With INTJs it seems to be less about the self (with ISFPs Fi comes first) but it's just as self-absorbed...since they have Ni first it's more likely to be predicting holistic batshit things like conspiracy theories in the greater world that they can become convinced that only they can see. There is this woman on Personality Cafe who types herself as ENTJ but who I think is a deeply deeply unhealthy INTJ who thinks EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, and it's really intricate and well-thought out...but insane all the same.
Ni in and of itself, though, is about asking why and looking for deeper meaning and distancing from the object to shift context of perception and having internal visions, which can be good or bad.
I have an INTJ friend who frequently suffers from panic attacks over the thought of infinity and his own insignificance. As a kid he was really into Christianity, and then the occult, because he was so scared of this. I wonder if this has to do with it.
It's not "driven on fears", but it certainly plays a part in developing fears if it gets a perceived threat. In individuals, these fears can seem irrational, not only because it can't always be justified based on tangible evidence, but also because it can't always be clarified demonstratively. I've known Ni junkies who seemed ridiculously fearful because they picked up on ulterior motives of others; sometimes those others would be in denial of their own underlying compulsions, which tended to only build on the significance of the ulterior motive in the perception of the Ni oriented person, and tended to bewilder the other into a front of defensiveness. Others don't even have to have malicious intent; the "fear" is often compelled by the Ni oriented person's self-preservation.
The fact that these perceptions can't always be rationalized, especially when they are initially developed, makes those who prefer Ni seem even nuttier and more fearful if they don't convince others.
I believe I am an Ni dominant, but I don't subscribe to it being an inherent trait of my being, something I'm supposed to identify with as a type of personality, or even something that has or is to define me. Rather I've come to use Jung's functional typology in order to better understand how things can affect people in different ways and how people can be affected by each other in different ways through a personal understanding of what the unconscious means to me. That said...
Ni for me is about becoming aware of and breaking down what I see as illusions; its purpose is then to mend opposition (of opposites), see the concrete from the abstract, and understand how we all relate to one another on an unconscious level. Doing this is supposed to provide solutions to philosophical paradoxes by perceiving some kind of encompassing form about the nature of existence (and our existence with each other as well). It is irrational and perceiving, as per its designation.
Fear=Ni then doesn't make sense for me because fear can be a highly individualized conscious reaction to something perceived as opposing and separate, even at odds with the idea of the ego. Rather when I use Ni in regards to fear, I separate my mind's thought from my body's reaction of fear by expanding my concept of the self to more than just the ego; in other words, my Ni isn't a result of the fear, but stops my consciousness from creating fear. When using Ni for me, the idea is only to feel in myself unconscious reactions, rather than feeling highly individualized conscious ones, which would become my reactionary illusions created by the ego, represented by complexes. So you seem to be attributing the complexes created by an Ni ego, as Ni itself, where the person is afraid of what might happen rather than accepting whatever will happen, which is in my opinion a big distinction.
But anyway, does the distinction I'm describing make any sense to you?
His(Jungs) introverted intuitive types were likely mystics, prophets, or cranks, struggling with a tension between protecting their visions from influence by others and making their ideas comprehensible and reasonably persuasive to others—a necessity for those visions to bear real fruit.
Ni isnt really about fear, but Ni doms do have a certain kind of fear of the influence that others may have on their visions
"Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
— C.G. Jung
i think same could be said for all introverted types, but its not the vision that other types are trying to preserve. for Fi doms, its the personal feeling evaluations. for Ti doms, its the logical reasoning and for Si doms its their subjective facts. however i do think that Pi doms have stronger need to preserve their perceptions, because those perceptions are not grounded by reason, thus they are harder to influence by others. Ni doms might be even harder to influence than Si doms, because the perceptions cover much larger area than Si doms, so it would require much more convincing from others to have an influence to their vision. if you add the protective nature that they have on their visions, devaluation of things that others(who go against their vision) say, it might be nearly impossible to have any profound influence to their vision.
with certain things, it might be equally hard to convince an Si dom to change their perceptions about something, since the perception is highly subjective and is essentially about what something evokes in them. also the thing with Si is that, it is about facts, but its not about objective facts(whether a chair exists or not), but about what they associate to a chair, so in order to change this, you would need to prove that they are mentally ill, that the chair doesent exist at all or that their perception isnt really a fact, but a product of for example archaic feeling or thinking, which just makes it seem like a fact to them, because the "fact" isnt really a fact, but it just seems like a fact because their perception is clouded by feeling, thinking or intuitions, which they dont recognize as such(due to their unconscious influence on perception), but simply see as a fact that has been perceived.
introverted thinking types can be more easily influence simply by offering a model that makes more logical sense than their previous thought. and introverted feeling can be influenced, by not saying that what they feel is illogical, but by explaining how it is morally wrong and showing how it conflicts with some of their other feeling based evaluations about right or wrong.
"Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
— C.G. Jung
Ex - Makes a prediction/assumption. Acts on it to prevent self from getting knee deep in trouble/takes-precautions etc.
Is that how it works?
This is how my thought process often works. See pattern, jump to end/conclusion of pattern, feel aware of how much time will be wasted and suffering endured to get from A to Q to Z, and just act as if Z has already happened or is going to happen.
I think this is N + fear though, not just N. The perception itself is nothing but recognition of a pattern. The action is completely separate from the perception and is the element driven by fear.
With INTJs it seems to be less about the self (with ISFPs Fi comes first) but it's just as self-absorbed...since they have Ni first it's more likely to be predicting holistic batshit things like conspiracy theories in the greater world that they can become convinced that only they can see. There is this woman on Personality Cafe who types herself as ENTJ but who I think is a deeply deeply unhealthy INTJ who thinks EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, and it's really intricate and well-thought out...but insane all the same. - - -
This is an old post, but I found it interesting and thought I'd add to the discussion. One of your comments causht my attention. This observation steers abit off topic, but does relate to our own biases when viewing the actions of others.
The woman on Personality Cafe that you referred to may be a total wack job. But that cannot be assumed.
One would have to look at her specific claims and the supporting evidence and logical arguments that she provided to
support her assertions.
One should also consider where they are coming from themselves. I have found some types of people, including ISTP, ESTP, & ISFP types to be uninterested in and seemingly unable to easily grasp big picture concepts that can have far reaching and long lasting impact on a great number of people, including themselves. Their focus is more immediate and what they would consider of a 'practical' bent, and this can be a blind spot for them.
Practical examples ? The 1930s Great Depression was predicted by those who understood the dynamics involved beforehand. Many were wiped out by that economic disaster, but a few not only survived but prospered from it. - - There were those who saw the actions of Hitler in the 1930s and warned of the coming danger to Europe and the rest of the world when many sang the praises of Hitler at the time. They thought Churchill was nothing but a wild eyed alarmist before the war. - - There were those who predicted the housing crash when everyone else thought house prices could never go down only a few years ago. - - All of the long term insights from these three examples would have had very practical applications for the people caught up in those events.
You made generalizations about INTJs that are incorrect. You may, or may not, be right about the woman you mentioned. Or, you may be running up against your own cognitive & emotional limits when evaluating what she wrote. We all have our strengths, weaknesses, and blindspots. We can make people 'wrong' in areas where they naturally operate differently than we do. Or, we can recognize how the characteristics of others can provide us lessons regarding our own weak areas.
BTW - - the best romantic relationship I had was with an ISFP woman who was a professional muscian. As an INTJ professional trader trained in finance and economics (and a number of other fields) we complimented each other with our differences.