don't understand what happened. i don't explain because a process is not going to provide what they seem to be looking for.

i could make them a 'process' for a specific insight. hell, it's what i do every time i fill in the 'steps to reproduce' part of a bug report.

i just refuse to do it because . . . just like the repro steps for a given bug, it would be a process for just that insight. it would be worthless for anything else, and i just can't get some of them to accept that it's so.

some of them never give up trying to extract the mythical skittles from me. it's the main reason why i have a genuinely ptsd-ish reaction to hard sensors now. they leave me feeling like the victim of an incompetent autopsy. performed by people trying to locate and bottle my soul.

Yes, this is a much better explanation than the one I gave. A lot of what I do is sort of a one-off that only applies to this particular problem.

On the surface, the next problem may look like the same darned thing, but it isn’t. And trying to explain the 18 things I looked at to realize they were different is not possible. It’s like a fish asking a bird how it uses its fins to fly.

But those aren’t fins..

 

[Catwalk]

Probably meticulousness. I work many (STJ)-types; and where we differ is their meticulousness and attentiveness to detail. I often think I am good with fixating on details, but I am actually just good at focusing on specifics or forcing myself to "get it right the first time" so I needn't repeat myself. I leave a lot behind.

They have better memory than I, I really just remember events, main points, strong disturbances. Never content, individuals, and detailed-specifics like the colors of shirts, and X, Y, Z, how I felt that day, et al. Don't ask me to rake my memory for specifics, I will have no clue what you are talking about.

I am good at sweeping the surface clean - but Ti and Si types always follow close behind with something I missed. They are a bit like my "back-up cleaners" - calling my attention to thing(s) I normally wouldn't care about. I can always recognize Si and Ti users. I start to roll my eyes with a big "here we go," and let them do their cleaning.

 

[lilysocks]

Yes, this is a much better explanation than the one I gave. A lot of what I do is sort of a one-off that only applies to this particular problem.

sometimes i catch myself thinking about how you could possibly document the process of how to function in this process-not-needed type world. it's not on-the-face-of-it impossible, is the problem. it would go somethign like:

1. first, assemble the elements [for s.o.p. about how to select elements, see later steps]
2. extract the essence of each element. [for s.o.p. about how to extract essences, see attached steps]
3. next, discard the physical shells of the elements. [see manual]
4. clear slate.
4. assemble essences [only] on a flat surface. step back. [for s.o.p about how to step back, see floor plan at figure 1]
4. select a matching criterion [pre-requisite: assemble list of matching criteria, at step -1]
5. identify matches between essences
6. think. [for s.o.p. about N-type thinking, go think about something else for a while]
7. repeat from step 5.
8. think.
9. restart from step 2.
10. go off and think about elements.
11. restart from step 1. or -1. or not. it depends what you think.

 

[Dissymetry]

@Dissymetry

Thanks.
I guess I have some further reading to do, since I indeed (and apparently wrongly so) tried to draw parallels to Jungian Typology and MBTI.

Do not thank me, thank @brightflashes. All I did was say what she said but in a male voice.

I've read Psychological types. What would you recommend next?
Wanting to learn more about how the cognitive functions might manifest in an individual.

Considering some of your comments I would recommend Psychological Types, again.

 

[brightflashes]

The books I'd recommend are:

The Question of Psychological Types - Jung
Lectures on Psychological Type - von Franz & Hillman
Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche - Jung
Aion - Researches in the phenomenology of self - Jung
Development of Personality - Jung

In his books about the Collective Unconscious he talks a great deal about typology, but they aren't books devoted to typology specefically. There's also a book called Man & His Symbols which goes into psychological type as well. His Alchemical books talk about how the functions interact (they're obviously not literally about Alchemy).

Anyway, I'm sorry guys if I made too much of a big deal out of this but I've just noticed that people don't seem to take me seriously so I had to pull in a man to explain for me so people might think that I might know what I'm thinking of.

To be clear, I do not and never have thought that N is "mystical", though they may come across that way to those who are not N types. I just want people to take me seriously and not dismiss me as using tropes or thinking I'm some sort of psychic or whatever else I'm told when I mention anything I know about Jung.

I have studied him extensively in University and currently work in the field of Depth Psychology. I don't expect everyone to know that here, but it's in my profile.

 

[Eu_citzen]

Considering some of your comments I would recommend Psychological Types, again.

Nah, that's what might happen when extrapolation goes awry.

 

[Eu_citzen]

They get a bit annoyed with me. They think there is some information I am withholding. They want steps. They want a black-and-white path that they follow. They don’t like grey. What I do is all shades of grey. I am trying to recreate where something went wrong after the fact, using pieces of information pulled together from various sources.

This is how N types problem-solve. We gather data, and wait for something to happen in our brains, the Aha moment. What is happening is that behind the scenes, our minds are processing lots of information faster than we can consciously follow it and crunching probabilities to arrive at solutions. That is why we have trouble explaining how we arrived at an answer. S types lay out a trail. A to B to C. Checklists, steps, that sort of thing. They can then pass this easily on to others, if they have any basic grasp of communication.

N types can seem arrogant because it seems as if we are withholding, as if we don’t try to explain because we think the other party wouldn’t understand. That isn’t true. We don’t explain because we don’t quite understand it ourselves. I explain best using analogies and figurative speech to help illustrate how I got from A to M without having to go through a whole bunch of “and that is where the magic happens” stuff in the middle.

Edit: and it took me four attempts to get Eu_citzen’s username right here... :tongue:

:laughing:
Yeah, that's basically what happened here.
My "intuition" had already figured something out which seemed plausible to it beyond what the book said. I suppose.

What is worth noting is that I feel as if I have a firm enough grip on either my thinking or sensing function as to that I don't have to be "stuck in my head" unless I choose to. And that is probably in part where my disagreement came from. :happy:

PS. You're not the first to need several tries with my username.:laughing:

 

[brightflashes]

What is worth noting is that I feel as if I have a firm enough grip on either my thinking or sensing function as to that I don't have to be "stuck in my head" unless I choose to. And that is probably in part where my disagreement came from. :happy:

Exactly. And that makes perfect sense using MBTI. It's just an Ni type in Jungian theory isn't the same as an INTJ in MBTI. INTJ in MBTI is a lot less "disconnected". In fact, it doesn't even really play much of a role in the descriptor of the INTJ. MBTI tests for dichotomy and then takes whether that person prefers I or E and applies the Grant stack AFTER the fact. So if one tests highest in N, they will be assigned Ni if they're an Introvert.

I didn't really consider it a disagreement as much as a misunderstanding of Jungian typology vs MBTI. A Jungian Ni is a type unto itself. And, the way Jung describes it is like a person who basically cannot even tie their shoes they're so disconnected from reality. When you said that you used Jungian theory as well as MBTI I was confused because you had said that referring to Jung would support what you were saying just as much as MBTI would.

This was, on its face factually incorrect. The incongruence was what I was questioning; not what you said - what you said was fine and true as far as MBTI goes. I didn't understand how bringing Jung into it supported it and that was all. And I guess I got a bit butthurt about being told that I was basically romanticising N when I was just using the same definition I use in my personal and professional life, one that I have been schooled in. That's it. : )

For an analogy, it would be like telling a computer programmer that a browser and a search engine is the same thing, that computer programmer correcting it, and then being accused of falling victim to lack of critical thinking.

 

[brightflashes]

@Blue Flower

I have found personally that the auxiliary function can go in either direction. That's why I spell my type in my profile as Ni-T/F-Se.
The most differentiated function (N) will show in the attitude of preference to the extreme. One uses it so much that it repels the opposite attitude away in the same way it repels the opposite function in the opposite attitude.

Since your supporting function is N, (and mine is T), this function will be much more flexible in which direction it can go. It's not the primary function, so it can go in either direction. According to Jung, it will usually prefer the same attitude as the primary, according to Myers and Grant, it'll take the opposite attitude. I see it as being more flexible because it's simply not as differentiated.

 

[Eu_citzen]

@brightflashes

Thanks. Yes, I know *why* you jumped in, it's been made redundantly clear. Don't worry, I'll just have to reevaluate what I thought I knew. :wink:
No biggie. In fact, I find it rather intriguing then offensive.

Perhaps abandoning MBTI all together might bring me a better, more precise descriptor to help me understand myself.
I've been told, multiple times, that I "seem" extroverted. But I never felt "extroverted".:laughing:
Anyway, I got some reading to do. Thanks, again.

 

[Nashvols]

As @stathamspeacoat mentioned, I have the pleasure of having an INTJ girlfriend and an ISTJ dad. And I would agree that on the surface, they can be pretty similar. I'm not sure I can offer more than anecdotes, but I'll give it a shot.

-One of the main differences I notice is how they come to conclusions. I think ISTJ is much more likely to rely on experience and what they already know (and be able to articulate and explain that) whereas the INTJ can sometimes come up with something seemingly out of thin air (I think their brain is just making unconscious connections) and not be able to say how or why they came to such a conclusion (but there's a good chance it's right).

-Another thing along those lines is the way that I see how Si and Ni operate. Si seems very certain and concrete. Ni seems less certain and open to possibilities. In my opinion, this can make it harder to change the mind of an ISTJ. Like, a painful amount of evidence. Not that INTJs are easy -- they have their moments -- I think Te users prefer to have things settled rather than up in the air. But I think that INTJs are probably a lot more willing to mentally chew on something without everything having to be laid out. Even as an INTP, sometimes the Si Override Button has to be pressed when I'm presented with something that really challenges my thinking.

-Btw, this has nothing really to do with a difference in intelligence between the types, but rather a difference in how they take in information. I've found some ISTJs to be quite inventive when it comes to problem solving. The idea that they read the manual is an overrated stereotype. If anything, they're like the stereotypical dad that doesn't read the manual because they 'already know how to do it.'

I might have more to add later. I'll continue to stew on the topic.

 

[stathamspeacoat]

I would agree - attempting to convince/change the mind any high Si person can be the equivalent to the amount of work/evidence required for a research paper that will be published in a prestigious journal.

Here is the story called "the time my ESTJ boss gave me the most ESTJ response":

ISFJ office manager was retiring. She'd worked for him at the prior workplace and he brought her over when he started his own business. Read: she was a valued employee who worked for him for almost 20 years. He wanted to reward that.

My instructions were to get her a watch, approx value $5-9k, and he wanted me to look into a Rolex. Problem I see off the bat: ISFJ would not want a gift like that. She was almost diametrically opposed to anything flashy or expensive (which was, of course, ESTJ boss's world view - they'll appreciate getting something fancy/valuable that they wouldn't/couldn't buy for themselves).

I brought up this issue as it was glaring to me but got the "nope, this is what we're doing." Realizing I'd presented a counterpoint without 1. an alternative plan 2. other options which included detailed reasoning as to why this other gift might be more suitable, I found a timepiece that met both the requirements of his flashiness/value and her aesthetic.

I once again presented him with "I have this timepiece on hold; HOW-EV-ER, I would like you to consider the following:" and proceeded to give him my reasoning, list options, etc.

I see him nodding. I know this nod: he is humoring me but I continue regardless, knowing this is completely ineffective.

After I complete my presentation of gift alternatives and why a timepiece would not be the preferred option, he pauses for a beat and says, "get the timepiece. It's tradition."

I got the timepiece. She hated it. It caused an enormous issue/rift. He now has $8k+ store credit at a luxury shop. We do not speak of this incident.


That said, I don't know that I'd necessarily label xSTJ stubborn. I think that's a tad hyperbolic - to me, it requires an element of arbitrariness. SJ just wants very solid reasoning to abandon what they already know to work. If it ain't broke, why fix it?! I would say that if your aim is to challenge their opinion, you'd better come correct, have a plan, have solid, relevant evidence, and be at peace with the possibility of rejection, despite your best efforts. It can be done if you do it right, taking care to reassure Si (which can be a little squeamish out of their comfort zone) and appeal to Te (which has no time for chaos or half-baked nonsense i.e. you're not giving them more to do).

As an INTJ, I would agree with @Nashvols assessment of "they have their moments" (mmm hmm) but also with the idea that I tend to be receptive to new/different approaches and roll things around before deciding. That is, while I'm not always easy to sway, very few things are set in stone for me. Even if your idea is only that - a suggestion with nothing worked out - I am usually comfortable with the gist of an idea as long as your reasoning is solid. If anything, a step-by-step outline could be hit or miss with me, as you may trigger my "don't tell me what to do or how to do it" switch (unless your plan is in step with what I'm doing/would have done).

My approach for things is to generally understand the objective (and prioritizing things as "musts," "shoulds," "in a perfect world," etc. - basically determine what, if anything, is expendable or "the cherry on the sundae" but not necessary to the finished product), consider the assets I have, and see an approximate vision of the outcome I would like. This is where the INTJs contingency planning style of thinking comes into play. Everything in the middle can be worked out, switched up, fail (as long as it doesn't take me to a dead end or require backtracking), etc. as I go and I'm happy as long as things are moving towards to my end game. The process is pliable (hence, perhaps appearing undisciplined in comparison to ISTJ). I think INTJ is more comfortable with, "I guess try it and see what happens." If you were to ask me at the start of a new project how I plan to do it, there are definitely times where you might think I don't know what I'm doing. I might even feel like I don't know what I'm doing! I bank on my cache of contingencies, my understanding of the big picture, my self-confidence, trusting my intelligence and skills, and knowing that I'm almost always successful. I usually tell people when they give me a project, "tell me what you want, when you want it, and leave me alone. I'll let you know if I have questions."

 

[Coonsy]

Struggling with this with my ISTJ friend right now - and what is stated above is very, very true, and TBH, it is rapidly killing any initial attraction I may have had to him (may have already killed it off completely).

I've worked with ISTJs in the past, and have worked with them quite well. I've had ISTJ friends, and we got along just fine, but most of my "good" friends are "NT" types.

This ISTJ and I hit it off initially with a common interest (which we will always have in common). The issue is, I'm finding that's the measurement of his depth. I thought maybe we could connect on other topics (health, fitness, martial arts, whatever) but reality is, while he has VERY strong opinions on these things, they aren't based in any kind of research, study, or knowledge outside of what he likes/has experienced, and he has ZERO openness to changing his mind or learning new things.

Add in a little too much of his "helpfulness" that is starting to feel suffocating (I'm fiercely independent, and while I can and will lean on people, it's almost never because I need to). That whole "defender" thing they have - he has it in spades. Which would be cute and adorable if I wanted someone to hold my hand, but it actually pisses me off.

In my experience, past and present, INTJ/ISTJ can be decent enough friends and coworkers, BUT, in anything deeper/more drawn out, they may very likely start butting heads. INTJs are bit too open to new information, we want to study and understand things, we can be set in our ways, but are open to changing if the evidence proves our prior knowledge wrong/incomplete, etc, while the ISTJ is like a rock. They have their shape, ideas, and knowledge, and you are not going to convince them to explore anything outside of that. They have their spot on the earth, they see what is there, they will defend it to the end, but don't try to tell them the world is round and full of all of these other ideas/topics/ways of thinking....

 

[Dalien]

@Blue Flower

I have found personally that the auxiliary function can go in either direction. That's why I spell my type in my profile as Ni-T/F-Se.
The most differentiated function (N) will show in the attitude of preference to the extreme. One uses it so much that it repels the opposite attitude away in the same way it repels the opposite function in the opposite attitude.

Since your supporting function is N, (and mine is T), this function will be much more flexible in which direction it can go. It's not the primary function, so it can go in either direction. According to Jung, it will usually prefer the same attitude as the primary, according to Myers and Grant, it'll take the opposite attitude. I see it as being more flexible because it's simply not as differentiated.

Thank you. This explanation made things much clearer for me.

 

[ponpiri]

my dad is a jerk, organized, systematic, anti-emotions, efficiency-driven, does not elaborate or pontificate, harsh and truly blunt. He's a big family guy that likes to socialize and he's intense and commanding. His presence is big and because he demands your best, it can be oppressive at times.

Also, he's imaginative in a practical way whereas I can be very pie in the sky. It's like The Matrix (ISTJ) vs Inception (INTJ).

 

[ponpiri]

i'll add that in my own dealings with colleagues who i suspected of being sensors - mostly because of this incredibly persistent way they had of demanding A Process for things that were just not process-based - i don't not-explain because i don't understand what happened. i don't explain because a process is not going to provide what they seem to be looking for.

i could make them a 'process' for a specific insight. hell, it's what i do every time i fill in the 'steps to reproduce' part of a bug report.

i just refuse to do it because . . . just like the repro steps for a given bug, it would be a process for just that insight. it would be worthless for anything else, and i just can't get some of them to accept that it's so.

some of them never give up trying to extract the mythical skittles from me. it's the main reason why i have a genuinely ptsd-ish reaction to hard sensors now. they leave me feeling like the victim of an incompetent biopsy. performed by people trying to locate and bottle my soul.

I'm dealing with this now with a new trainee. This job requires nimble, independent thinkers. New hire isn't slow by any means, but they feel more comfortable being fed information because they think that if they're told how to do a task one time, they'll do it the same way for everything else. It's like they're trying to find one solution that fits every scenario.



I'm supposed to be this person's liaison for a year, but idk man.

 

[Abbaladon Arc V]

When you think going to the kitchen for eating and there is somebody you think about theory to avoid reality and forget you are hungry