Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 180 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A lot of people think Ni is something more concrete (solid examples) and tangible. Where Ni is actually all about gathering intangible information. It has more to do with detecting energy vibes, emotions, and spiritual natures. Jung specifically relates it to the mystical. His Ni description is in the spoiler.

 
(Jung) The Introverted Intuitive Type

The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]

If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels.

Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.

The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete 'sublimation' is prevented. But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude. The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects.
For a while I read mystical and saw it being compatible with psychics, mediums, fortune tellers, etc. and I didn't relate to that at all. However, when I looked at it from the standpoint of religion, imagination, and artistic expression that word finally fit perfectly.

Something else that should be considered is that Ni is subjective, so it forms internal impressions and connections to those intangible insights. We form positive subjective connections to words, stories, ideas, concepts, spirituality, imagery, dreams, imagination etc. Ni users generally express our perception through artistic mediums. The big picture we see are intangible interconnections. Since Ni is subjective, it is slow to accept new things, narrow and stingy, and not that concerned about the objective world. Probably why Jung called us cranks.

I look at perception as an empty library that begins to fill as we collect data. The introverted perception takes the objective and changes it to the subjective and then it's ready for Judging use.

Since Ni is the dominate function for INTJs, it dominates every other function. We use Te to put our Ni into impersonal external structure and conformity, we use Fi to bring value and worth to our Ni perception, and we use Se to put our Ni perception into action, usually in impulsive, unproductive, or dramatic ways.

Many descriptions put a huge emphasis on T for INTJs and almost completely ignore our Ni. Te isn't our main focus, it just helps out Ni. I think INTJs are more likely to seek out structured religions and morals. We want to receive information in structured ways and we try to get other people to be more organized with their presentation. We can separate the personal from the structures and see them for their true purpose.We want things to have a logical order. Te isn't system building or inventing. It's about conforming to the traditional ones that exist.

I don't think most of the careers or descriptions are accurate. I think Se/Ne in conjunction with Ti/Fi are more likely the scientists and engineers. Both Se and Ne "objectify" their observations and Ti and Fi build systems and structures. I think Ni will more often choose less practical artsy careers like writing, painting, photography, design, marketing, advertising, theology, political science, research, psychology, architecture, landscape design, film, dancing, singing, and the like.

Not to say it's impossible to choose other careers, but Ni is drawn to things that can't be touched, manipulated, or seen. We aren't explorers or experimenters. We have a need for the external world to be structured so that it's easier for us to focus on our irrational perception.

After seeing everything that is out there about Ni, I decided to write this up. Those who use Ni as their dominate should be able to relate the mystical aspect in some way. Since I misunderstood it, I figure other people probably do as well.
 

·
Registered
INTJ
Joined
·
449 Posts
I think what you have written is important, as it is a different point of view and reminds that INTJs are not only fact cranks. But I don't agree that Ni+Te is better suited for mystaical or religious subjects.

In fact, it is just a different personal preference. You touched this subject already by saying that extroverted functions focus more on objects and yes indeed, introverted functions behave more subjevtively. Yes, Ni is subjectively and extroverted functions do a better job at seeking general truth, as Is tend to focus on something that works specially for the personality and nobody else (well seen in the case of INTP).

But that doesn't mean that introverted functions and especially Ni is not of good use for find objective truths. Yes, Ni is dominant but it is more less only a structure or some kind of paradigm. Ni is the puzzle we want to solve, but what pieces do we use? It are Fi + Te.

In general, Te is the objective information we find and utilize and Fi is used as feedback. If somebody criticize your model and you can't defend this model with facts (Te) or connections (Ni), Fi will give you heavy doubts and make you feel uncomfortable. Ni orders your mind (or vice versa?) what you are interested in, what kind of puzzles you look for and then orders everything so all pieces are aligned in a coherent and fitting way.

You can combine everything and it doesn't make a difference if it are scientific facts, religious teachings or philosophic opinions. It's after all just a matter of preference due to our introverted nature.


I also have to disagree with your statement that S(e) and F(i) is more useful for scientists and engineers as those fields are rather abstract and require more than an accurate gut feeling. In fact, I think that things like painting, photography, dancing, singing and design are rather sensor related or Ne/Fi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
A lot of people think Ni is... probably do as well.
Oh goodness thank you. I was regarded by most people (students and teachers alike) at my high school as brilliant and destined for great things, etc. So when I decided to major in music, a lot of people were disappointed or maybe even a bit aggravated that I had "thrown away" my intellect on a music degree. Needless to say, I couldn't care less what they think, and I have thoroughly enjoyed earning the degree thus far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I think what you have written is important, as it is a different point of view and reminds that INTJs are not only fact cranks. But I don't agree that Ni+Te is better suited for mystaical or religious subjects.
I don't think Ni/Te would be fact cranks, since intuition is our main source of data. Tangible facts are more important to the S functions, since it gives something substance. I see that Te would want us to verify the truth of our intuition with facts, but knowing a lot of facts isn't really associated with intuition.

In fact, it is just a different personal preference. You touched this subject already by saying that extroverted functions focus more on objects and yes indeed, introverted functions behave more subjevtively. Yes, Ni is subjectively and extroverted functions do a better job at seeking general truth, as Is tend to focus on something that works specially for the personality and nobody else (well seen in the case of INTP).

But that doesn't mean that introverted functions and especially Ni is not of good use for find objective truths. Yes, Ni is dominant but it is more less only a structure or some kind of paradigm. Ni is the puzzle we want to solve, but what pieces do we use? It are Fi + Te.
I didn't say we couldn't agree with objective truths. We would just take those objective truths and make them true for us subjectively.

In general, Te is the objective information we find and utilize and Fi is used as feedback. If somebody criticize your model and you can't defend this model with facts (Te) or connections (Ni), Fi will give you heavy doubts and make you feel uncomfortable. Ni orders your mind (or vice versa?) what you are interested in, what kind of puzzles you look for and then orders everything so all pieces are aligned in a coherent and fitting way.
I don't think the judging functions go outside of the perceiving function and look for information. Nor do I think Te would make a model. We use models that are traditional and customary. When we need to make something new we look at how people did it in the past and either use the old model or adjust it for our needs. Ti is the function that makes up a new model. This is why people call us scientists because we use customary systems. However, the experimentation and tangible results are not things Ni seeks out.

You can combine everything and it doesn't make a difference if it are scientific facts, religious teachings or philosophic opinions. It's after all just a matter of preference due to our introverted nature.

I also have to disagree with your statement that S(e) and F(i) is more useful for scientists and engineers as those fields are rather abstract and require more than an accurate gut feeling. In fact, I think that things like painting, photography, dancing, singing and design are rather sensor related or Ne/Fi.
Se would have more interest in experimenting to see what the results would be. And Se/Ti would be capable of building systems to make the experiments happen. They are probably less likely to take no for an answer. Having a gut feeling is relative to each person. Se would have just enough intuition to see around obstacles. They are the right fit for science and engineering.

I think you have the wrong impression about Ni and Te. They aren't about facts, concrete observations, system building, or experimentation. Intuition is about seeing energies, spiritual connection, emotions, motives, imagery, and those types of intangible essences that exist outside of the tangible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
I confess myself a bit confused reading your post. I don't think you're completely off, mind you, but I have some points in particular that don't sit right with me at all.
It has more to do with detecting energy vibes, emotions, and spiritual natures. Jung specifically relates it to the mystical. His Ni description is in the spoiler.
I don't know what you mean by this. Forming impressions? Sure I'll go along with that. I've been known to say that I get a "sense" of things. But when you trot in phrases like "spiritual natures," you lose me completely.

For a while I read mystical and saw it being compatible with psychics, mediums, fortune tellers, etc. and I didn't relate to that at all. However, when I looked at it from the standpoint of religion, imagination, and artistic expression that word finally fit perfectly.
I would caution away from attributing Ni specifically to things like artistic expression. All you end up doing here is trading one stereotype for another ("artist" instead of "scientist").

Since Ni is subjective, it is slow to accept new things, narrow and stingy, and not that concerned about the objective world. Probably why Jung called us cranks.
Honestly, who is quick to accept "new" things in every sense of the word? You need to be more specific. There's a big difference, for example, between accepting a new worldview/paradigm and accepting changes in the immediate environment.

I think INTJs are more likely to seek out structured religions and morals.
I don't know what you mean by this.

I don't think most of the careers or descriptions are accurate. I think Se/Ne in conjunction with Ti/Fi are more likely the scientists and engineers. Both Se and Ne "objectify" their observations and Ti and Fi build systems and structures. I think Ni will more often choose less practical artsy careers like writing, painting, photography, design, marketing, advertising, theology, political science, research, psychology, architecture, landscape design, film, dancing, singing, and the like.
Or it's more likely that all of the career stuff is bunk at the end of the day.

Not to say it's impossible to choose other careers, but Ni is drawn to things that can't be touched, manipulated, or seen. We aren't explorers or experimenters. We have a need for the external world to be structured so that it's easier for us to focus on our irrational perception.
Although I don't disagree with this in entirety, saying that we aren't explorers or experimenters - as though it is something we're incapable of or terrible at - is absurd and bound to cause confusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I confess myself a bit confused reading your post. I don't think you're completely off, mind you, but I have some points in particular that don't sit right with me at all.

I don't know what you mean by this. Forming impressions? Sure I'll go along with that. I've been known to say that I get a "sense" of things. But when you trot in phrases like "spiritual natures," you lose me completely.
I say spiritual natures both literally and figuratively. Figuratively, as in the spirit of things or the nature of things.

I would caution away from attributing Ni specifically to things like artistic expression. All you end up doing here is trading one stereotype for another ("artist" instead of "scientist").
I'm not trying to get rid of stereotypes with this thread. I'm trying to inform people who identify with Ni about the true function of intuition. I doubt many actually do understand or relate to Ni. And I wasn't the one who associated artists with Ni, that was Jung. I happen to agree with that aspect of his description. Not that I agree with everything, but I think he got that right.

Honestly, who is quick to accept "new" things in every sense of the word? You need to be more specific. There's a big difference, for example, between accepting a new worldview/paradigm and accepting changes in the immediate environment.
Extraverts don't take very long to accept new ways of doing things. They explore and experiment with them without much research. It's introverts who want to do research first. That's why I think INTJs are more likely to be researchers.

I don't know what you mean by this.
Intuition is in-tune with the mystical, which is part religious and artistic. So that is something intuitives have a connection to. INTJs also have Te, and I wanted to show how they work together. The religious and morals aspect would then be structured through Te systems. Thus, the structured religions. The religions that are "do it yourself" type models wouldn't work well with INT.

Or it's more likely that all of the career stuff is bunk at the end of the day.
There is probably a difference between what we want to do and what we end up doing.

Although I don't disagree with this in entirety, saying that we aren't explorers or experimenters - as though it is something we're incapable of or terrible at - is absurd and bound to cause confusion.
We all have either Se or Ne, which does mean we will eventually do those things as well. My point is to show people we aren't the go getter types, or the travelers, or the natural leaders, or the type to put every random theory into action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
I say spiritual natures both literally and figuratively. Figuratively, as in the spirit of things or the nature of things.
As in... essence?

I'm not trying to get rid of stereotypes with this thread. I'm trying to inform people who identify with Ni about the true function of intuition. I doubt many actually do understand or relate to Ni. And I wasn't the one who associated artists with Ni, that was Jung. I happen to agree with that aspect of his description. Not that I agree with everything, but I think he got that right.
You sure?
I don't think most of the careers or descriptions are accurate. I think Se/Ne in conjunction with Ti/Fi are more likely the scientists and engineers.
Whether you were aware or not, INTJs being scientist-like is a stereotype of sorts. You are saying Ni's "true" definition is more like that of an artist.

Associating Ni with art is a kind of stereotyping. In an academic sense, the association does not mean much and it works ok as an analogy, but people will run away with it as they are prone to doing.

We have the same goal, essentially: We both want people to have more accurate information.

Extraverts don't take very long to accept new ways of doing things. They explore and experiment with them without much research. It's introverts who want to do research first. That's why I think INTJs are more likely to be researchers.
Are you sure you aren't confusing extroversion/introversion and specific functions? I have never seen extroversion blanketly described as an ease with accepting the new before (never might be overstating but whatever), but I have seen such reactions to the "new" attributed to functions countless times.

Intuition is in-tune with the mystical, which is part religious and artistic. So that is something intuitives have a connection to. INTJs also have Te, and I wanted to show how they work together. The religious and morals aspect would then be structured through Te systems. Thus, the structured religions. The religions that are "do it yourself" type models wouldn't work well with INT.
How do you rectify atheism within this perspective though?

We all have either Se or Ne, which does mean we will eventually do those things as well. My point is to show people we aren't the go getter types, or the travelers, or the natural leaders, or the type to put every random theory into action.
I think this is a much clearer way to put it than some of the words you used in the OP.

However, again, there is danger in saying what we are "not" in a blanket way, especially with descriptors like "natural leader" or "traveler." For example, I don't think leadership as a skill necessarily has anything to do with functions - it's more learned than that. I have seen people who we might call "natural leaders" because they take charge easily, but they are also terrible at leading. I have also seen people who don't take charge easily, but are much more adept at managing a leadership role when placed in it.

This is obviously not how it works in every case, but the point is that such phrases are easy to misconstrue. I can just imagine someone going, "Oh, well, I'm a natural leader, so I can't be an INTJ."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,937 Posts
Associating Ni with art is a kind of stereotyping. In an academic sense, the association does not mean much and it works ok as an analogy, but people will run away with it as they are prone to doing.
i'll go along with that. 'creative' and 'artistic' aren't synonymous with each other, but they get used as if they were. it's a real irritation to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
I couldn't read the entire original post,my mind was melting.its very warm and I'm not interested in such systems,not because I don't like it.But I haven't really researched what this is all about.
So my question is,what is this all about and is it fun :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
As in... essence?
Yes.

You sure?
Yes. Did you read the spoiler?

Whether you were aware or not, INTJs being scientist-like is a stereotype of sorts. You are saying Ni's "true" definition is more like that of an artist.

Associating Ni with art is a kind of stereotyping. In an academic sense, the association does not mean much and it works ok as an analogy, but people will run away with it as they are prone to doing.
Of course I'm aware of the scientist stereotype, as it's written right next to INTJ under my username. Hard to miss.

I don't care about stereotypes. They are useful if they portray actual generalizations. I find a lot of stereotypes for INTJs to be wrong and more appropriate for xSxJ or ExTP, which is why they mistype as INTJ so often.

Again, I wasn't the one who said Ni is mystical or artist. That was Jung. I think the descriptions for INTJ have taken a major detour from his original description.

Are you sure you aren't confusing extroversion/introversion and specific functions? I have never seen extroversion blanketly described as an ease with accepting the new before (never might be overstating but whatever), but I have seen such reactions to the "new" attributed to functions countless times.
Extraverts orient their view to the objective outside world. Where introverts make things subjective to understand it, extraverts want things objective. They don't have to evaluate new ways of doing things from an inner understanding or acceptance. They want to take it as is and do something with it without much fuss. Introverts hesitate because the objective world is in the wrong orientation.

How do you rectify atheism within this perspective though?
I'm not sure one could. I'm very skeptical that an Ni dom would choose atheism. I seriously doubt the stereotype that we are more likely to be atheists is even remotely accurate. I think sensors would have a harder time believing in a higher being. They need a tangible reason to believe and that is harder to come by with a higher being.

I think this is a much clearer way to put it than some of the words you used in the OP.

However, again, there is danger in saying what we are "not" in a blanket way, especially with descriptors like "natural leader" or "traveler." For example, I don't think leadership as a skill necessarily has anything to do with functions - it's more learned than that. I have seen people who we might call "natural leaders" because they take charge easily, but they are also terrible at leading. I have also seen people who don't take charge easily, but are much more adept at managing a leadership role when placed in it.

This is obviously not how it works in every case, but the point is that such phrases are easy to misconstrue. I can just imagine someone going, "Oh, well, I'm a natural leader, so I can't be an INTJ."
That's a fair point. It just needs to be clear that introverts aren't quick to make decisions or jump up and lead. We take time to know what we are getting into before we accept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I couldn't read the entire original post,my mind was melting.its very warm and I'm not interested in such systems,not because I don't like it.But I haven't really researched what this is all about.
So my question is,what is this all about and is it fun :laughing:
According to the type you have chosen, you should be able to tell me if it's fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
Yes. Did you read the spoiler?

Of course I'm aware of the scientist stereotype, as it's written right next to INTJ under my username. Hard to miss.

I don't care about stereotypes. They are useful if they portray actual generalizations. I find a lot of stereotypes for INTJs to be wrong and more appropriate for xSxJ or ExTP, which is why they mistype as INTJ so often.

Again, I wasn't the one who said Ni is mystical or artist. That was Jung. I think the descriptions for INTJ have taken a major detour from his original description.
I know you weren't the one who said it first, but you did agree with it. I do care about stereotypes because even when they are generally true, people often try to make them fit every individual, instead of using them as the largely academic piece of information that they are.

Extraverts orient their view to the objective outside world. Where introverts make things subjective to understand it, extraverts want things objective. They don't have to evaluate new ways of doing things from an inner understanding or acceptance. They want to take it as is and do something with it without much fuss. Introverts hesitate because the objective world is in the wrong orientation.
This sounds good in theory, but I'd really like to know what your reasoning is behind it, because it doesn't hold in practice in any capacity that I've seen.

I'm not sure one could. I'm very skeptical that an Ni dom would choose atheism. I seriously doubt the stereotype that we are more likely to be atheists is even remotely accurate. I think sensors would have a harder time believing in a higher being. They need a tangible reason to believe and that is harder to come by with a higher being.
Hi, I'm an atheist. Now what?

That's a fair point. It just needs to be clear that introverts aren't quick to make decisions or jump up and lead. We take time to know what we are getting into before we accept.
Probably true for INTJs, but I don't see why this would apply to all introverts across the board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilysocks

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I know you weren't the one who said it first, but you did agree with it. I do care about stereotypes because even when they are generally true, people often try to make them fit every individual, instead of using them as the largely academic piece of information that they are.
Well then we disagree. I have nothing against them. To me that's the same as people having to be PC all the time. It's such a waste of time. If someone doesn't like the stereotype then they can say it and move on. No need to take it personal, which is the reason I see for most people being against accurate ones.

This sounds good in theory, but I'd really like to know what your reasoning is behind it, because it doesn't hold in practice in any capacity that I've seen.
I thought I explained my reason behind it. Extroverts find the objective world something to explore or experiment with and they are less cautious before engaging with it. I find it true with all the extraverts I know. They will walk into a new place and get where they need to go without much hesitation. Introverts want to check it out and get their barring before they decide the best course to move forward.

Hi, I'm an atheist. Now what?
Sounds like a personal problem. I can't really figure it out for you. Maybe you should look at the reason behind your belief and see if it's because of tangible or intangible reasons. Most likely it's because of not having tangible proof, which isn't an intuitive standpoint. If it were then our entire existence as Ni doms would be devalued.There would be a major struggle.

Probably true for INTJs, but I don't see why this would apply to all introverts across the board.
Not just INTJs. It's a characteristic of introverts. I'm not say we can't be leaders, only that we aren't quick to be one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
The type I have chosen?I don't get it.
Do elaborate. :proud:
INTJ means you have Ni Te Fi Se as your function set. Ni is the dominate and that is the function I explained in the opening post. The next highest function is Te then Fi then Se, in that order.

You seem to have selected INTJ as your type. If it is accurate than you should relate to the opening post description of Ni as your main way of viewing things. That is what I meant.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
I don't think you are focusing on the right thing with religion/morals. Ni, or at least I, like clarity. That can apply to morals and religion, but applies to a swath of other things.

It reminds me of an article about how so many right wing terrorists have science, particularly engineering, backgrounds.

The engineer mind-set, Gambetta and Hertog suggest, might be a mix of emotional conservatism and intellectual habits that prefers clear answers to ambiguous questions
This may be more INFJ, but guys like bin Laden and Mohammed Atta, both listed as INFJ, fit this archetype. These guys like science, because it isn't bullshit. It's clear. It works. Islamic extremism is pretty "clear" in the same way. There is no ambiguity. Though these guys are also mystical too.

I do feel that I need structure, and a larger purpose, similar to these guys. But that also relate me being NF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
Well then we disagree. I have nothing against them. To me that's the same as people having to be PC all the time. It's such a waste of time. If someone doesn't like the stereotype then they can say it and move on. No need to take it personal, which is the reason I see for most people being against accurate ones.
I'm not talking about people taking them personally as an insult though.. I'm saying that people will take them too far, as they have done in the past with stereotypes like INTJs being a "mastermind."

I thought I explained my reason behind it. Extroverts find the objective world something to explore or experiment with and they are less cautious before engaging with it. I find it true with all the extraverts I know. They will walk into a new place and get where they need to go without much hesitation. Introverts want to check it out and get their barring before they decide the best course to move forward.
It seems like you're saying something different about extroversion and introversion each time. And I have known introverts who have no problem walking into a new place and getting where they need to go without much hesitation. If you don't believe me, then ask the forum - I'm willing to bet you'll not hear a lot of agreement with you on that point.

Sounds like a personal problem. I can't really figure it out for you. Maybe you should look at the reason behind your belief and see if it's because of tangible or intangible reasons. Most likely it's because of not having tangible proof, which isn't an intuitive standpoint. If it were then our entire existence as Ni doms would be devalued.There would be a major struggle.
No, it's not a personal problem. My point is that it doesn't fit the model you're presenting and so there is a flaw in your model. You can insist that I'm just confused or just need to figure it out for myself or whatever if you want, but no one learns anything from that - it is just closing yourself off to the possibility of being wrong.

Not just INTJs. It's a characteristic of introverts. I'm not say we can't be leaders, only that we aren't quick to be one.
That's a huge generalization though and it seems to rely on the unsupported idea that all introverts are basically slow to do everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I don't think you are focusing on the right thing with religion/morals. Ni, or at least I, like clarity. That can apply to morals and religion, but applies to a swath of other things.

It reminds me of an article about how so many right wing terrorists have science, particularly engineering, backgrounds.



This may be more INFJ, but guys like bin Laden and Mohammed Atta, both listed as INFJ, fit this archetype. These guys like science, because it isn't bullshit. It's clear. It works. Islamic extremism is pretty "clear" in the same way. There is no ambiguity. Though these guys are also mystical too.

I do feel that I need structure, and a larger purpose, similar to these guys. But that also relate me being NF.
I didn't say anything about not liking science. I like science and find a lot of it is fascinating. My point is to bring Ni back to its root and explain the mystical and artistic aspects of it that so many "INTJs" ignore. Many science fields disregard intuition and won't reconcile their tangible needs with the intangible perception. I'm also not saying there won't be INTJs who become scientists, only that I think it wouldn't be something we desire to do, as it contradicts our dominate function. I'm sure those who make it through find a way to reconcile the two.


I'm sure that you and I still disagree about Fe. Fe is the social structure and status. It's about placing value on perceived information as it pertains to sociology and groupings. Everyone having a place and fitting into traditional and customary social structure.

What you described above is Te working with Ni, in that it structures the intuition into non-personal systems. It separates the personal from the impersonal and can value the system regardless of any social aspects. Religion and morals (part of the Ni mysticism) is structured and clear.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
I didn't say anything about not liking science. I like science and find a lot of it is fascinating. My point is to bring Ni back to its root and explain the mystical and artistic aspects of it that so many "INTJs" ignore. Many science fields disregard intuition and won't reconcile their tangible needs with the intangible perception. I'm also not saying there won't be INTJs who become scientists, only that I think it wouldn't be something we desire to do, as it contradicts our dominate function. I'm sure those who make it through find a way to reconcile the two.


I'm sure that you and I still disagree about Fe. Fe is the social structure and status. It's about placing value on perceived information as it pertains to sociology and groupings. Everyone having a place and fitting into traditional and customary social structure.

What you described above is Te working with Ni, in that it structures the intuition into non-personal systems. It separates the personal from the impersonal and can value the system regardless of any social aspects. Religion and morals (part of the Ni mysticism) is structured and clear.
The reason INTJ is called the "scientist" is because they have the Eureka, delivery of idea, like Jung and Einstein talked about, from intuition. And then they back it up with Te. That is why they are the perfect scientist, because that is how science happens. One moment of insight, and then fleshing it out with further thinking. Ni, and then Te, is perfect for that. Whereas, Ni and Fe is perfect for having the Eureka moments of spirituality or moral ideas. Which is why they can be cultish, and extremist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lune and lue
1 - 20 of 180 Posts
Top