User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Doubting N

  1. #41
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    May 2007
    5w6 sp/sx


    This deep-seated hunch when people refer to Ni sounds more like the hunch that SPs act on, meaning that Ni would be unconscious.

    When Ni is dominant, it becomes an obsessive vision or goal -- Se is acted out not in the environment, but in the form of internal fantasy and contemplation (i.e., the images in your head).

    Se dominance is sort of reversed; inferior Ni aids dominant Se, and so the person is able to follow physical impulses as they come up through Ni telling them unconsciously.

    It's kind of hard to think of N as an unconscious function, since it is a function that depends on perceiving through the unconscious. I would say it's unconscious insofar that it's a random thinking process. Ne has a habit of blurting out a random insight, playing with it for a little while, and then forgetting it. Much in this same way, Se has a habit of being the sensationalist -- interested in breadth of physical experiences. By contrast, Ni will savor insights and visions and will play them out in their minds. Si will savor a depth of experience.

    I think that actual comprehension of intuitions and sensations or of the environment, in general, has more to do with a judgment function, whose purpose is to bring meaning and usefulness of the intuitions and sensations. I think that introverted judgment functions are more interested in meaning of perceptions; Ti is more interested in the systematic meaning while Fi is more interested in the humanistic meaning. Likewise, extroverted judgment is more interested in usefulness; Te is more interested in systematic usefulness while Fe is more interested in humanistic usefulness.

  2. #42
    Senor Membrane Array
    Join Date
    May 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    Do you think of the individual functions as operating in isolation to each other? I don't perceive the clear boundaries this suggests. The actual experience of cognition to me is more like a synthesis of many functions at one time with certain ones being given more weight. How do you experience one function without it being intermingled with the others?
    No, I can't, but I can see how the other functions mix. I know when I feel more and think less. I don't see intuition there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    It's kind of hard to think of N as an unconscious function, since it is a function that depends on perceiving through the unconscious. I would say it's unconscious insofar that it's a random thinking process.
    Random? Interesting... Is it really random? When you have that "aha" feeling, after you have though about something really hard but at last have forgotten about it, is it not intuition? In that case the random would have to mean something like your unconscious is picking connections randomly and then your conscious sees that there's the real connection, and aha. That would be oriented in direction of your previous thoughts, even if it is random. There wouldn't be much point having it totally random, would there?

  3. #43
    Senior Member Array Ilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008


    I think sometimes random actual means the pattern is just to complicated for us to figure out.

    Another thing in Ni thinking (maybe Ne as well) is that some of the inbetween steps are not concious or happen to quickly for us to be aware of them.

    It would look some thing like:
    A makes me think of [B which makes me think of C which makes me think of D which makes me think of E which makes me think of ] F. The part in brackets is not part of the conscious thought process. It comes out as: A makes me think of F. Since A and F don't seem to have any connection, my thoughts may seem random.


  4. #44
    .~ *aĉa virino* ~. Array Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    549 sx/sp
    LII Ni


    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Okay. Personally, I don't understand how classifying babies as T or F really helps you understand what babies do any more than you already do.
    That's probably true. Babies have basic needs. "Knowing type" if you could even figure it out really doesn't change how you need to approach them... or at least does not help you any more than noting broad behavioral characteristics does ("My baby doesn't seem to be very anxious and will be okay if I run downstairs to check the wash" or "My baby screams as soon as I put her down").

    I don't even think of babies as having personalities. Parents like to project personalities onto their kids "oh, he's so patient" or "he's so grumpy" but I think it's a load of ass. Look at the questions used to split Ts and Fs.
    True to some degree -- a lot of projection DOES occur -- but babies also do show general character traits that later are able to be differentiated further into type designations. It's just that it takes awhile to observe the behavior and see how a child does and does not behavior, consistently.

    And of course children have trouble articulating their inner processes, so for a long time any introverted functions are hard to determine except indirectly (i.e., how they impact the extroverted functions).

    Having your own kids also helps give you more perspective on it. There's distinct differences between children.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #45


    Quote Originally Posted by nolla View Post
    So instinct is NOT a part of the same structure as the functions of MBTI? I am sure that whatever functions the human mind has, they need to start from animal instincts.
    Sure it is. It's sensing.
    "There can be no understanding between the hands and the head unless the heart acts as mediator." (Metropolis, 1927)

Similar Threads

  1. Doubting one's MBTI Type
    By natashka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-22-2010, 09:17 AM
  2. [INFP] INFP - Do you find yourself, Doubting Yourself?
    By ComplexMind in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-02-2010, 11:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts