Personality Cafe banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Oh my, this forum has been like a breath of fresh air! At various points of my life, I've tested as an INTJ and INFJ, but never ever a P. I've been exploring in the different forums, and this is the first one where I read the sticky thread (you know you're a [personality type] when you...), and thought "yes, that's me!"

I'm always daydreaming about random things, and I'm constantly researching on Google whatever odd things cross my mind. I used to put the books on top of my car in high school and then drive off with them on top of my car because I got caught up thinking about something else. :blushed: And yes, it happened more than once. And I still get lost driving when I start to daydream. Thank goodness for GPS telling me when and where to turn so I can do it on autopilot.

I can't turn my brain off, and sometimes I'll start thinking about the nature of the universe while watching TV during a commercial break. I can't help crying at movies, even when I know they're silly tear-jerkers (my tears get jerked right on out anyway).

When I take walks, I marvel at the beauty around me, as cheesy as that sounds. I love it! I was taking a morning walk the other day and saw what I think must have been an anhinga spreading it's wings to dry, the water all sparkly around it, and it made me feel so happy and connected with the world.

I'm probably overly tolerant of different personality types. The only thing I'm quick to judge is malice. I'm usually ready to give another chance (again, with the exception of truly vindictive people).

So am I really an INFP, despite never testing that way? Part of me is very, very analytical, but that's only one part of me. The rest of me is very much the creative wonder-about-the-world type. The things I love to do the most are creative (writing and photography). It's too bad there's not a personality category that encompasses both the rational and daydreamer! But I have to say it really brought a smile to my face to know that there are so many others who have to watch out for their daydreaming tendencies, especially in the car, lol!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
Oh my, this forum has been like a breath of fresh air! At various points of my life, I've tested as an INTJ and INFJ, but never ever a P. I've been exploring in the different forums, and this is the first one where I read the sticky thread (you know you're a [personality type] when you...), and thought "yes, that's me!"
I'm always daydreaming about random things, and I'm constantly researching on Google whatever odd things cross my mind. I used to put the books on top of my car in high school and then drive off with them on top of my car because I got caught up thinking about something else. :blushed: And yes, it happened more than once. And I still get lost driving when I start to daydream. Thank goodness for GPS telling me when and where to turn so I can do it on autopilot.
I can't turn my brain off, and sometimes I'll start thinking about the nature of the universe while watching TV during a commercial break. I can't help crying at movies, even when I know they're silly tear-jerkers (my tears get jerked right on out anyway).
When I take walks, I marvel at the beauty around me, as cheesy as that sounds. I love it! I was taking a morning walk the other day and saw what I think must have been an anhinga spreading it's wings to dry, the water all sparkly around it, and it made me feel so happy and connected with the world.
I'm probably overly tolerant of different personality types. The only thing I'm quick to judge is malice. I'm usually ready to give another chance (again, with the exception of truly vindictive people).
So am I really an INFP, despite never testing that way? Part of me is very, very analytical, but that's only one part of me. The rest of me is very much the creative wonder-about-the-world type. The things I love to do the most are creative (writing and photography). It's too bad there's not a personality category that encompasses both the rational and daydreamer! But I have to say it really brought a smile to my face to know that there are so many others who have to watch out for their daydreaming tendencies, especially in the car, lol!
-----Hello, tolstoy! First off, whether you are or are not an INFP, I'd like to welcome you, here.
-----Typing yourself is a journey, and ultimately only you can figure that out for yourself. So, please take everything I say in the vein of my informing interaction style, which essentially means that I like providing information and analysis, without judgment on the person--and always respecting the personal autonomy of the other person to make their decisions for themselves.
-----I think the best way to type yourself is to learn about the cognitive functions--and the effect of their stacking order. Here are two good sites: Cognitive Processes; Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions). I believe you will be comfortable working with and applying several frameworks simultaneously, including cognitive processes, looking at the four core personalities, and contrast between particular types.
-----Here are a couple videos dealing with the contrasts applicable here (sorry, there is no "INTJ or INFP" thread):
-----There is a common misperception that thinkers don't feel and feeler don't think. That isn't true--it's just the preference for objective truth versus personal/social values. The difference can be quite subtle. And by the way, all types have as one of their cognitive processes preferences one feeling and one thinking preference. It's just that one is higher on the cognitive function stack.
~~~~----~~~~----~~~~
-----Now, what follows is my personal analysis in response to your question, "So am I really an INFP, despite never testing that way?"
-----It is possible, but based on what your wrote, my guess is that you aren't here because you are an INFP but rather because you share with us a commonly misunderstood cognitive function: Fi. The cognitive process preferences of an INFP are Fi, Ne, Si, Te. For an INTJ, Ni, Te, Fi, Se. For an INFJ, Ni, Fe, Ti, Se. It comes across in the way you write the way you feel--you personally feel--about the world.
-----You tested as INTJ and INFJ. Both types have Ni as their dominant cognitive function preference. Our shorthand would be Ni-Dom (dominant). I think it is very likely that the tests, while unable to detect a T or F preference accurately, have detected Ni-dom accurately. Now, look at the proximity of T and F in the INTJ and INFJ stackings. They are neighboring houses in a suburb--harder to tell apart from a distance. But look at the cognitive function itself, and there is a huge difference. Fe-Ti is much different than Te-Fi. Fe-Ti would theoretically have more to do with synthesizing values from groups and then personally adopting those values base upon the essential qualities of those values as internally reasoned. Te-Fi would theoretically have more to do with synthesizing information and quantified data and utilizing that new understanding according to your personal values. Both Te-Fi and Fe-Ti work to support the dominant process Ni, which synthesizes the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory into a vast understanding over time.
-----There are sometimes promoted stereotypes about types or functions that interfere with our understanding of them. Ni is sometimes unfairly called un-creative with the assumption that Ne is creative. Ne is sometimes called un-cerebral with the assumption that Ni is cerebral. It's not that simple. It's more about the movement of reasoning, in my opinion. Ni starts with known information (obtained through enthusiastic research) and looks at that information from many perspective--looking for elusive connections (the seemingly unrelated)--and it makes those connections very creatively. The reward is insight and epiphany--a greater understanding of the known--as informed by intuition. This process occurs over time. In short, Ni moved from the known and discovered the unknown.
-----Ne starts with unknown information and tries to move into the known by generating numerous possibilities. By letting the brain move on its own, the brain can make random connections that result in the spontaneous act of creation. The reward is the creation of something new. This process occurs in reaction to a single stimuli (an idea, a word, a feeling, something seen, and so on)--and is more in-the-moment. In short, Ne started with the unknown and put it into terms of the known. But Ne and Ni are both creative processes. Ne can benefit from Ni's insights. Ni can benefit from Ne's idea-generation. It has the potential to be mutually beneficial.
-----You said you get lost in your thoughts about the nature of the universe and that you are a creative wonder-about-the-world type. There is a personality type that might describe things in just that way--even weeping before the absolute beauty of existence. The personality category that encompasses both the rational and daydreamer: INTJ.
-----While it's good to be around others of our own type, it is also very helpful to be around people who have our auxiliary, tertiary, and (eventually) inferior cognitive processes preferences. This helps us develop those functions. And then, after we have tentatively discovered and definitively accepted ourselves, we will then be able to see the value of those who operate with complementary cognitive function preferences.
-----So based on my reading, I would consider INTJ with a well-developed Ni, Te, and Fi. But more importantly, I see someone who regards the world around her with awe, and that is awe-inspiring itself.
-----I wish you well in your voyage of discovery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thank you so much, Geoffrey, for your thoughtful reply! I read through what you wrote, and what you said makes so much sense. I then read an article on here discussing Ne versus Ni, and now I'm not sure what fits me best.

I tend to make connections in unusual ways. My main strength in thinking is my ability to do transference. I'm quick to see processes separate from their mediums and be able to apply processes in different mediums. For example, composing piano music helped me better understand the revision process for writing. When I took psychology classes in college, one of my strengths when reading the research articles was being able to identify the hidden assumptions and see new ways of approaching the questions. I'd also pull from my understanding of different areas, such as dance, music, or photography. I'm always connecting different fields because for me, it's more about the processes behind them. When I got my MFA in poetry, my best poems were ones that used surreal imagery. I often see parallels in seemingly different things.

So is that Ni thinking or Ne thinking? When I was reading that article, the Ne sounded like it fit better with transference-based thinking? Or am I misunderstanding what Ne thinking is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
Thank you so much, Geoffrey, for your thoughtful reply! I read through what you wrote, and what you said makes so much sense. I then read an article on here discussing Ne versus Ni, and now I'm not sure what fits me best.
I tend to make connections in unusual ways. My main strength in thinking is my ability to do transference. I'm quick to see processes separate from their mediums and be able to apply processes in different mediums. For example, composing piano music helped me better understand the revision process for writing. When I took psychology classes in college, one of my strengths when reading the research articles was being able to identify the hidden assumptions and see new ways of approaching the questions. I'd also pull from my understanding of different areas, such as dance, music, or photography. I'm always connecting different fields because for me, it's more about the processes behind them. When I got my MFA in poetry, my best poems were ones that used surreal imagery. I often see parallels in seemingly different things.
So is that Ni thinking or Ne thinking? When I was reading that article, the Ne sounded like it fit better with transference-based thinking? Or am I misunderstanding what Ne thinking is?
-----Here is a quote from a good Ne v. Ni article: "To summarize Ni, where Ne is an explosion of ideas from one thing, Ni is where one idea coalesces from many ideas." This may even be the article you already read. He described Ni as a nebula of information. There is a huge gathering of matter that slowly coalesces into a star, planets, comets, asteroids, and so on. What he is trying to say is that the information collected is over time organized into a super-complex holistic system that can come to bear on new things as well as look at old things in a new way. Part of what you know about sailing might be put to use in mathematics, knitting, or anything where a connection can be made. See: http://personalitycafe.com/articles/84275-cognitive-function-ne-vs-ni.html.
-----But what the nebula metaphor is lacking is the idea of connections being made. I think of something electric and pulsing, with each new wire installed contributing to the power of the whole. Imagine that Ni is a town, and ideas are people. Without people, the town does not function. The town needs people--lots of people--and the more people, the more the town can evolve. The barber met a travelling salesman, so they decided to sell door-to-door haircuts. While out on errands, they met a travel agent, and together they all decided to start a door-to-door limousine service for business people that gives haircuts on the way to work. And so on.
-----Ne, on the other hand, the article talks about as the Big Bang. It's an explosion of ideas seemingly out of nowhere. But perhaps a better metaphor is a bee hive. Ne is the hive, the bees are the ideas, the flowers are outside information. Yes, the bees cannot survive without collecting the pollen from the fields, but the bees themselves are born within the hive. They look nothing like flowers. Ne trusts brainstorming. Ne is one idea leads to another and another and another, and . . . another and another and another, and so forth.
-----Dragon. purple dragon. boiling air. fire flying. wind raptor. snow from the fire. demons inhaling ice. the frost of sadness. the heat of insanity. clovers in an endless field. . . . and scene. I wrote everything after "dragon" and before "field" with my eyes closed and in a stream of consciousness (and the images and intensity of feeling is still circling). I don't really care about what connects those ideas. I don't think there is anything to be learned by trying to analyze them. I almost consider it randomly generated information (even though I know my brain generated it). Where they came from--doesn't matter. The only thing I am interested in is generating more ideas from that--I may get a story out of it (I am a writer). But figuring out how the connections were made doesn't matter to me. That's Ne.
-----Your idea of transference I think is an excellent way of describing Ni. "I often see parallels in seemingly different things." To Ni, all ideas are connected (somehow, even if unknown, and Ni strives to find the connection)--and it is truly amazing--oracular insight. To Ne, the generation of new ideas is the focus--and it also is truly amazing--divine inspiration.
-----I can't remember what you had listed as your type when you first posted (you don't have to say)--but I don't think I looked at the time. I see it is INFJ, so here is a link to another comment I made not too long ago: http://personalitycafe.com/nfs-temperament-forum-dreamers/69181-nfs-romantic-relationships-sjs-13.html#post2343252. In fact, one of the reasons I wanted to write is because all the information is still fresh.
-----Sorry if my initial description caused some confusion (I edited it for clarity--hopefully).
-----Also, way to go on your MFA!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
-----Your idea of transference I think is an excellent way of describing Ni. "I often see parallels in seemingly different things." To Ni, all ideas are connected (somehow, even if unknown, and Ni strives to find the connection)--and it is truly amazing--oracular. To Ne, the generation of new ideas is the focus--and it also is truly amazing--divine inspiration.
I agree with @Geoffrey that your idea of transference sounds Ni-ish, under the condition that you're applying one familiar concept (point of view) to another situation.

But I think I slightly disagree :3 Ne is more divergent where Ni is more convergent. Symbolically, reading from left to right, they can be 'represented' with the following symbols:
Ne: <
Ni: >

Ni does make connections but in order to ponder several point of views, to eventually pick one that 'seems right'. In the case of seeing parallels in different things, Ni considers several possibilities but comes to the conclusion that there's only one concept: the concept you used in the other situation actually applies to the situation at hand. One could even argue this comes close to Si: comparing (and applying) the known to the unknown: using patterns you've found before to in new contexts - perhaps the elements are different but their connections remain the same.

Ne goes from one possibility to the next, to the next, to the next etc, until all possible connections are exhausted. See it as a funnel: if you hold it like it's usually held, with the wide side up and the slender part down, Ni pours 'in', 'down', Ne goes the other way.

What you describe about reading those articles for psychology sounds Ni-ish. The text you're reading doesn't change - but the interpretations can change through considering and applying different meanings to the words and sentences - which is basically just shifting your point of view. Basically, the text is a symbol and you can interpret it in many different ways.

Daydreaming is not exclusively preserved for Ne ^^ Ni has a hand in the cookie jar! Stuff like forgetting that you left your books on top of your car is not so much Ne nor Ni but rather absence of S: having an eye of what's right in front of you.

Feeling at home in the INFP forums, no matter your type, is not unreasonable. It is a very likable part of PerC :3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
I agree with @Geoffrey that your idea of transference sounds Ni-ish, under the condition that you're applying one familiar concept (point of view) to another situation.
But I think I slightly disagree :3 Ne is more divergent where Ni is more convergent. Symbolically, reading from left to right, they can be 'represented' with the following symbols:
Ne: <
Ni: >
Ni does make connections but in order to ponder several point of views, to eventually pick one that 'seems right'. In the case of seeing parallels in different things, Ni considers several possibilities but comes to the conclusion that there's only one concept: the concept you used in the other situation actually applies to the situation at hand. One could even argue this comes close to Si: comparing (and applying) the known to the unknown: using patterns you've found before to in new contexts - perhaps the elements are different but their connections remain the same.
Ne goes from one possibility to the next, to the next, to the next etc, until all possible connections are exhausted. See it as a funnel: if you hold it like it's usually held, with the wide side up and the slender part down, Ni pours 'in', 'down', Ne goes the other way.
What you describe about reading those articles for psychology sounds Ni-ish. The text you're reading doesn't change - but the interpretations can change through considering and applying different meanings to the words and sentences - which is basically just shifting your point of view. Basically, the text is a symbol and you can interpret it in many different ways.
Daydreaming is not exclusively preserved for Ne ^^ Ni has a hand in the cookie jar! Stuff like forgetting that you left your books on top of your car is not so much Ne nor Ni but rather absence of S: having an eye of what's right in front of you.
Feeling at home in the INFP forums, no matter your type, is not unreasonable. It is a very likable part of PerC :3
-----@eyenexepee: Thanks! I think you explained the "bridging the gap" idea that is part of Ni and Ne. It's more about the person hopes to achieve, if I am understanding you correctly. I had originally tried to talk in terms of connections, but I think this ultimately was confusing--because of the way I put it. Below is the wording of my original post and edited post. I think that edited post gets the distinction more clearly, but it also loses the idea of making a connection between dissimilar, seemingly unrelated, ideas. That terminology (I was using) just needed your touch, I guess. Great clarification.
  • Original
-
-----Ne starts with unknown information--the seemingly unrelated--and strives to make connections between them by generating numerous possibilities. The reward is the creation of something new. This process occurs in reaction to stimuli--and is more in-the-moment. But they are both creative processes.
  • Edited
+
-----Ne starts with unknown information and tries to move into the known by generating numerous possibilities. By letting the brain move on its own, the brain can make random connections that result in the spontaneous act of creation. The reward is the creation of something new. This process occurs in reaction to a single stimuli (an idea, a word, a feeling, something seen, and so on)--and is more in-the-moment. In short, Ne started with the unknown and put it into terms of the known. But Ne and Ni are both creative processes. Ne can benefit from Ni's insights. Ni can benefit from Ne's idea-generation. It has the potential to be mutually beneficial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: illicit iridescence

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
-----Ne starts with unknown information and tries to move into the known by generating numerous possibilities. By letting the brain move on its own, the brain can make random connections that result in the spontaneous act of creation. The reward is the creation of something new. This process occurs in reaction to a single stimuli (an idea, a word, a feeling, something seen, and so on)--and is more in-the-moment. But they are both creative processes.

-----Ne starts with unknown information and tries to move into the known by generating numerous possibilities. By letting the brain move on its own, the brain can make random connections that result in the spontaneous act of creation. The reward is the creation of something new. This process occurs in reaction to a single stimuli (an idea, a word, a feeling, something seen, and so on)--and is more in-the-moment. In short, Ne started with the unknown and put it into terms of the known. But Ne and Ni are both creative processes. Ne can benefit from Ni's insights. Ni can benefit from Ne's idea-generation. It has the potential to be mutually beneficial.
I think your edited version is more spot-on, considering Ne. I wouldn't change anything about it, but add the following (which I have not mentioned in my previous post):

It is also important to consider the playing fields: Ne's field is external (outside the subject), Ni is internal (inside the subject). Ne takes objects in the outer world and leave them there while connecting the dots. Ni looks at objects in the outer world, shift positions to change the point of view, much like using differently colored lenses, trying to find that one position that brings out the best of the object. The object then is considered as a symbol, whose meaning changes as the point of view is changed. This meaning is 'toyed' with, within the subject's mind, which is the internalizing part, the internal playing field.

Some people say Ne is a function that 'thinks out of the box'. But Ni can be seen that way as well. In that sense they're both creative, but each in their own way: Ne finds connections and patterns between objects that haven't been thought of before, Ni reexamines objects from different angles, resulting in multiple interpretations that haven't been thought of before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geoffrey

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thanks to both of you! I understand the differentiation much better now. The brainstorming reference was very helpful.

I think the reason that I've always felt Ne applied to me (although I didn't know that was the term), is that I use both processes heavily. I definitely use Ne in my creative endeavors, especially poetry. I used it the absolute most in concise poetry with surreal similes (and in music composition, but I haven't done that in years), and I use it the least in fiction (although the Ne is present there as well).

You are completely right, Geoffrey, that I am more dominant in the Ni, but my Ne processes are precious to me, too. I just use the Ni aspect to organize it all. Also, I wonder if the strong presence of Ni masks the Ne to some degree? The Ne, by nature, is a more hidden process (it's a generative process that appears to happen spontaneously). The Ni is more noticeable by nature because it involves making connections and organizing. What if someone is high on both? Wouldn't the Ni overshadow the results of a personality test? If I'm asked if I organize my information and constantly look for connections, the answer is yes. But that doesn't mean I'm not also spontaneously generating ideas in the brainstorming/stream of consciousness mode. But the test will prompt the Ni answer, simply because the Ni is present and also strong.

I hope that Ni and Ne aren't considered mutually exclusive, because I really don't believe that's the case.

Eynexpee, you described Ni as being deductive thinking, and Ne as being inductive thinking. I've always thought of my thinking as more side thinking overall, if that makes sense? It's more about hopping back and forth, rather than pouring in or out, with the exception of my Ne thinking, which I would describe as a branching out. The pouring in (deductive) part of my thinking happens mainly in the beginning stages if I'm learning something new and/or researching. Having just Ni and Ne--if it really is just inductive versus deductive--seems a little limiting to me. There seems to be a third process that isn't addressed here: that hopping back and forth aspect. I know that sounds a little silly, but it's the easiest way to describe it, and it's definitely a different process from the other two. I'm guessing that this third process is typically lumped into the Ni category, because it is an analytic process (although in reality, it has traits of both Ni and Ne).

Geoffrey, as a writer yourself, and the very fact that you're attracted to contemplating these differences, you're probably also fairly high on both Ne and Ni, although the Ne is dominant (but perhaps you identify more with the Ne, which would also affect your answers on a test). I've always identified heavily with the Ni part of me, maybe because when I was younger it seemed to be the process that was valued most in my environment. My mother was always ambivalent about my strong creative side (she associated the arts with her sister who struggled with mental illness), and she heavily valued the sciences (she's definitely a Rational).

The older I get, the more I embrace the "feeling" side of myself. Whether or not I am truly an INFJ or INFP, I've enjoyed thinking about the differences. And I do like this side of the forum. There's something relaxing about the creative, sensitive way of looking at the world, if that makes sense? :) I'm glad that this board promotes exploration and participation on all the various forums (although I have to say I'm probably more welcome here than the T side!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts

Thanks to both of you! I understand the differentiation much better now. The brainstorming reference was very helpful.
-----Thank you. I am always glad to hear when I manage to clarify instead of complicate an idea. : )
I think the reason that I've always felt Ne applied to me (although I didn't know that was the term), is that I use both processes heavily. I definitely use Ne in my creative endeavors, especially poetry. I used it the absolute most in concise poetry with surreal similes (and in music composition, but I haven't done that in years), and I use it the least in fiction (although the Ne is present there as well).
-----Poet, musician, and fiction writer! Wow. It's always great to hear when NFs can make time in their lives for those kinds of things--because we need that creative outlet.
You are completely right, Geoffrey, that I am more dominant in the Ni, but my Ne processes are precious to me, too. I just use the Ni aspect to organize it all. Also, I wonder if the strong presence of Ni masks the Ne to some degree? The Ne, by nature, is a more hidden process (it's a generative process that appears to happen spontaneously). The Ni is more noticeable by nature because it involves making connections and organizing. What if someone is high on both? Wouldn't the Ni overshadow the results of a personality test? If I'm asked if I organize my information and constantly look for connections, the answer is yes. But that doesn't mean I'm not also spontaneously generating ideas in the brainstorming/stream of consciousness mode. But the test will prompt the Ni answer, simply because the Ni is present and also strong.
I hope that Ni and Ne aren't considered mutually exclusive, because I really don't believe that's the case.
-----@tolstoy: It is absolutely possible to use Ni and Ne. In fact, we all use all eight cognitive functions to some degree. So please don't think for a minute that being Ni-dom means you don't have Ne or can't use it or something. If it precious to you, then nurture it, of course.
-----In the following sentences, I am referencing this: Cognitive Processes. Each type has a unique relationship with each cognitive function. The chart shows a negative and positive characteristic of each relationship. The video guy, DaveSuperPowers, explains that our first two functions are our superpowers (and they define the type). These are our psychological strengths. When we are young, we have an estranged relationship with our tertiary and inferior functions--instinctively realizing that their use involves some sacrifice of/opposition with our dominant and auxiliary functions. Over time, we usually overcome our bias and start using our tertiary. Even though there is still an instinctive distrust of the inferior (because it in many ways opposes our dominant function), after more time we start using it, too. The functions that oppose our four main functions are called shadow functions, and we have the ability to use them.
  • INFJ: Ni, Fe | Ti, Se | Ne, Fi, Te, Si
  • INFP: Fi, Ne | Si, Te | Fe, Ni, Se, Ti
-----If we think of each function as a muscle, then our strongest muscle is the first, then the second, and so on. But the dominant and auxiliary functions are the absolute most important for us--because we don't just use them--they essentially define our basic relationship with reality. The rest of the cognitive functions can be thought of more along the lines of tools, but not the first two. Those two functions are the basic starting point for all understanding and all interaction with the world--it's an automatic preference.
-----Now, it is important to realize that unlike developing your tertiary and inferior functions (which will actually support your dominant and auxiliary functions), developing shadow functions theoretically come at a cost to your four main functions. This is because your four shadow functions actually do oppose the function of your four main functions.
-----That seems to fly in the face of being well-rounded. But that's not it, exactly. Isabel Briggs Myers, in Gifts Differing, teaches that it is actually a good thing to pay full attention to one's naturally preferred cognitive processes:
-----"Some people dislike the idea of a dominant process and prefer to think of themselves as using all four processes equally. However, Jung holds that such impartiality, where it actually exists, keeps all of the processes relatively underdeveloped and produces a 'primitive mentality,' because opposite ways of dong the same thing interfere with each other if neither has priority. If one perceptive process is to reach a high degree of development, it needs to undivided attention much of the time, which means that the other must be shut off frequently and will be less developed. If one judging process is to become highly developed, it must similarly have the right of way. One perceptive process and one judging process can develop side by side, provided one is used in the service of the other. But one process - sensing, intuition, thinking or feeling - must have clear sovereignty, with opportunity to reach its full development, if a person is to be really effective." Page 12.
-----So, it's on this basis that DaveSuperPowers encourages people to develop, develop, develop their superpowers. Because in doing so, one is developing one's strengths at the expense of one's weaker functions (instead of vice-versa). But perhaps so long as the preferred order is kept intact, there won't be a problem. For an INFJ, that would mean using Ne to support Ni.
-----Another way to look at cognitive functions is in terms of objective and subjective interaction with the world. An objective function processes and takes in information externally in the real world, while a subjective function processes and takes in information internally inside the person. Each type has one subjective and one objective function in each pair (for instance, dominant, auxiliary). We could not function otherwise.
-----Ni is a subjective function, and when turned on the external world (as it should be of course), it takes in information based on what the person subjectively sees as relevant. The internal process of ordering that information is going to be possible because judgment was exercised in the external world. Ne is an objective function, and when turned on the external world takes in all available information, regardless of relevance. The internal process of ordering that information is likely not going to be possible because it's raw data and completely unfiltered.
-----Likewise, Fe is an objective function, and essentially looks for objective evidence of feeling--it takes everything in, regardless of relevance. Fi is a subjective function, and takes in information it deems as relevant (relevant to feeling). In iNtuitive Feelers, intuition and feeling work together to define the way we experience the world.
-----One very insightful INFJ in my NF Meetup group described Ni as the ability to "internally map" herself and other people. My INFPish experience with that function can be translated as she pretty much sees right into me. But, quite honestly, it doesn't bother me at all--because she's a good person. "Just put the books back on the shelf after you're through reading me, please." LOL.
-----I am sort of jointly responding to all of your questions, here. Yes, I think the cognitive function tests are misleading. I think that MBTI is far more accurate. Here's the reason: the four letters are not the definition of the type. Rather, Myers and Briggs discovered that I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P are four indicators that point to a larger personality. For instance, even though INFP and INTP are only different by one letter, the cognitive stack is completely different--and only two of the four main cognitive functions are shared. INFP has introverted feeling as a dominant function, and extraverted feeling as the first shadow function. INTP has extraverted feeling as an inferior function, and has introverted feeling as its last shadow function. A healthy INFP fully trusts Fi (as supported by Ne, Si, and Te). A healthy INTP actually fully distrusts Fi, in the sense that an INTP relies on Fi last--after every other function.
-----You may be correct that Ni and Ne have the potential to throw off a test. Which is why, of course, learning about the cognitive functions is the only way to really validate your type. It's also why I think it gets harder to speed-read people who are a bit older. When just the first two are really shining through, it's much easier. But of course, some young people have the great fortune of learning about MBTI young (or just having really supportive parents/guardians) and so start the journey earlier. Once someone is just a bit older--mid-twenties, speed-reading becomes far less reliable.
Eynexpee, you described Ni as being deductive thinking, and Ne as being inductive thinking. I've always thought of my thinking as more side thinking overall, if that makes sense? It's more about hopping back and forth, rather than pouring in or out, with the exception of my Ne thinking, which I would describe as a branching out. The pouring in (deductive) part of my thinking happens mainly in the beginning stages if I'm learning something new and/or researching. Having just Ni and Ne--if it really is just inductive versus deductive--seems a little limiting to me. There seems to be a third process that isn't addressed here: that hopping back and forth aspect. I know that sounds a little silly, but it's the easiest way to describe it, and it's definitely a different process from the other two. I'm guessing that this third process is typically lumped into the Ni category, because it is an analytic process (although in reality, it has traits of both Ni and Ne).
-----That's really interesting. I understand what you mean, but I don't think I have anything really great to add. I remember one of the videos talks about INFJs talking then pausing then talking then pausing because they are periodically going inside of themselves for the information. Perhaps it is that exercise of judgment in the external world--taking in some relevant information, then going inside to organize, then coming back out to see if there's more relevant information to capture as a result of the just-organized-and-internalized information (and if not, end here, and if so, start process over). That's a total guess.
Geoffrey, as a writer yourself, and the very fact that you're attracted to contemplating these differences, you're probably also fairly high on both Ne and Ni, although the Ne is dominant (but perhaps you identify more with the Ne, which would also affect your answers on a test).
-----tolstoy, that is very true. Writing takes some degree of organization. But here's how I wrote my first novel--first by relying on a loose but already-in-place structure (the Garden of Eden story)--second by creating the most skeleton outline ever seen. I brainstormed ideas and then wrote based on those ideas, which then generated more ideas. I was aiming for 300 pages, but the first draft was something like 600 pages (double-spaced). That is why the publisher (it never got published--publisher went bankrupt) insisted that it be cut down in size so dramatically--to 300 pages. So what did I have to do--organize after the fact. It's really painful/annoying/something, but I have accepted that revision is absolutely mandatory for me. The words flow--but they sometimes come out in an entirely disorganized manner--especially creatively. My second book was far more organized ahead of time, but it still needs lots of revision.
-----What helped me develop what Ni I have is going to law school. It is an essential skill that legal writers call synthesis. It requires reading tons of cases and statutes, and creating a single unified vision of what the law is based on all of the available information (what's there, what's missing, what's literal, what's between the lines). Theoretically, Ni should come at a cost to Ne. In reality, I don't think the balance works that way. I think the balance works between Ne, Ni, Se, and Si. However, the keys2cognition site explains that there is a basic use of a function versus a developed use, and it tries to make distinctions:
  • extraverted Intuiting (Ne): Basic: Notice abstract patterns as they emerge. Developed: Shift a situation's dynamics and explore imaginative potential possibilities.
  • introverted Intuiting (Ni): Basic: Receive "ah-ha" insights and realizations. Developed: Pursue a greater level of awareness to transform who you are and how you think.
-----Take a look at my telling cognitive function test. Frankly, I'm quite impressed that it correctly identified me as INFP.
~~~~----~~~~----~~~~
-----Basic and Developed Use
-----Each cognitive process can be engaged in a basic, unsophisticated way reflecting our natural human capabilities. Almost everyone can engage each process in some basic way. Beyond this, you will engage some cognitive processes in a more sophisticated, developed way. This is usually the result of innate preference plus lifelong growth and practice, which equals development.
-----Development is more than basic or developed use of processes in isolation. Excellent use of a cognitive process involves both basic and advanced use as appropriate, and ability to deploy other processes in its service. Average to good use usually means we can use the process in limited situations or use it well but only with the aid of other processes. Poor use means basic use at most. Finally, we may get ourselves into trouble when we don't use a process at all.
-----Your Cognitive Development Profile
-----The forty-eight questions you rated earlier tap into the eight cognitive processes. Some questions tapped into basic or developed use of a process used by itself, while other questions tapped into use of multiple processes at once. The profile below is based on your responses. The number of squares indicate strength of response. The equivalent numeric is shown in parentheses along with likely level of development.
-----Summary Analysis of Profile
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: INFP
  • extraverted Sensing (Se)
  • **************** (16.6)
  • limited use
  • introverted Sensing (Si)
  • ********** (10.5)
  • unused
  • extraverted Intuiting (Ne)
  • ******************************************************* (55.4)
  • excellent use
  • introverted Intuiting (Ni)
  • ***************************************** (41.7)
  • excellent use
  • extraverted Thinking (Te)
  • ***** (5.2)
  • unused
  • introverted Thinking (Ti)
  • ********************** (22.9)
  • limited use
  • extraverted Feeling (Fe)
  • ***************************************** (41)
  • excellent use
  • introverted Feeling (Fi)
  • *********************************************** (47.1)
  • excellent use
~~~~----~~~~----~~~~
I've always identified heavily with the Ni part of me, maybe because when I was younger it seemed to be the process that was valued most in my environment. My mother was always ambivalent about my strong creative side (she associated the arts with her sister who struggled with mental illness), and she heavily valued the sciences (she's definitely a Rational).
-----One's upbringing makes a huge different in how the type "presents." Additionally, societal preferences and gender roles have their influence. Many of the NFs I've met online were taught to distrust feeling. Once they accept the validity of feeling--and that it is okay to trust it (for us, NFs), I've witnessed palpable change. The person accepts himself/herself for who s/he is. It eliminates much of the internal self-doubt foisted upon us by external sources. We no longer feel the need to fight against the dominant function--to suppress who we are. More than that, it's like we've been taught to push around a car with a perfectly good engine--and then the day comes when we open the door, sit down, turn the key, and off we go! Those first two functions will not be suppressed over the long haul. When we are suppressing them, we're only half there--we're missing a huge piece of who we are. Other NFs are completely spared this process because they had a supportive upbringing.
-----So actually now that you said that about your mother being an NT, I withdraw much of what I previously guessed as to my speculation on your type. If structure was a parental imperative--something you had to do and to internalize, that is a game changer.
-----In such cases, it is important to spend some extra time understanding the particulars of the tertiary and inferior functions, as for NFs, sometimes these differences are seen more clearly than the differences between Ni/Ne and Fi/Fe.
-----It's also very important to do exactly what you're doing--interacting with other "suspect" types (LOL).
-----Lastly, consider as between two functions, which drains your enemy more--and if applicable, which energizes you. Exercising Ni drains me, I think. Exercising Fe takes a huge effort.
-----But perhaps you are experiencing a Fi-awakening? Some people who've been taught to suppress feeling in making judgments will nevertheless accept that part of themselves later in life. An awakening of feeling and an acceptance of its validity.
The older I get, the more I embrace the "feeling" side of myself. Whether or not I am truly an INFJ or INFP, I've enjoyed thinking about the differences. And I do like this side of the forum. There's something relaxing about the creative, sensitive way of looking at the world, if that makes sense? :) I'm glad that this board promotes exploration and participation on all the various forums (although I have to say I'm probably more welcome here than the T side!).
-----I cannot promise that all INFPs will be accepting, but the vast majority of us are. Regardless of what you determine your type to be, I accept you for who you are. I think you will find that's not so rare here.
-----I bolded "relaxing." That is a piece of evidence for you. Whatever you find easier or energizing is often easy and/or energizing because it is your natural way of being. You don't have to make much of an effort when you are exercising your first two functions.
-----Here are some other resources that might help you out--hopefully I'm not repeating.
-----So, in case you type yourself INFP in the end, let me say, "Welcome potential INFP!"
I think your edited version is more spot-on, considering Ne. I wouldn't change anything about it, but add the following (which I have not mentioned in my previous post):
It is also important to consider the playing fields: Ne's field is external (outside the subject), Ni is internal (inside the subject). Ne takes objects in the outer world and leave them there while connecting the dots. Ni looks at objects in the outer world, shift positions to change the point of view, much like using differently colored lenses, trying to find that one position that brings out the best of the object. The object then is considered as a symbol, whose meaning changes as the point of view is changed. This meaning is 'toyed' with, within the subject's mind, which is the internalizing part, the internal playing field.
Some people say Ne is a function that 'thinks out of the box'. But Ni can be seen that way as well. In that sense they're both creative, but each in their own way: Ne finds connections and patterns between objects that haven't been thought of before, Ni reexamines objects from different angles, resulting in multiple interpretations that haven't been thought of before.
-----Thanks @eyenexepee, very insightful!
-----First off, I messed up the original post concerning the difference between the original and edited posts, LOL. The actual original is now there.
-----In this thread, I will leave things the way they are--or else really mess up anyone who's trying to figure out what is going on. But I want to incorporate this into a blog on Ne/Ni, in which I'll ascribe your explanations to you of course. They're both really cool cogs.
~~~~----~~~~----~~~~
-----I think this counts as my next novel. : ) BTW, I enjoyed writing it (much more so if it helps)!
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top