Personality Cafe banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
AZH suggested that I look at Filatova's descriptions of each type, and after looking at several I realized that there are some things about me that strongly match a few different types. So in addition to the 21-question questionnaire (picked because it's the shortest one that isn't really vague), I will also be including a discussion of what matches and what doesn't in what seem to me like the most notable matches. If possible, I would appreciate not only a typing, but also some understanding of why I don't match whichever parts of my actual type/why I do strongly match other types. Thank you very much.

So first, the 21 questions:

1. What is beauty? What is love? Beauty is that quality said to be possessed by objects found aesthetically pleasing by a person; the subjectivity of this judgement comes from the decision of which person's aesthetic sense to use. I have yet to find a better definition of love than Heinlein's: "Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own"; I would, however, change "happiness" to "well-being", since "happiness" is sometimes used to describe self-destructive pleasures.

2. What are your most important values? In rough order of importance: Respecting the rights of others (with a largely Lockean approach to understanding said rights), gratitude, honesty/intellectual integrity/willingness to think logically (I see these all as different aspects of the same value). Religion is not technically a fundamental value of mine, but arises naturally from combining my beliefs (themselves without any value judgement) with the strongest forms of these values, and therefore is of importance on par with them and above most of their expressions.

3. Do you have any sort of spiritual/religious beliefs, and why do you hold (or don't) those beliefs in the first place? Absolutely. I am very committed to Judaism. As for why I hold those beliefs: I was raised with them, and then decided to take them as axioms in my belief system (every logical belief system needs axioms), this being the nature of faith. Afterward, I had other experiences that supported them, but the primary basis remains the conscious decision to believe.

4. Opinion on war and militaries? What is power to you? Power, be it military, economic, or political, is how people impose their desires on others. This may be done in order to violate the rights of others for their own benefit (in which case it is bad/evil), or to protect their own rights or those of a third party from violation by someone else (in which case it is good, at least in its goal), or some combination of the two.

5. What have you had long conversations about? What are your interests? Why? My main interests (and things I have conversation about) are (a) my religion and values (because they are important to me), though I tend not to have long conversations about said values because conversations just never reach that point of intimacy, (b) Strategy games, whether board games or computer games, because I enjoy the challenge. I tend not to discuss them much either (except as far as their literacy aspect, see below), (c) Literature (including other media such as games), particularly fantasy because of the theme of good vanquishing evil, but also science fiction because of the interesting setting (and, for the best sci-fi, interesting concepts), and (d) taking any system I'm interested in, and adjusting it to better fulfill its primary purpose; this is due to a combination of liking to exercise my problem-solving abilities, wanting to benefit others, and the fact that badly-done systems annoy me.

6. Interested in health/medicine as a conversation topic? Are you focused on your body? No. As I see it, the body is an inconvenient interface between the mind and the world. Health and medicine is important because it prevents said interface from becoming more inconvenient, but that does not make it interesting.

7. What do you think of daily chores? They need to be done, so I might as well do them (though sometimes I procrastinate).

8. Books or films you liked? Recently read/watched or otherwise. Examples welcome. Perhaps the strongest examples are Clarke's If I Forget Thee, Oh Earth due to its resonating extremely strongly with me (a theme drawn straight from my religion (in particular, an aspect that I take pride in understanding more than most people seem to) plus Clarke's emotionally moving writing style will do that), and Sanderson's Stormlight Archive due to my connecting with one of the main characters* (particularly the part where he says something along the lines of "I don't just want to improve things for myself, I want to improve things for everybody who is in the situation I'm in now").

*Kaladin, if you've read the series.

9. What has made you cry? What has made you smile? Why? What's made me cry (at least if we discount things from when I was very young) is when things are not as they (morally) should be on a worldwide scale, particularly when praying for that situation to change. What's made me smile is the prospect of things becoming how they should be, whether in reality or in fiction. I hope that description answers the "why" as well, as I'm not quite sure how to assign a "why" to my need for things to be how they should be.

10. Where do you feel: at one with the environment/a sense of belonging? When I encounter beliefs or ideals sufficiently close to mine, especially if it's close in a way that the world as a whole is very much not. It doesn't happen often.

11. What have people seen as your weaknesses? What do you dislike about yourself? The main things that other people see as my weakness are the amount of time I spend on recreation (mainly games), and the fact that I sometimes violate the values of society as a whole. What I dislike about myself is that I don't always follow my beliefs to the extent I know I should, and that I spend more time on non-productive recreation, as compared to productive hobbies and projects, than is really good for me.

12. What have people seen as your strengths? What do you like about yourself? The main strength other people see in me is my intelligence, particularly my ability to problem-solve. What I personally like about myself is that that my values are on-target (even if I don't manage to fulfill them perfectly, at least I'm aiming for the right target), even when this goes against the opinions and values of society as a whole.

13. In what areas of your life would you like help? Fixing the aspects I dislike about myself (see number 11).

14. Ever feel stuck in a rut? If yes, describe the causes and your reaction to it. Yes; the cause is not spending as much time on productive hobbies as I should; for reaction, I've tried various strategies to organize my time (but they all run into the issue that sometimes I'm just too exhausted), and more recently trying to investigate myself from a personality-type viewpoint.

15. What qualities do you most like and dislike in other people? What types do you get along with? The qualities I most dislike are (a) not being considerate of others, (b) preferring to continue in a mistake rather than be corrected (possibly harshly), (c) unwillingness to follow one's beliefs to their logical conclusion, (d) being highly considerate of other people's illegitimate desires (i.e. those that are illogical, morally wrong, or due to others' desires in a way that ends up as a loop with no real source), (e) pride in consideration for one's friends that does not extend to strangers. The qualities I most like are their opposites. I'm not sure what types these match.

16. How do you feel about romance/sex? What qualities do you want in a partner? Sex is a biological imperative that conflicts inconveniently with the combination of religion and having trouble finding a partner. Romance is poorly defined; sometimes it refers to immature feelings, and sometimes to wholesome ones. The qualities I want in a partner are those that would naturally be inferred from the answers to numbers 2, 3, and 15.

17. If you were to raise a child, what would be your main concerns, what measures would you take, and why? My main concerns will be that the child grows up with correct values and religious beliefs. As for which measures to take: Other than a strong education and example-setting at home, this is highly circumstance-dependent, so I can't really answer ahead of time.

18. A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward and outward reaction? Depends on the claim and which beliefs. If they are beliefs about verifiable facts or the claim is about the existence of verifiable facts, present the case for my view, ask him to present the case for his view, and hopefully end up with one of us correcting an error; if his position proves truly illogical without any real reason for it, I may end the friendship. If they are religious beliefs and the claim is based on parsimony rather than verification, tell him "I believe you are mistaken" if he made the claim with some prompting context, or a less-polite "you're wrong" or "you can't prove that, and I believe it's wrong" if he just made the claim out of the blue. If the beliefs in question are my core moral values, I would likely end the friendship. The inward and outward reactions would never differ; if I already know that someone is inclined to put enough pressure on me to hide my inward reaction, he's already not my friend.

19. Describe your relationship to society. How do you see people as a whole? What do you consider a prevalent social problem? Name one. My relationship to society is one of animosity; society seeks to impose illogical rules on me based on their popularity, and as a result I reject it. My view of people is somewhat more charitable, due to not being weighted by popularity; I see people as "some good, some bad, some in the middle, most depend on circumstance". The main prevalent social problem, as I see it, is that people focus more on who's saying something and how it's being said than on the intrinsic logical merits of what's being said.

20. How do you choose your friends and how do you behave around them? I mainly choose friends by whatever happens to work out, and my behavior around them depends; I prefer friends who share my values, but if there is a small mismatch, I may overlook it in order to maintain the friendship (depending on the size of the mismatch and how much I'm getting from the friendship). Other than that, I behave in largely the same way as I do around strangers.

21. How do you behave around strangers? Pretty much the same way as I do by myself, except that I have to consider if my actions will disturb them (in a way that is legitimate on their part and thus worthy of consideration).

Now, since I am looking for an understanding of how I match up to Filatova's descriptions, I'd better describe what matches and doesn't match in each one:

LII is a close match in many ways; it's easier to describe what doesn't fit.
"When he falls ill, he strictly adheres to physician's instructions, obtaining the prescribed medication, administering the correct doses, and following the advised regimen." - While I would like to do this, I don't always manage to be that organized.

"In realm of ethics, LII adheres to the norms and traditions accepted within his society." - I do not always do this; if there is a societal standard that is illogical, I actually take pleasure in breaking it.

"In nonstandard situations, acts with sufficient care and restraint, so as to avoid situations where he orients poorly." - For me, this depends on the situation. If I think that acting with care and restraint will result in someone more capable doing the job instead, I will happily do so. If I think it will result in someone with a different goal set running things, I would rather do the right job poorly than have someone else do the wrong job well. And if I think it will result in someone less capable than myself trying to do the job, better that I do a mediocre job than they do a horrible one.

"Following established practices, LII's bearing is usually proper and restrained. He does not tolerate rudeness and himself rarely resorts to it." - I am extremely tolerant of rudeness (things expressed in a way offensive to most people) as long as it is not offensive to the people in the conversation or is necessary to communicate a worthwhile idea, and see rudeness on my own part as a valid tool, albeit one that should not be overused for practical reasons.

However, for all of its strong fit, LII's description has no moral component, and my moral component is the most important/driving part of me.

ILI: I don't fit this that well, but there is one thing that seems to match, and I'm wondering how it fits with whatever my actual type is (probably LII).

"However, if he is strongly afflicted by something, his emotionality can literally pour out as he loses control of himself. " This definitely happens to me on rare circumstances.

EII: This is where it gets interesting, as there are "core" parts of me that don't fit the LII, but do fit the EII:

"The orientation of main functional block of EII: ...the observance of ethical norms and morals,...improving and perfecting ethical values, strives to teach and cultivate moral refinement and spirituality in others..."

"a person for whom the main orientation in life is making judgments about good and evil, morals and depravity, decency and dishonorableness. "

"When encountering people who are disadvantaged, outcast, unhappy, or weak she experiences a desire to [help them]" -This is very much me; if I encounter a disadvantaged person, I have a natural desire to help them, like an EII does. But the help I have a desire to provide is that of the LII, not that of the EII.

"Even in youth, through her imagination, EII forms a certain ideal that she attempts to reach. A feeling of obligation often lies at the foundation of her program function. Thus, the smallest divergence in behavior away from this ideal causes the EII to chastise and restrain herself. In this journey towards self-perfection, EII can become her own worst tyrant. This tyranny of this sense of obligation in its extreme manifestations can even lead the EII to develop contempt for herself. It can also lead her to feel contemptuous and critical of others, when their behavior fails to correspond with her ideal of decency and ethical values." - Sort of, though I have come to realize that it is simply not reasonable to expect people to consistently reach the ideal, and so am not contemptuous or nonconstructively-critical of those (myself or others) who fail to achieve the ideal, only those who don't make the attempt.

"She has little interest in career advancement and material values as main goals for her existence. The main thing for her is to find her purpose, to make something of her life before it passes by, to realize her innate abilities and talents. For the ideas that EII advocates, she is willing to go to the "executioner’s bloc". " -That's me, precisely, especially the last line.

"She evaluates people, not according to what position they occupy, but whether they have personal qualities which correspond to her ethical standards."

These aspects of the EII are what I feel to be my "core", the piece that is even more fundamental than my LII aspects. But many parts of the EII's description do not fit me at all:

"EII very acutely feels the general trends and standards of behavior which prevail in a society or a social group. She is usually mindful of these norms in order to not be insulting to other people. When she first joins a new group, she holds herself back and behaves tactfully conforming to established norms, meanwhile observing and assessing the psychological atmosphere. Once she has absorbed the existing atmosphere, only then she considers becoming a full-fledged member of the community and establishing her influence in regards to its psychological atmosphere." -I am inclined to follow my own norms, no matter what group I'm in. Tact is a practical/tactical decision, no more.

"When encountering people who are disadvantaged, outcast, unhappy, or weak she experiences a desire to emotionally support them and console them. Thus others will frequently refer to her with their troubles, and she will listen to their grievances and confessions sometimes for hours. She tries to sympathize, to enter their personal position, to feel their emotional pain as if it is her own, to accept the person and give them moral support." -As noted above, emotional support is not the type of support I am capable of giving, or inclined to give.

"Witnessing instances of physical violence and application of force is usually unpleasant for the EII. She develops a negative gut reaction in response to physical punishments, abuse, and conflict, especially if these lead to someone's death, sometimes even if these are merely representations on television." - On the contrary, I actually enjoy media that involve the physical punishment of those who deserve it, and would find "everybody discovers it's a huge misunderstanding and makes up with no conflict" to be an unsatisfactory resolution.

ESI: Another one with a fair amount of matches to my "core", though these overlap significantly with the ones noted for EII, and are often very partial:

"The orientation of main functional block of ESI: ...observance by her sense of ethics and moral norms...and concrete volitional efforts and actions aimed at defense and preservation of ESI's system of values." -That's me, though said volitional efforts and actions are limited by lack of power/ability.

"As an introvert, ESI is primarily oriented at her own directives, system of values, and motivations, for which the external factors are only circumstantial. An ethical introvert possesses in her consciousness an all-encompassing idea about personal and ethical norms, about rules of coexistence, of the need to lead a particular way of life, that, from her point of view, is the only one worthy of a person. Subjective ethics of relations is ESI's strongest function. She understands, from an earliest age, what is good and what is bad. She is a moralist - and considers it necessary to clearly formulate and firmly observe personal criteria of behavior and moral norms." - The translator notes that "subjective" here means "not necessarily in line with society's standards", and that is emphatically the meaning it has applied to me: my ethical principles are not necessarily in line with society's standards, but I hold them to be objectively true (and thus binding on everyone), not mere personal values.

"If she sees someone disregard them, she may openly voice her negative relation towards that person, because she considers herself obligated to eliminate bad habits and ethical flaws of people who are close to her. This fight she can carry out firmly, without deviation, and for a long time, using all the resources accessible to her." - This mostly fits me, though (a) here the "them" is not the societal norms that are the context in Filatova's description, but rather my own ethical principles, (b) it's not only those close to me whose flaws I feel the need to eliminate, and (c) I often prefer to carry out said fight by analyzing and trying to overthrow/replace the systems that support said disregard rather than by more situation-specific methods.

"For some time the ESI tries to adjust to another person, to be tactful and considerate, but eventually she shows her inclination to exert willful pressuring, especially if on the path of her implementing her principles and wishes, she encounters an obstacle. In such cases the concealed at the first glance qualities of her character manifest – demanding, exacting, and very direct nature. She will without rest and without getting side-tacked try to get what is hers, convinced in her right to it. If she manages to make someone obey – she secretly feels satisfied but does not openly show this. "

"She finds it difficult to accept the inner world of another person."

However, just like the EII, the ESI has a sensitivity to society's norms that I emphatically do not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
You seem to have Fi in your preferred functions to me, so I question LII. In a similar vein, your convictions are so certain and you are so fixated you strike me more as someone who prefers Ni. What reasons do you think ILI doesn't fit? Before I got to your comparison with the Filatova descriptions, I had been relatively confident that you were one. An ILI enneatype 1 to be more specific.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
Ti everywhere. Ti-lead seems a strong possibility. Demonstrative Ti also possible.

I don't see much perception but Si doesn't sound valued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yitzi

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
You seem to have Fi in your preferred functions to me, so I question LII. In a similar vein, your convictions are so certain and you are so fixated you strike me more as someone who prefers Ni. What reasons do you think ILI doesn't fit? Before I got to your comparison with the Filatova descriptions, I had been relatively confident that you were one. An ILI enneatype 1 to be more specific.
Thank you; my main reason for finding LII more plausible than ILI is that Ti feels more valued than Te; I take more pride in having a logically consistent belief system than in being able to predict what will happen or to achieve my goals. Though it could be that that's coming from Fi being valued, and a demonstrative Ti supporting it...though it seems a bit unusual for the suggestive function to be so much more valued than the leading or creative. I wasn't even getting into enneatype; 1 seems one of the more plausible contenders, though that's somewhat weakened by the fact that I am not really perfectionist per se (I think it's perfectly ok if someone doesn't live up to their potential, as long as they fulfill their obligations.)

Ti everywhere. Ti-lead seems a strong possibility. Demonstrative Ti also possible.

I don't see much perception but Si doesn't sound valued.
Thank you, though that raises the question of why the most driving part of my personality seems to fit Fi-leading types better than anything with strong T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
Thank you, though that raises the question of why the most driving part of my personality seems to fit Fi-leading types better than anything with strong T.
That would be where I'm considering a sensation type. You're taking the descriptions very literally rather than interpreting, reading between the lines and creating a concept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
I will agree with you that your Ti usage is very strong, which points to LII or ILI to me. As an ILI you would still have 4d Ti. You have to examine how you use it, not just its presence. But much of what you attribute to Fi and Ti could also theoretically lumped into Ni. Ni needs a consistant inner framework and is a strongly subjective thing. I need to look more into how it would play in each role, but in the mean time, allow me to dip further into what I put forward and pick out specific sentences for my reasoning. They are mostly later on in your post.

Support for Ni:
2. What are your most important values? In rough order of importance:... Religion is not technically a fundamental value of mine, but arises naturally from combining my beliefs (themselves without any value judgement) with the strongest forms of these values, and therefore is of importance on par with them and above most of their expressions.
Allow me to state this early on. You mention your values a great deal, which is both a support for Ni and Fi in my opinion. Ni users are famously spiritual, philosophic and principled. Whereas Ne considers many options to be correct spiritually, Ni tends to know one is correct based on their subjective understanding and thorough analysis of their internal framework. But such a strong internal framework can be attributed to most of the introverted functions. Regarding religion and values, examine if it is a matter of logical consistency ("These are my values because I have assessed them logically,") an emotional framework ("These are my values because I strongly feel that they are morally correct,") past-oriented ("These are my values because analysis of my experiences support it,") or simply "are," as my ILI brother puts it ("These are my values because my gut/world-view tells me so.")

6. Interested in health/medicine as a conversation topic? Are you focused on your body? No. As I see it, the body is an inconvenient interface between the mind and the world. Health and medicine is important because it prevents said interface from becoming more inconvenient, but that does not make it interesting.
Moreso than a reason for why you are Ni, this is just to point out that you aren't an Si dom. You know, in case you didn't already know that.

9. What has made you cry? What has made you smile? Why? What's made me cry (at least if we discount things from when I was very young) is when things are not as they (morally) should be on a worldwide scale, particularly when praying for that situation to change. What's made me smile is the prospect of things becoming how they should be, whether in reality or in fiction. I hope that description answers the "why" as well, as I'm not quite sure how to assign a "why" to my need for things to be how they should be.
This, to me, screams the presence of Ni and/or Fi. Both functions believe that in the grand scheme of things, the world has a specific way that reality is meant to be. Usually one way. The addition of intuition to Fi and the fact that Ni is intuition makes this projection quite vivid and large-scale.

What I personally like about myself is that my values are on-target (even if I don't manage to fulfill them perfectly, at least I'm aiming for the right target), even when this goes against the opinions and values of society as a whole.
A very introverted (in a literal sense, not social) inclination. To believe in values in spite of an extrinsic source. Once again, this suggests a singular correct thing, so Ni could be one explanation for this.


Support for Te:
4. Opinion on war and militaries? What is power to you? Power, be it military, economic, or political, is how people impose their desires on others. This may be done in order to violate the rights of others for their own benefit (in which case it is bad/evil), or to protect their own rights or those of a third party from violation by someone else (in which case it is good, at least in its goal), or some combination of the two.
This is quite a detached sort of view. Not primary support, but more of an inclination. What got me going in that direction, anyhow.

Taking any system I'm interested in, and adjusting it to better fulfill its primary purpose; this is due to a combination of liking to exercise my problem-solving abilities, wanting to benefit others, and the fact that badly-done systems annoy me.
Holy hell, talk about Te. Using logic in an external way to manipulate a system to increase efficiency. This comment is pretty by the book, but other functions can always be an explanation.

11. What have people seen as your weaknesses? What do you dislike about yourself? The main things that other people see as my weakness are the amount of time I spend on recreation (mainly games), and the fact that I sometimes violate the values of society as a whole. What I dislike about myself is that I don't always follow my beliefs to the extent I know I should, and that I spend more time on non-productive recreation, as compared to productive hobbies and projects, than is really good for me.
Once again, productivity is favored.

12. What have people seen as your strengths? What do you like about yourself? The main strength other people see in me is my intelligence, particularly my ability to problem-solve. What I personally like about myself is that that my values are on-target (even if I don't manage to fulfill them perfectly, at least I'm aiming for the right target), even when this goes against the opinions and values of society as a whole.
Suggests thinking in general.

14. Ever feel stuck in a rut? If yes, describe the causes and your reaction to it. Yes; the cause is not spending as much time on productive hobbies as I should; for reaction, I've tried various strategies to organize my time (but they all run into the issue that sometimes I'm just too exhausted), and more recently trying to investigate myself from a personality-type viewpoint.
How very Te of you.

16. How do you feel about romance/sex? What qualities do you want in a partner? Sex is a biological imperative that conflicts inconveniently with the combination of religion and having trouble finding a partner. Romance is poorly defined; sometimes it refers to immature feelings, and sometimes to wholesome ones. The qualities I want in a partner are those that would naturally be inferred from the answers to numbers 2, 3, and 15.
Viewing sex and romance in terms of convenience seems like a thinker sort of orientation to me. But I have a feeling I am reading this wrong.

18. A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward and outward reaction? Depends on the claim and which beliefs. If they are beliefs about verifiable facts or the claim is about the existence of verifiable facts, present the case for my view, ask him to present the case for his view, and hopefully end up with one of us correcting an error; if his position proves truly illogical without any real reason for it, I may end the friendship.
Note how the argument towards logic here is based on external data.

Support for Fi:
2. What are your most important values? In rough order of importance: Respecting the rights of others (with a largely Lockean approach to understanding said rights), gratitude, honesty/intellectual integrity/willingness to think logically (I see these all as different aspects of the same value)...
Many of these values are quite abstract (e.g. subjective, inward, introverted etc) and emotionally based. So Fi.

4. Opinion on war and militaries? What is power to you? Power, be it military, economic, or political, is how people impose their desires on others. This may be done in order to violate the rights of others for their own benefit (in which case it is bad/evil), or to protect their own rights or those of a third party from violation by someone else (in which case it is good, at least in its goal), or some combination of the two.
Please do not take this the wrong way, but this suggested lower Fi to me because Fi is used in a more simplistic manner (good vs. evil depending on the orientation of rights,) without more complex intricities being discussed. This is the Fi I see in ILI's and SLI's predominately.

5. What have you had long conversations about? What are your interests? Why? ... Literature (including other media such as games), particularly fantasy because of the theme of good vanquishing evil...
Once more, a preference towards morals, albeit straight-forward ones.

8. Books or films you liked? Recently read/watched or otherwise. Examples welcome. ....plus Clarke's emotionally moving writing style will do that), and Sanderson's Stormlight Archive due to my connecting with one of the main characters* (particularly the part where he says something along the lines of "I don't just want to improve things for myself, I want to improve things for everybody who is in the situation I'm in now").
A strong attraction towards morals and a note about how they impact you personally and subjectively.

I meant to continue, but I have a doctor's appointment to go to in 12 minutes and am otherwise done with this. Anyhow, I couldn't see much of Si or Se to make any sort of argument for a preference, though I believe such a detachment from sensing may show how your preferred sensing function is 1D.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Oh, and some select reading regarding thinking functions, because I feel I cannot personally provide an accurate description of the thinking functions because I am unfortunately not particularly skilled at either of them. This is all from Chapter 10 of Jung's Psychological Types, which is worth reading in full imo. Spoiler 1 describes Te, spoiler 2 Ti.

 
As a result of the general attitude of extraversion, thinking is orientated by the object and objective data. This orientation of thinking produces a noticeable peculiarity.

Thinking in general is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions.

Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education. The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or no a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by [p. 429] which standard is its judgment governed -- is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective? A further criterion is afforded by the direction of the thinker's conclusion, namely, whether or no the thinking has a preferential direction outwards. It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since I may be engaging my thoughts with a concrete object, either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought with it. Even if I engage my thinking with concrete things, and to that extent could be described as extraverted, it yet remains both questionable and characteristic as regards the direction my thinking will take; namely, whether in its further course it leads back again to objective data, external facts, and generally accepted ideas, or not. So far as the practical thinking of the merchant, the engineer, or the natural science pioneer is concerned, the objective direction is at once manifest. But in the case of a philosopher it is open to doubt, whenever the course of his thinking is directed towards ideas. In such a case, before deciding, we must further enquire whether these ideas are mere abstractions from objective experience, in which case they would merely represent higher collective concepts, comprising a sum of objective facts ; or whether (if they are clearly not abstractions from immediate experience) they may not be derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time. In the latter event, such ideas must also belong to the category of objective data, in which case this thinking should also be called extraverted.

Although I do not propose to present the nature of introverted thinking at this point, reserving it for a later section, it is, however, essential that I should make a few statements about it before going further. For if one considers strictly what I have just said concerning [p. 430] extraverted thinking, one might easily conclude that such a statement includes everything that is generally understood as thinking. It might indeed be argued that a thinking whose aim is concerned neither with objective facts nor with general ideas scarcely merits the name 'thinking'. I am fully aware of the fact that the thought of our age, in common with its most eminent representatives, knows and acknowledges only the extraverted type of thinking. This is partly due to the fact that all thinking which attains visible form upon the world's surface, whether as science, philosophy, or even art, either proceeds direct from objects or flows into general ideas. On either ground, although not always completely evident it at least appears essentially intelligible, and therefore relatively valid. In this sense it might be said that the extraverted intellect, i.e. the mind that is orientated by objective data, is actually the only one recognized.

There is also, however -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect -- an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term I "thinking" can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is neither orientated by the immediate objective experience nor is it concerned with general and objectively derived ideas. I reach this other kind of thinking in the following way. When my thoughts are engaged with a concrete object or general idea in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back again to my object, this intellectual process is not the only psychic proceeding taking place in me at the moment. I will disregard all those possible sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought, merely emphasizing the fact that this very thinking process which proceeds from objective data and strives again towards the object stands also in a constant relation to the subject. This relation is a condition sine qua non, without which no think- [p. 431] ing process whatsoever could take place. Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, towards objective data, nevertheless it is my subjective process, and it can neither escape the subjective admixture nor yet dispense with it. Although I try my utmost to give a completely objective direction to my train of thought, even then I cannot exclude the parallel subjective process with its all-embracing participation, without extinguishing the very spark of life from my thought. This parallel subjective process has a natural tendency, only relatively avoidable, to subjectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject.

Whenever the chief value is given to the subjective process, that other kind of thinking arises which stands opposed to extraverted thinking, namely, that purely subjective orientation of thought which I have termed introverted. A thinking arises from this other orientation that is neither determined by objective facts nor directed towards objective data -- a thinking, therefore, that proceeds from subjective data and is directed towards subjective ideas or facts of a subjective character. I do not wish to enter more fully into this kind of thinking here; I have merely established its existence for the purpose of giving a necessary complement to the extraverted thinking process, whose nature is thus brought to a clearer focus.

When the objective orientation receives a certain predominance, the thinking is extraverted. This circumstance changes nothing as regards the logic of thought -- it merely determines that difference between thinkers which James regards as a matter of temperament. The orientation towards the object, as already explained, makes no essential change in the thinking function; only its appearance is altered. Since it is governed by objective data, it has the appearance of being captivated by the object, as though without the external orientation it simply could not [p. 432] exist. Almost it seems as though it were a sequence of external facts, or as though it could reach its highest point only when chiming in with some generally valid idea. It seems constantly to be affected by objective data, drawing only those conclusions which substantially agree with these. Thus it gives one the impression of a certain lack of freedom, of occasional short-sightedness, in spite of every kind of adroitness within the objectively circumscribed area. What I am now describing is merely the impression this sort of thinking makes upon the observer, who must himself already have a different standpoint, or it would be quite impossible for him to observe the phenomenon of extraverted thinking. As a result of his different standpoint he merely sees its aspect, not its nature; whereas the man who himself possesses this type of thinking is able to seize its nature, while its aspect escapes him. judgment made upon appearance only cannot be fair to the essence of the thing-hence the result is depreciatory. But essentially this thinking is no less fruitful and creative than introverted thinking, only its powers are in the service of other ends. This difference is perceived most clearly when extraverted thinking is engaged upon material, which is specifically an object of the subjectively orientated thinking. This happens, for instance, when a subjective conviction is interpreted analytically from objective facts or is regarded as a product or derivative of objective ideas. But, for our 'scientifically' orientated consciousness, the difference between the two modes of thinking becomes still more obvious when the subjectively orientated thinking makes an attempt to bring objective data into connections not objectively given, i.e. to subordinate them to a subjective idea. Either senses the other as an encroachment, and hence a sort of shadow effect is produced, wherein either type reveals to the other its least favourable aspect, The subjectively orientated thinking then appears [p. 433] quite arbitrary, while the extraverted thinking seems to have an incommensurability that is altogether dull and banal. Thus the two standpoints are incessantly at war.

Such a conflict, we might think, could be easily adjusted if only we clearly discriminated objects of a subjective from those of an objective nature. Unfortunately, however, such a discrimination is a matter of impossibility, although not a few have attempted it. Even if such a separation were possible, it would be a very disastrous proceeding, since in themselves both orientations are one-sided, with a definitely restricted validity; hence they both require this mutual correction. Thought is at once sterilized, whenever thinking is brought, to any great extent, under the influence of objective data, since it becomes degraded into a mere appendage of objective facts; in which case, it is no longer able to free itself from objective data for the purpose of establishing an abstract idea. The process of thought is reduced to mere 'reflection', not in the sense of 'meditation', but in the sense of a mere imitation that makes no essential affirmation beyond what was already visibly and immediately present in the objective data. Such a thinking-process leads naturally and directly back to the objective fact, but never beyond it ; not once, therefore, can it lead to the coupling of experience with an objective idea. And, vice versa, when this thinking has an objective idea for its object, it is quite unable to grasp the practical individual experience, but persists in a more or less tautological position. The materialistic mentality presents a magnificent example of this.

When, as the result of a reinforced objective determination, extraverted thinking is subordinated to objective data, it entirely loses itself, on the one hand, in the individual experience, and proceeds to amass an accumulation of undigested empirical material. The oppressive mass of more or less disconnected individual experiences [p. 434] produces a state of intellectual dissociation, which, on the other hand, usually demands a psychological compensation. This must consist in an idea, just as simple as it is universal, which shall give coherence to the heaped-up but intrinsically disconnected whole, or at least it should provide an inkling of such a connection. Such ideas as "matter" or "energy" are suitable for this purpose. But, whenever thinking primarily depends not so much upon external facts as upon an accepted or second-hand idea, the very poverty of the idea provokes a compensation in the form of a still more impressive accumulation of facts, which assume a one-sided grouping in keeping with the relatively restricted and sterile point of view; whereupon many valuable and sensible aspects of things automatically go by the board. The vertiginous abundance of the socalled scientific literature of to-day owes a deplorably high percentage of its existence to this misorientation.


 
When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.

But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life. What sort of a causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results?

This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being 'merely' symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts. [p. 483]

Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says 'Est, ergo est' ('It is ; therefore it is') ; while the latter says 'Cogito, ergo cogito' (' I think ; therefore I think'). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact. For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence. In both cases the further development of life is crowded out of the domain of thought into the region of other psychic functions which had hitherto existed in relative unconsciousness. The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts. Whenever consciousness, wedded to the function of thought, confines itself within the smallest and emptiest circle possible -- though seeming to contain the plenitude of divinity -- unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life. If this should be the intuitive function, the 'other side' will be viewed with the eyes of a Kubin or a Meyrink. If it is the feeling-function, [p. 484] there arise quite unheard of and fantastic feeling-relations, coupled with feeling-judgments of a quite contradictory and unintelligible character. If the sensation-function, then the senses discover some new and never-before-experienced possibility, both within and without the body. A closer investigation of such changes can easily demonstrate the reappearance of primitive psychology with all its characteristic features. Naturally, the thing experienced is not merely primitive but also symbolic; in fact, the older and more primeval it appears, the more does it represent the future truth: since everything ancient in our unconscious means the coming possibility.

Under ordinary circumstances, not even the transition to the 'other side' succeeds -- still less the redeeming journey through the unconscious. The passage across is chiefly prevented by conscious resistance to any subjection of the ego to the unconscious reality and to the determining reality of the unconscious object. The condition is a dissociation-in other words, a neurosis having the character of an inner wastage with increasing brain-exhaustion -- a psychoasthenia, in fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
Ni needs a consistant inner framework and is a strongly subjective thing.
This is an MBTI stereotype, not Socionics, nor Jung. Ni is a form of perception. It doesn't create frameworks, nor does it consider consistency. It just perceives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ocean Helm

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,196 Posts
You seem to have Fi in your preferred functions to me, so I question LII. In a similar vein, your convictions are so certain and you are so fixated you strike me more as someone who prefers Ni. What reasons do you think ILI doesn't fit? Before I got to your comparison with the Filatova descriptions, I had been relatively confident that you were one. An ILI enneatype 1 to be more specific.
That's not how Ni works. Ti "crystallizes" beliefs much more in form of a solid system of principles and axioms which are then prioritized in a way that focuses perception, which is exactly what I see in OP. Compared to LIIs, ILIs are much more open and fluid with their intake of information with the risk and often reality of becoming aimless mental wanderers with their lack of strong guiding principles.

The perception preference of ILI is very incompatible with Enneagram 1 by the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Regarding religion and values, examine if it is a matter of logical consistency ("These are my values because I have assessed them logically,") an emotional framework ("These are my values because I strongly feel that they are morally correct,") past-oriented ("These are my values because analysis of my experiences support it,") or simply "are," as my ILI brother puts it ("These are my values because my gut/world-view tells me so.")
A combination of what feels correct and what is internally consistent, with some tradition mixed in, if that helps. Basically, I start with what feels like it must be true from a moral perspective, expand on it using tradition, and then figure out how to turn that into a solid and well-grounded axiomatic system.

Note how the argument towards logic here is based on external data.
I think that might be affected by the fact that we're discussing judging others here; I can't very well reasonably expect others to achieve the same thinking-based results I do unless there is an external basis for it.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but this suggested lower Fi to me because Fi is used in a more simplistic manner (good vs. evil depending on the orientation of rights,) without more complex intricities being discussed. This is the Fi I see in ILI's and SLI's predominately.
Oh, it's definitely a simplistic but intense and valued form of Fi, supported and expanded on through the use of Ti. Question is: Which sociotype is that?

That would be where I'm considering a sensation type. You're taking the descriptions very literally rather than interpreting, reading between the lines and creating a concept.
I think that might be more that even if I read between the lines and create a concept of LII, that concept doesn't have such a strong moral sense. Overall, I do tend to be much stronger with patterns and concepts than details, though I'm not sure how much of that is Ti.

-------------

I'm wondering if it's possible that a demonstrative Ti and suggestive Fi have formed a sort of synthesis, compensating for each other's weaknesses (the Ti providing complexity to support an otherwise simplistic Fi, and the Fi providing value to an otherwise boring Ti). More generally, it seems that:

-Ti/Te seem to clearly be my base and demonstrative, in one order or the other.
-Within things that seem relevant to T: I find practical problem-solving to be something I'm very good at and find quite enjoyable, whereas putting ideas and facts into a framework is something I am very good at (probably even more so), and consider a very important ability, but do not find enjoyable unless the ideas and facts fit one of my other interests (especially morality).
-Within things that seem relevant to F: I am very weak at relationships, and only really interested in improving for practical reasons (and that only when there's a strong moral connection), have an extremely powerful (though simplistic in its way) moral sense that I value more than all my other functions combined, and have a fairly undeveloped emotional sense but enjoy its controlled use (e.g. moving passages in a novel).
-Within things that seem relevant to N: I enjoy fantasy and the like, and also sometimes like to come up with fanfiction and the like, though always with an eye toward fixing some problem in the original work (so that may be Te more than Ne). I am not really sure how good I am at predicting the future course of events, and enjoy the attempt only when it connects to other interests.
-Within things that seem relevant to S: I have a horrible sense of details (think absent-minded professor), and literally cannot picture my own face without a mirror. I do have some sense of physical enjoyment, but (at least consciously) see it as less important than mental enjoyment. I have no interest in physical sports, and would rather provide the ideas for others to act on, but am willing to take action myself if nobody else will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,196 Posts
As far as I'm concerned your solid internal framework of axioms and values which you resist compromising when conflicting with society's values, show a strong preference for introverted judgment over extraverted judgment.
19. Describe your relationship to society. How do you see people as a whole? What do you consider a prevalent social problem? Name one. My relationship to society is one of animosity; society seeks to impose illogical rules on me based on their popularity, and as a result I reject it. My view of people is somewhat more charitable, due to not being weighted by popularity; I see people as "some good, some bad, some in the middle, most depend on circumstance". The main prevalent social problem, as I see it, is that people focus more on who's saying something and how it's being said than on the intrinsic logical merits of what's being said.
It's hard to get more Ti than this. Besides, LIIs have stronger Fi than Fe anyway and I really don't see any evidence of extraversion anywhere in your posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
As far as I'm concerned your solid internal framework of axioms and values which you resist compromising when conflicting with society's values, show a strong preference for introverted judgment over extraverted judgment.

It's hard to get more Ti than this. Besides, LIIs have stronger Fi than Fe anyway and I really don't see any evidence of extraversion anywhere in your posts.
Thank you. At this point, I'm fairly convinced that Ti is one of my strongest elements.

The question then becomes: Am I LII, or ILI? Both have stronger Ti than Te and stronger Fi than Fe, but differ in which are valued and which are conscious. This is where it gets confusing: My moral sense is very clearly 2-dimensional (I strongly believe that there is an absolute morality, no exceptions), and extremely valued (if someone doesn't care about morality or is willing to compromise it, chances of a friendship are nil, and chances of avoiding animosity aren't much better), but I am also fairly conscious of it, more so than of Ni or Si.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top