Personality Cafe banner
161 - 180 of 180 Posts
Discussion starter · #161 ·
What is the unconscious side of Ti?
According to Jung, it's the collective unconscious in the form of ideas that are ingrained in our human existence. He thought introvert doms could all tap into it in their own ways. I think the unconscious Ti is the foundation building of the systems. The conscious is placing observations into the system.

I agree that I would "solve" this problem consciously and deliberately, and probably take more time doing it. But since you don't know what is happening in your subconscious, you can't say you aren't using a similar process. For you, the perception goes in and the "answer" comes out; what happens in between is a black box.
You can theorize it however you want. I think the theory that the P functions are observations of information and not the processing of information into frameworks is correct. I find logic in the P and J functions and what they do. Having all the functions do the same things with the same material is pointless, and points to everyone having one function. I'm not convinced of that.
 
I think the theory that the P functions are observations of information and not the processing of information into frameworks is correct. I find logic in the P and J functions and what they do. Having all the functions do the same things with the same material is pointless, and points to everyone having one function. I'm not convinced of that.
An INTJ doesn't have Ti to do the inductive processing. Isn't it possible Ni is doing that task for this type (maybe not in the same way but in some way)?

You've said the J functions don't do any processing of intuitive insights; the insights drop into consciousness ready to go. You've also said the subjective perceptions are not necessarily intuitive insights; many such perceptions (or images) are directly stored in your brain without further conscious processing. So if these images are somehow converted into intuitive insights, there must be some processing in the unconscious mind to produce the final insight. Isn't it possible that processing is Ni doing some inductive manipulation of the stored images to create the insight?

If it's not some quasi-rational inductive process, I suppose you believe it is some kind of process that invokes the Jungian archetypes, right? Are there so many archetypes that they could handle the wide variety of insights that Ni is capable of generating? Or do insights fall into some narrow classification system that are comprehensively covered by a small number of archetypes (in the same way the 16 MBTI types cover everyone)? In the example the INFJ gave of his friend who failed to wave goodbye, what kind of archetype might produce that insight?

thanx
 
Again, this is me debating in order to understand, so my thoughts aren't set in stone.
Se does collect the tangible, but Ni is the dominate function, so that tangible information is viewed negatively because it stays in the external orientation. We rely on the intangible collection of intuition that we reorient.
How would you describe the collection of data by an Ni user? Previously you described collecting 'intangible' information - do you not mean interpreting something tangible into something intangible? Humans aren't equipped to pick up anything other than actual, physical data in order to comprehend the environment. How we interpret that varies from person to person though and it can seem intangible in terms of 'I know that person is sad' is just a sudden thought, however it comes from physical cues. Inferior Se would make Ni users more likely to distrust the conscious perception of physical data, yes, but they have to use it - they just alter it beyond what it actually is so it suits their perception better.

It isn't new (unless you are intentionally trying to create.) We form an impression of the observation and relate it back to things we know. Our understanding is subjective, but it doesn't switch to something brand new.
Isn't it forming a (sometimes) seemingly unrelated conclusion, or summing up, of data? However referring it back to what we know sounds more like Si - it compares the current perception to the previous ones and sees if it will fit. Si is known to look back for the impressions they require from the current potential of the data before them (Ne).

Yes, but Ni forms impression from intangible data and Si forms impression from tangible data. Si doesn't store any more than Ni does. We wouldn't push it forward. The reason we seem future oriented is because we relate it back to our known impression and see an outcome.
I don't understand this. Humans can only pick up data from physical sources. They can be almost unnoticeable, but they will be present for someone to notice them. Si-Ne seems to work like this: Si takes the physical data, along with preconceptions built up over years about the data, and develops a painting with emphasis, then Ne looks at the potential for the ideas within the data. Depending on whether or not Ne or Si is the dominant one, the reliance/trust in the variations of the data will differ. An Si dominant will distrust the Ne expansion beyond what is actually there in the mind painting and an Ne dominant will distrust the painting as it currently is, or the details within the painting which don't allow for expansion.
Ni-Se would be: Se takes a photograph of the scene and Ni picks up a variety of tiny cues which are then developed into a single insight (the process = cogs turning in the back of the mind) and the insight can be used to predict future outcomes. Ni dominants distrust the photograph as it is, full of details with seemingly no connection, so they change it into something they are more comfortable with. Se dominants will distrust the seemingly unrelated insight and prefer to take the photograph as it is so they can examine it without any subjectivity and what appears to be 'guessing'.
 
Discussion starter · #164 ·
An INTJ doesn't have Ti to do the inductive processing. Isn't it possible Ni is doing that task for this type (maybe not in the same way but in some way)?
I have Te and I have no need for Ti. I'm not convinced that Ti is about inductive processing. I don't think a person will work exclusively with one or the other. And Ni isn't about logic, reason, or processing. It's about data collection and impression of the our observations.

You've said the J functions don't do any processing of intuitive insights;
What? Your wording is all mixed up. Ni has the insights and the J functions processes the insights. The way you use the word "process" is not clear.
the insights drop into consciousness ready to go. You've also said the subjective perceptions are not necessarily intuitive insights; many such perceptions (or images) are directly stored in your brain without further conscious processing.
I'm still not sure who you are using the world processing here.
So if these images are somehow converted into intuitive insights,
The images are insights.
there must be some processing in the unconscious mind to produce the final insight.
Things do happen at this point. The brain stores our observations. If you are calling that a "process" then okay. Though, it seems you are saying Ni is somehow putting the observations into a judging process for theorizing. I don't agree. Ni collects and understands the components and the J functions put those components into a structure and theorizing is then possible.

Isn't it possible that processing is Ni doing some inductive manipulation of the stored images to create the insight?
It's probable, but that is only if the current theory is completely wrong.

If it's not some quasi-rational inductive process, I suppose you believe it is some kind of process that invokes the Jungian archetypes, right? Are there so many archetypes that they could handle the wide variety of insights that Ni is capable of generating?
I can agree with archetypes in theory, but I'm also not going to say I'm convinced. Though, it would be a combination of archetypes and intuitive insights. All introverted functions are supposed to detect archetypes of the collective unconscious.
Or do insights fall into some narrow classification system that are comprehensively covered by a small number of archetypes (in the same way the 16 MBTI types cover everyone)? In the example the INFJ gave of his friend who failed to wave goodbye, what kind of archetype might produce that insight?

thanx
I would classify that under a previous subjective impression, where the person became aware that such a gesture happened from a negative place.
 
What? Your wording is all mixed up.
The end of that sentence clears up the meaning: "; the insights drop into consciousness ready to go."--ie, ready to be used by the J functions. But I could have written that better.

The images are insights.
So that Ne image is an example of an insight which your J functions may use at some later point. The only way I can see that image as being an insight is if it helps you identify an Ne user when you read a message written by one. Is that the sense you have, too? Do you get the same impression when you talk to a Ne user? Or watch a video with a Ne user? Ie, does it work in other media?

Things do happen at this point. The brain stores our observations. If you are calling that a "process" then okay.
No. I said above that storing an image is not "processing".

Though, it seems you are saying Ni is somehow putting the observations into a judging process for theorizing. I don't agree. Ni collects and understands the components and the J functions put those components into a structure and theorizing is then possible.
No. I meant Ni appears to be doing further subconscious processing to produce the insight that it then presents to your consciousness where it is used by the J functions. By "understand" I take it you mean the reorientation of perceptions to the subjective or some further subconscious processing, right?

It's probable, but that is only if the current theory is completely wrong.
So the current theory is probably wrong.

I can agree with archetypes in theory, but I'm also not going to say I'm convinced. Though, it would be a combination of archetypes and intuitive insights. All introverted functions are supposed to detect archetypes of the collective unconscious. I would classify that under a previous subjective impression, where the person became aware that such a gesture happened from a negative place.
So in that example with the the friend who failed to say goodbye, it wasn't an archetype but a previous subjective impression that produced the insight?
 
Discussion starter · #166 ·
The end of that sentence clears up the meaning: "; the insights drop into consciousness ready to go."--ie, ready to be used by the J functions. But I could have written that better.

So that Ne image is an example of an insight which your J functions may use at some later point. The only way I can see that image as being an insight is if it helps you identify an Ne user when you read a message written by one. Is that the sense you have, too? Do you get the same impression when you talk to a Ne user? Or watch a video with a Ne user? Ie, does it work in other media?
Yes, the Ne image is helpful identifying Ne users. It is also a way of placing observations into an existing structure. So it works with both Ni and Te. I've only experienced it when I read things from Ne users.

No. I said above that storing an image is not "processing".
Okay. I use the word processing for the T or F functions. So I didn't want to misunderstand

No. I meant Ni appears to be doing further subconscious processing to produce the insight that it then presents to your consciousness where it is used by the J functions. By "understand" I take it you mean the reorientation of perceptions to the subjective or some further subconscious processing, right?
The reorientation is what I was talking about when I said understand. Maybe identification would be a better word.

So the current theory is probably wrong.
Until there are accurate descriptions and foolproof ways to determine a person's type, I can only conclude the current typing theories are at least partially wrong.

So in that example with the the friend who failed to say goodbye, it wasn't an archetype but a previous subjective impression that produced the insight?
That's my opinion. Though, I also think the entire example was Si/Fe, as it didn't include any intangible information.
 
Discussion starter · #167 ·
Again, this is me debating in order to understand, so my thoughts aren't set in stone.

How would you describe the collection of data by an Ni user? Previously you described collecting 'intangible' information - do you not mean interpreting something tangible into something intangible? Humans aren't equipped to pick up anything other than actual, physical data in order to comprehend the environment.
Where did you get that notion? I always pick up on intangible information. I don't turn tangible information into intangible information. I collect the intangible that surrounds the tangible.

How we interpret that varies from person to person though and it can seem intangible in terms of 'I know that person is sad' is just a sudden thought, however it comes from physical cues.
That is how Sensors, who collect the tangible information, do it.
Inferior Se would make Ni users more likely to distrust the conscious perception of physical data, yes, but they have to use it - they just alter it beyond what it actually is so it suits their perception better.
So if we can only do a poor job of collecting tangible information, and that is the only data we collect, then we would be extremely poor decision makers based on inadequacy. Plus, it then makes intuition non-existent, as it would have nothing to observe and collect.

Isn't it forming a (sometimes) seemingly unrelated conclusion, or summing up, of data?
That is in the judging category.
However referring it back to what we know sounds more like Si - it compares the current perception to the previous ones and sees if it will fit. Si is known to look back for the impressions they require from the current potential of the data before them (Ne).
Si and Ni work in similar ways. Both functions take in observed data and form subjective impressions that they can then identify. The difference is that Si forms those subjective impressions with tangible things, such as gym equipment or souvenirs or whatever.

I don't understand this. Humans can only pick up data from physical sources. They can be almost unnoticeable, but they will be present for someone to notice them. Si-Ne seems to work like this: Si takes the physical data, along with preconceptions built up over years about the data, and develops a painting with emphasis, then Ne looks at the potential for the ideas within the data. Depending on whether or not Ne or Si is the dominant one, the reliance/trust in the variations of the data will differ. An Si dominant will distrust the Ne expansion beyond what is actually there in the mind painting and an Ne dominant will distrust the painting as it currently is, or the details within the painting which don't allow for expansion.
Ni-Se would be: Se takes a photograph of the scene and Ni picks up a variety of tiny cues which are then developed into a single insight (the process = cogs turning in the back of the mind) and the insight can be used to predict future outcomes. Ni dominants distrust the photograph as it is, full of details with seemingly no connection, so they change it into something they are more comfortable with. Se dominants will distrust the seemingly unrelated insight and prefer to take the photograph as it is so they can examine it without any subjectivity and what appears to be 'guessing'.
In your examples it seems as though only Si and Se can be the dominate functions. If intuition doesn't have any observations themselves, then they are inefficient and hold no contribution to the perception of humans. From what you wrote, Se and Si can work just fine without Ni and Ne. The Sensor functions collect the data and don't rely on the Intuition functions. However, the opposite is the case for Intuition, it only works in conjunction with the Sensor functions. Ni can't connect dots if it has no Se observations and Ne can't come up with possibilities if it has no Si data. I just can't agree with that concept.

Intuition collects it's own intangible information. It is needed to provide a well rounded data collection. Ni doesn't connect any dots because that is a process that fits with the J functions. Ni is about info gathering and reorienting it for a subjective identification. Se works with Ni in the tangible data collection, but that tangible data isn't as important as the intangible.
 
Discussion starter · #168 ·
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.
I wonder if many people who type as INTJ are really Se users who have Ni as a lower function and relate to the definitions.
 
I wonder if many people who type as INTJ are really Se users who have Ni as a lower function and relate to the definitions.
INTJ is the rarest type. Therefore I tend to agree with you. There is a subjective danger in taking a test off the internet in that people might vote for what they would like to think they are or what they perceive themselves to be, not how they actually are seen by others. I was tested at the Level II MBTI test by a local counsellor who knows me well personally so I am sure on my result. I am also sure on which areas in detail do and don't fit well within the INTJ preferences. All very helpful.

Further, she emphasised, and I agree, that the MBTI is a key to help people understands and work on their weaknesses. Not an excuse for laziness and stereotyping. :mellow:
 
Discussion starter · #170 ·
INTJ is the rarest type. Therefore I tend to agree with you. There is a subjective danger in taking a test off the internet in that people might vote for what they would like to think they are or what they perceive themselves to be, not how they actually are seen by others. I was tested at the Level II MBTI test by a local counsellor who knows me well personally so I am sure on my result. I am also sure on which areas in detail do and don't fit well within the INTJ preferences. All very helpful.

Further, she emphasised, and I agree, that the MBTI is a key to help people understands and work on their weaknesses. Not an excuse for laziness and stereotyping. :mellow:
I think the MBTI based their conclusions on generalities about people, but then never put the right functions with those generalities (if that is even possible.) The questions to determine INTJ could just as well fit any other T type. I don't think many of them are exclusive for INTJ. Especially the questions about being interested in intellectual topics and the like. Any type can be interested in topics that require more in depth study.

The results are that people who considered themselves smart all congregate into the NT types. It's a problem. And clearly many people who say they are INTJ don't even relate to intuition, let alone introverted intuition.
 
I think the MBTI based their conclusions on generalities about people, but then never put the right functions with those generalities (if that is even possible.) The questions to determine INTJ could just as well fit any other T type. I don't think many of them are exclusive for INTJ. Especially the questions about being interested in intellectual topics and the like. Any type can be interested in topics that require more in depth study.

The results are that people who considered themselves smart all congregate into the NT types. It's a problem. And clearly many people who say they are INTJ don't even relate to intuition, let alone introverted intuition.
Yeah. The Ni was what clinched it for me, the real eureka moment of Yeah, I do *that* in a major way underneath and *that* makes me way different from all the clever science and maths types I have ever known! Realising *why* what goes on in my head is not a model for understanding what goes on in anyone else's head. The loneliness and the social weirdness and the hidden Fi values tied to personality...yeah. Sometimes I think really if someone hasn't gone through the feeling that they wished they were not INTJ but they are and they have accepted it now, I'm not sure they really know what it's about. But the fullness of it hasn't really been apparent to me until the last four years or so, and I'm mid forties. I probably behaved way more SJ when younger in order to fit in, and was just confused underneath...

I have picked up that there is some moaning about this on this forum but I don't think it's a battle worth fighting. What I do want to do is be out there on the threads being me and saying look it's okay to have the Ni and the Te and the Fi ... And it's even fun! And that I want to learn to use them to relate better to people in real life. Those things matter to me. I'm not interested in supporting a stereotype which is unpleasant or unfriendly. We are still people and being rare we need more understanding, not less.

Thanks for your input. What do you think the answer is, beyond in depth testing for everyone?
 
Discussion starter · #172 ·
Yeah. The Ni was what clinched it for me, the real eureka moment of Yeah, I do *that* in a major way underneath and *that* makes me way different from all the clever science and maths types I have ever known! Realising *why* what goes on in my head is not a model for understanding what goes on in anyone else's head. The loneliness and the social weirdness and the hidden Fi values tied to personality...yeah. Sometimes I think really if someone hasn't gone through the feeling that they wished they were not INTJ but they are and they have accepted it now, I'm not sure they really know what it's about. But the fullness of it hasn't really been apparent to me until the last four years or so, and I'm mid forties. I probably behaved way more SJ when younger in order to fit in, and was just confused underneath...

I have picked up that there is some moaning about this on this forum but I don't think it's a battle worth fighting. What I do want to do is be out there on the threads being me and saying look it's okay to have the Ni and the Te and the Fi ... And it's even fun! And that I want to learn to use them to relate better to people in real life. Those things matter to me. I'm not interested in supporting a stereotype which is unpleasant or unfriendly. We are still people and being rare we need more understanding, not less.

Thanks for your input. What do you think the answer is, beyond in depth testing for everyone?
The solution would have to come from credible studies and accurate descriptions. Myers Briggs went the right direction in developing the theory, they just drew the wrong conclusions. The same type of process would be required to get it right. Ideally it would include psychologists, years of study, and conclusive results. In other words, something that is a long way off.
 
The solution would have to come from credible studies and accurate descriptions. Myers Briggs went the right direction in developing the theory, they just drew the wrong conclusions. The same type of process would be required to get it right. Ideally it would include psychologists, years of study, and conclusive results. In other words, something that is a long way off.
I took the MBTI (II) test. I don't recall any questions about 'being interested in intellectual topics' although there were 150 questions so I could be wrong. Then I went through it all with a trained counsellor who also knows me personally and she was able to show me exactly which parts of the INTJ description did and did not fit me personally. She gave me information on how I was different in approach to herself (she's an ENTP) and also used other people we both knew as examples. She made it utterly clear that the whole point of the system is to be able to work better with others, to be aware of blind spots and weaknesses and to enable growth and self awareness.

Before that I had done a few online tests which were inconsistent in results. There really isn't any comparison to being properly tested and understanding where the description fits and where it doesn't. MBTI is an average of many factors. That said, the cognitive functions are interesting and studying them has been veyr helpful to me personally. It has given me a framework to understand other people.

And Ni...I spent a very long time in Cognitive Functions when I first joined the forum talking with an Ne user about the difference. I stuck with the discussion until I was utterly sure in my own mind what she was doing and what I was doing and how the two abstract thinking types Ne and Ni were different.

In my head the summary is something like this:

Ne is about extroverted non personalised possibilities and asks why? Eg Chess game. Starting point and many broadening out possibilities. Brainstorming many ideas. Lengthy and can ramble or jump subject.

Ni is about introverted personalised predictions and pathways and never asks why because it is driven by efficiency. Eg Chinese chequers game. Start and end points known, optimisation required. Narrows the focus. Intense. Brevity and stays on point.

:laughing:
 
Discussion starter · #174 ·
Those descriptions above are more generic MBTI and not really fitting of the actual functions. I definitely don't agree with the stereotypes that MBTI used as their references.
 
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.
I think that Ni is all about universal principles, things that often can't be directly demonstrated in day to day living. If an INTJ ends up in science it's probably because it tangibly reflects the abstractions and principles that Ni attempts to take in and apply to the subject, ex. principle of least action (one of my personal favorites).

Principles of Nature: the principle of least action

I believe that all scientific work can be reduced to a tangible understanding of universal principles. (Whether most of the population grasps these principles is another story.)

Eastern philosophical traditions tend to be more intuitive (ha) to me, and are often cited as being more compatible with the sciences unlike the polarization we have going on in the West between religious and scientific traditions. Notice that certain concepts, such as the law of reciprocity in Eastern traditions, closely resemble "principles of nature". I find the topic of drug addition pretty intuitive as well because it is essentially about reciprocity, "for every action is an equal and opposite reaction", that is why drug addicts begin to have less responsive receptors to the active ingredients in question.


I have always sort of struggled with "Creative" endeavors, Ni sadly is less of an artistic function for me than I would like it to be. I was just throwing a fit not too long ago that when I pick up the guitar it feels dishonest so maybe I should just sell it. lol. (If any fellow INTJ's have some tips about actualizing your creative side I'm open to suggestions :p )

Anyway, that's how I experience Ni. Whether the arts vs sciences distinction is appropriate is debatable these days. Both are "technical" in a sense while also requiring imagination.

There is the saying that supposedly is advice for artists, "follow the rules and then break them", I'd say that's in line with Ni/Te thinking. All creative work is derivative anyway so there's no such thing as completely creating new systems, they all operate under the laws of the universe... ;)
 
Discussion starter · #176 ·
I think that Ni is all about universal principles, things that often can't be directly demonstrated in day to day living. If an INTJ ends up in science it's probably because it tangibly reflects the abstractions and principles that Ni attempts to take in and apply to the subject, ex. principle of least action (one of my personal favorites).

Principles of Nature: the principle of least action

I believe that all scientific work can be reduced to a tangible understanding of universal principles. (Whether most of the population grasps these principles is another story.)

Eastern philosophical traditions tend to be more intuitive (ha) to me, and are often cited as being more compatible with the sciences unlike the polarization we have going on in the West between religious and scientific traditions. Notice that certain concepts, such as the law of reciprocity in Eastern traditions, closely resemble "principles of nature". I find the topic of drug addition pretty intuitive as well because it is essentially about reciprocity, "for every action is an equal and opposite reaction", that is why drug addicts begin to have less responsive receptors to the active ingredients in question.
I place religion and philosophy with the J functions. Jung mentioned archetypes and that Ni is tuned into them. That points to objective truths to me, but Ni isn't determining those truths, it just "knows" them by the ability to connect to archetypes. At least that is what I get from his writing. As the introverted P functions reorient objective things subjectively, we would "know" a collective archetype and reorient it to our own subjective viewpoint to identify it. That was what my quoted statement meant above.

I have always sort of struggled with "Creative" endeavors, Ni sadly is less of an artistic function for me than I would like it to be. I was just throwing a fit not too long ago that when I pick up the guitar it feels dishonest so maybe I should just sell it. lol. (If any fellow INTJ's have some tips about actualizing your creative side I'm open to suggestions :p )

Anyway, that's how I experience Ni. Whether the arts vs sciences distinction is appropriate is debatable these days. Both are "technical" in a sense while also requiring imagination.

There is the saying that supposedly is advice for artists, "follow the rules and then break them", I'd say that's in line with Ni/Te thinking. All creative work is derivative anyway so there's no such thing as completely creating new systems, they all operate under the laws of the universe... ;)
I see a difference between science and art. Science is taking objects from the extroverted orient and exploring and experimenting with them. It's a way to discover new identifications for the external objects. It's a part of being a collective and the scientist is in the same position as everything external, which is an extraverted position. Putting objects together to discover what happens is how Pe functions work, especially Se (Ne is more about putting ideas or intangible items together for identification.)

Art, on the other hand, is an introverted expression. Taking what is inside and voicing it in a personal and subjective pursuit. It's pulling from an internal identification. Trying to make what is hard to explain in words, expressed through art. What points to Ni over Si is that the subject matter of art isn't usually something tangible, controllable, or practical.

I'm not saying there can't be an introverted scientist or an extraverted artists. I'm only saying that the intangible meaning behind art is more Ni (and some of Ne) and the tangible and practical aspect of science are more Se and or Si. I don't subscribe to the notion that INTJ is a type that works best with science.
 
I place religion and philosophy with the J functions. Jung mentioned archetypes and that Ni is tuned into them. That points to objective truths to me, but Ni isn't determining those truths, it just "knows" them by the ability to connect to archetypes. At least that is what I get from his writing. As the introverted P functions reorient objective things subjectively, we would "know" a collective archetype and reorient it to our own subjective viewpoint to identify it. That was what my quoted statement meant above.

I see a difference between science and art. Science is taking objects from the extroverted orient and exploring and experimenting with them. It's a way to discover new identifications for the external objects. It's a part of being a collective and the scientist is in the same position as everything external, which is an extraverted position. Putting objects together to discover what happens is how Pe functions work, especially Se (Ne is more about putting ideas or intangible items together for identification.)

Art, on the other hand, is an introverted expression. Taking what is inside and voicing it in a personal and subjective pursuit. It's pulling from an internal identification. Trying to make what is hard to explain in words, expressed through art. What points to Ni over Si is that the subject matter of art isn't usually something tangible, controllable, or practical.

I'm not saying there can't be an introverted scientist or an extraverted artists. I'm only saying that the intangible meaning behind art is more Ni (and some of Ne) and the tangible and practical aspect of science are more Se and or Si. I don't subscribe to the notion that INTJ is a type that works best with science.
So are you saying that Ni would have a natural understanding for philosophy and religion whereas a INTP with a dominant J function is actively determining these things?

Just to clarify, I wasn't disagreeing with the part I quoted. I was more or less agreeing with it and adding to it. I've been thinking a lot lately about subject-vs-object and whether there's even a dichotomy there, because to the extent someone can internalize the objective the distinction has been dissolved.

I am not sure I would agree that INTJ is best suited for science, although I don't think I'd say they're more suited for things like philosophy and theology, either. Given that these are pretty much literal representations of something abstract (a cognitive function) I think there can be a multitude of examples that would be appropriate for the process of Ni, although the examples themselves may appear to be different on the surface. The Ni does require Te to function, which pretty much necessitates "empiricism" of some form (scientifically or any other type of "truth through experience") in an INTJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kathy Kane
Discussion starter · #178 ·
So are you saying that Ni would have a natural understanding for philosophy and religion whereas a INTP with a dominant J function is actively determining these things?
I wouldn't say anyone has a natural understanding of anything. I'm just saying intuition is more capable of seeing and identifying intangible information, which fits well with the mystical/religious subjects. Philosophy, I find is more about forming new judgments about the world, and that fits more with the T functions. Religion and mysticism comes from the intangible and that is why I think Jung listed Ni with mysticism.

Just to clarify, I wasn't disagreeing with the part I quoted. I was more or less agreeing with it and adding to it. I've been thinking a lot lately about subject-vs-object and whether there's even a dichotomy there, because to the extent someone can internalize the objective the distinction has been dissolved.
I think introversion has to do with taking the objective information and then reorienting it to a subjective understanding. And extraversion is taking the external observations and expanding or exploring them as if they are accurate as they are.

I am not sure I would agree that INTJ is best suited for science, although I don't think I'd say they're more suited for things like philosophy and theology, either. Given that these are pretty much literal representations of something abstract (a cognitive function) I think there can be a multitude of examples that would be appropriate for the process of Ni, although the examples themselves may appear to be different on the surface. The Ni does require Te to function, which pretty much necessitates "empiricism" of some form (scientifically or any other type of "truth through experience") in an INTJ
I'm not of the opinion that Te is about empiricism. Te is more about traditional organizations, structures, and systems. As in asking how people usually do it and follow suit. Empiricism has more to do with Se and using sense information to experiment with external objects. That is another reason why I don't think INTJs are suited to be scientists. Our Se isn't all that great.
 
thank you.

I would just like to necro this thread to thank the OP for shedding light on Ni dominants through JCF. After delving obsessively into typology for around a year I have recently figured out what my actual type has always been.

I blame the stereotypes and generalisations created through the lens of the MBTI to reject the notion of me actually being an INTJ. As MBTI and the cognitive functions aren't exactly about behaviour per se. But I have just been starting to feed my intuitive framework, re-shifting what I have learned throughout the previous months to finally come to a better grasp on the cognitive functions. I had absorbed a lot of irrelevant minutiae not directly related to the cognitive functions in effect. I have also studied the cognitive functions in real time throughout interpersonal encounters akin to the stereotype an INTJ or some people would call a crazy maniac, observing and understanding humans through a lens of a systemic framework. Because, in essence, INTJs want to both understand and be understood-- as to what all humans crave -- that is of intimacy and belonging. But when it comes to understanding the perspective of Ni dominants, they frequently question their sanity as they do not actually experience reality on the same levels as the other 15 respective types on a fundamental level. hence the description of a crank, or a cray lunatic. Jungian Psychological Types

I also laughed inside when a couple of posters tried to refute this framework of yours that you have created, simply based on their anecdotal experiences not through studying Jung's work and the ad-hominems just followed shortly after. One trying to type you as an INFJ since, surely, an F cannot be as rational in decision making process as a T would be. Anyways, I thank you for providing these thorough explanations and in conclusion any type can mistype as anything. I mistyped as a lot of things. You are who you are, your cognitive functions nor the description of the Evil Mastermind do not define your being. The actual INTJs could actually be living somewhere deep in the mountains, secluded from any actual human interaction, rather than intergrating themselves into society and achieving 4.5 GPA in every subjects they come across and excel at. And they are rather... passionate people full of depth and deep feelings - not unemotional despite the stoic external appearance they give off to others. At least I am.
 
161 - 180 of 180 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top