[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Why are IJs Pi-dom and IPs Ji-dom?

[Thalassa]

I wonder if this can lead to a misunderstanding of Ni and Si, since it is interpreted in light of the extroverted function. Perhaps the strongly introverted Ni or Si doms have a more laid-back, open-ended way of approaching life that is more akin to their Ne and Se-dom cousins?

I know that is how I am which causes a lot of misunderstandings with the "j" because people look at that and expect a "type A" personality.

Yeah someone who heavily relies on say, Si/Fi or Ni/Ti, is going to seem like a more accepting and quiet and introverted ISTJ or INFJ. Of course introverted loops aren't considered optimum, though, not to live that way full time; just like an ESFJ constantly living in Fe/Ne would be so extraverted that nearly everyone around them would want to bind them, gag them, and force them to meditate for a week so they could get in touch with their introversion and leave everyone else the hell alone.

I think SJs are more what people think of as Js, and actually TJs, too. INFJ is least J...J, I think. Because the J-ness would be so Fe based and lack Si, that the structure they require would be more abstract or institutional or social rather than tangible physical order, necessarily.

Fi and Ti types also have a stubborn rigidity that some people associate with "J." I have no idea why, though. If J to most people means Type A or external order and planning/schedules, I'm not sure why having rigid intellectual or moral systems internally would seem "J." Just because you're a P doesn't mean you're a blob who utterly lacks a sense of self.

 

[Society]

eh. I personally would rather see J/P stereotypes to their death. the categories mentioned above are actually useful, but the characterizations of J and P are so simplistic and just perpetuate ignorance, imo.

could be ignorant of me, but i think there is truth in them:

Je functions manifest as mapmaking mechanisms for ramifications - strategically (Te) or sociologically (Fe). in order to build those maps, they seek the most coherent, focused & clear cut information structures they can have, so that the map doesn't get overwhelmed beyond usefulness. internally, this means paying attention to the most coherent information structure - your Pi. but the same mental search for coherence seems to work externally too - a need for focused points of order which deliver coherent information. this can be information about what happens when, or where everything goes, or at the least delaying the information overload by putting it out of sight.

Ji functions manifest as exploration mechanisms - emotionally (Fi) or intellectually (Ti). in order to function, they need information to explore, so they seek out maximum stimuli. being overwhelmed is ok, being underwhelmed - not so much. so internally it pays attention to the most stimulating information structure they have in their minds Pe. externally, this means satisfying one's need for input comes first, while the need for organized data structures isn't really there - too many data points isn't being overwhelmed, its just more food for later.

most of the ignorance stems from the assumption that if a mind seeks order/stimuli, the person it belongs to is going to be good at getting it.

 

[mintleaf]

could be ignorant of me, but i think there is truth in them:

Je functions manifest as mapmaking mechanisms for ramifications - strategically (Te) or sociologically (Fe). in order to build those maps, they seek the most coherent, focused & clear cut information structures they can have, so that the map doesn't get overwhelmed beyond usefulness. internally, this means paying attention to the most coherent information structure - your Pi. but the same mental search for coherence seems to work externally too - a need for focused points of order which deliver coherent information. this can be information about what happens when, or where everything goes, or at the least delaying the information overload by putting it out of sight.

Ji functions manifest as exploration mechanisms - emotionally (Fi) or intellectually (Ti). in order to function, they need information to explore, so they seek out maximum stimuli. being overwhelmed is ok, being underwhelmed - not so much. so internally it pays attention to the most stimulating information structure they have in their minds Pe. externally, this means satisfying one's need for input comes first, while the need for organized data structures isn't really there - too many data points isn't being overwhelmed, its just more food for later.

most of the ignorance stems from the assumption that if a mind seeks order/stimuli, the person it belongs to is going to be good at getting it.

this is a great response, but it just exacerbates my uncertainty over my type. I feel like I'm equally interested in order and stimuli; though maybe for me, opportunities to turn chaos into order are a form of stimuli. I love exploration, but I usually need a goal in sight, even if that goal is as broad as discovering the bigger goal. Does that point more to Ji-dom or Je-aux (trying to decide between INFP and INFJ), or not necessarily either?

how does the bolded differ from Pi?

I know I'm derailing my own thread, but my initial question has already been answered at least seven times, so I might as well

 

[Society]

how does the bolded differ from Pi?

this is leading into a conversation loop - i would normally say that it means fun and games and doing what you enjoy doing comes before organizing, and you could say that to some extent organizing is what you enjoy doing.

J/P conversations are riddled with those btw: for another example, many J's view themselves as disorganized relatively to how they would like to be & thus questioning whether they are Ps, while in effect Ps don't tend to carry the ideal of wanting to be more organized in the first place.

also this:

though maybe for me, opportunities to turn chaos into order are a form of stimuli.

Ji dom's generally don't feel the need to turn chaos into order in the first place, they have their internal contextual order and chaos can either wait in the corner to be consumed later on, or it go suck it.

take a step back, and ask yourself what happens when you plunge into chaos over long periods of time - without the control over your environment to change it. would you feel like you lose cohesiveness - like the disorganization on the outside is leaving you disorganized on the inside - or would you not really give a damn?

as for INFP/INFJ, the above hints at J, but i really don't know you well enough to make much of an assessment.

 

[mintleaf]

Ji dom's generally don't feel the need to turn chaos into order in the first place, they have their internal contextual order and chaos can either wait in the corner to be consumed later on, or it go suck it.

When it comes to more concrete, less fluid aspects of life, I usually want organization as precise as humanly possible. Ideally, anyway. Especially when it comes to instructions, theories, etc. I'd be an insanely perfectionistic curriculum specialist. I want to explain things as effectively as possible, even if it's not a strength of mine. When it comes to my personal life and my most inward life, though, I've given up precision and organization. The nuance in those contexts is too important to stifle with attempts at concretion. I've known many ExxJs who can't fathom this concept and insist on the simplest and most obvious answers to the most complex questions. I just can't imagine having such a definite self-concept or translatable mental process.

(I feel like that paragraph sounds really pretentious, but I'm too tired to tell. ugh.)

take a step back, and ask yourself what happens when you plunge into chaos over long periods of time - without the control over your environment to change it. would you feel like you lose cohesiveness - like the disorganization on the outside is leaving you disorganized on the inside - or would you not really give a damn?

I prefer an organized environment. Out of all of the stereotypical J traits, this is probably the only one I strongly identify with.

this is leading into a conversation loop

? I don't remember this being answered anywhere else in the thread.

 

[Society]

? I don't remember this being answered anywhere else in the thread.

my bad - i meant "this has the potential to lead into conversation loop".

(I feel like that paragraph sounds really pretentious, but I'm too tired to tell. ugh.)

meh, pretentious is as good as it is justified, chilex.

When it comes to more concrete, less fluid aspects of life, I usually want organization as precise as humanly possible. Ideally, anyway. Especially when it comes to instructions, theories, etc.

sounds like tertiary Ti - it is seeking well defined internal consistency in theoretical frameworks but doesn't create it on it's own.

When it comes to my personal life and my most inward life, though, I've given up precision and organization.

see, giving up on something displays that you still have the need for it but your life wasn't able to provide - it's like the difference between someone who doesn't care for bacon and someone going on a cholesterol-free diet. like i said earlier, just because someone has a need for information stimuli/cohesiveness doesn't mean they are good at getting it (or that their life enables it), and SJs are usually better at it then NJs because SJs are more competent at maintaining lasting habits. for that matter, there are probably plenty of Js throughout history living in nomadic hunter gatherer societies. you think they had an easy time?

that's being said, most INFJs i've known - including both RL the ones i noticed around here - like well defined and conclusive understanding of where they stand sociologically, to understand what is expected of them and to understand where they stand in their relationships with other people. is that a need you identify with?

 

[mintleaf]

see, giving up on something displays that you still have the need for it but your life wasn't able to provide - it's like the difference between someone who doesn't care for bacon and someone going on a cholesterol-free diet. like i said earlier, just because someone has a need for information stimuli/cohesiveness doesn't mean they are good at getting it (or that their life enables it), and SJs are usually better at it then NJs because SJs are more competent at maintaining lasting habits. for that matter, there are probably plenty of Js throughout history living in nomadic hunter gatherer societies. you think they had an easy time?

that's being said, most INFJs i've known - including both RL the ones i noticed around here - like well defined and conclusive understanding of where they stand sociologically, to understand what is expected of them and to understand where they stand in their relationships with other people. is that a need you identify with?

"giving up" was a misleading choice of words. I don't feel a need for it, at least in my inner life. (probably less true than I initially thought when it comes to my personal life.) I don't think it's either possible or ideal.

as for the last question -- I don't know. I hate not knowing how others feel about me, but I recognize that relationships aren't static, so I'll never feel as though I'm playing a permanent role. So, yes, ideally I'd always know my place, but a part of me honestly embraces the unknowable and ill-defined.

I'm leaning towards INFJ because I think Ni and Ti better fit me. Sensing in general doesn't fit me well, so I have no idea whether Si or Se is more likely; I've considered myself an Fi-dom for a long time because I'm so concerned with forming values independently of others, and I'm much more likely to confidently speak my mind than other FJs I know. Could be the 1 wing, I guess.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

[MENTION=17424]decrescendo[/MENTION]
These are just some thoughts I have about this thread regarding the internal vs. external structuring and so forth.

I am seen as externally organized, but as I've been thinking about it, I realize that the way I structure is the same in both contexts. One way to describe it is that it is fractal in nature. I have seen a number of INFJs use fractal images to represent their inner world. This has to do with looking at core concepts and connecting details to these. Both the internal and external worlds are organized with the premise of optimal efficiency and adaptability, so that details can be obtained or applied with the least effort and the most accuracy.

My home is not organized in such a way that would be hospitable to guests , but my feelings about the "stuff" is that if one cannot find something, why own it? If there is room, I don't throw stuff away, but I have organized all of my husbands things using plastic stacks of drawers with labels on them. Each drawer is a mess inside, but there is one for USB cables, one for audio cables, etc. There is always clutter and floors are cleaned once, maybe twice a year. I never organize anything for the sake of organizing, but in a pragmatic way.

Internally there is a second approach to organizing ideas that I have also observed in others who identify as INFJ, but is definitely my internal framework. I construct poles of concepts that are mutually exclusive. On each extreme of the continuum is a theoretical endpoint of purely distilled concept. Any data point I encounter I place on this continuum in a continually fluid manner. With hundreds of these continuums, more complex concepts are applied with multiple sliding data points. Because of this I rarely come to a place of certainty and absolute conclusion. When it comes to understanding other people, there is a continually revising hypothesis, and sometimes multiple hypotheses if there is too much conflicting information. I even feel this way about my mother, my husband, etc. I never presume to know another absolutely, but connecting to someone is akin to watching a river flow. there have been a couple of times I have debated with other INFJs where I have noticed that they too construct these continuums, but take the two extreme endpoints and attempt to join the two concepts as one. There may be a tendency for some to see the extreme points as not theoretical as I do, but as the points of absolute truth or something? I hope this doesn't all sound too far out, and of course it is possible that it is just incorrect, but it is something I have worked on making sense of for quite some time.

I also find that in conflict resolution there is a difference between INFP and INFJ in that the INFP will tend to explore all the complexities and express a complete sense of their perceptions. This can make discussions extremely complex and can either lead to resolution or complete confusion and alienation. I find generally in myself and other INFJs (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is a tendency to approach conflict resolution with optimal efficiency. I try to focus on humor, gifts, compliments, etc to first simplify the relationship and give reassurances. I think in the same way that INTJs value external efficiency in systems, INFJs could value emotional efficiency between people.

 

[mintleaf]

[MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]

I appreciate your taking the time to differentiate between INFPs and INFJs. I still don't relate to one more than the other. Deciding on my type honestly doesn't matter too much to me, but I'm curious how well you relate to the following:

“I am conscious of myself and become myself only while revealing myself for another, through another, and with the help of another. The most important acts constituting self-consciousness are determined by a relationship toward another consciousness. The very being of man (both external and internal) is the deepest communion. To be means to communicate; to be means to be for another, and through the other, for oneself. A person has no internal sovereign territory, he is wholly and always on the boundary: looking inside himself, he looks into the eyes of another. I cannot manage without another. I cannot become myself without another. I must find myself in another by finding another in myself (in mutual reflection and mutual acceptance).”
— Mikhail Bakhtin

(although I'm not sure if the above has anything to do with Fi-Ne or Ni-Fe, or if it's more related to sx-dominance)

Introverted Intuition (Ni) focuses on what is inexpressible--the incommensurable and chaotic things that exist outside of any conceptual framework. For example, what do you hear in the theme-and-variations movement of Beethoven's String Quartet Op. 131? There is a meaning there, but you can't put it into words. Any attempt to put it into words will result in only a tawdry parody of the reality. Better to remain silent. As an epistemological perspective, Ni leads you to view all signs as meaningless or even deceptive, not necessarily connected to what they're supposed to represent. The true reality is something that exists beyond all signs and appearances, and can only be apprehended by a kind of direct intuition. To learn truth, one must learn to see through appearances--to make contact with a reality that cannot be seen or said. As an ethical perspective, Ni leads you to hold yourself apart from and unaffected by the meanings that others attach to words and events--to keep your own vision pure and pursue your own path regardless of evidence, reasons, or the opinions of others.

If this is an accurate portrayal of Ni, then I'm definitely an Ni-dom. But it seems as though I've heard INFPs describe their mental processes similarly...?

 

[Society]

[MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]If this is an accurate portrayal of Ni, then I'm definitely an Ni-dom. But it seems as though I've heard INFPs describe their mental processes similarly...?

again just my 2 cents, but the Lenore Thomson descriptions are somewhat still in the line of high in the sky near-mysticism, and much like the notion that Ne takes in all the possibilities and create new things out of nothing, it is... for the most part... flattery BS that feeds into the Ni & Ne ego needs - the first being the need for clear cut certainty in one's understandings, the later being the need for faith in one's ideas and their revolutionary nature - where in truth if you want to make a pie from scratch you pretty much need to create the universe, and the same goes for both understanding & ideas. it isn't a description of a cognitive process, it's a self-help styled sales pitch taking something real and promising you it's a sign of hidden superpowers (not quite at the level of "the secret" but damn close).

attempting to cut through the crap, the actual distinction i've noticed between Ne and Ni is a lot more down to earth:


Ne is a essentially a cognitive-DNA splicer, patterns get connected to one another like the edges of a growing spider web, and that creates the effect of a mixer that breeds incoming patterns with an existing collection of patterns and makes them into something new, moving onwards from the object it took it from and leading elsewhere. it can appear random, but it's not really. unfortunately, Ne doms have a severe lack in the Se which would enable them to trace the concrete sources from which the patterns come form, giving them the false pretense that it's their great original work.
for a clear cut example, Ne can look at a casual italian supper, and see this:

Ni is a framing tool, it takes incoming patterns, examines overlapping patterns within patterns and carefully places them in the right direction to gauge a sense of meaning & trajectories, all while being focused on the multi-layered patterns from the incoming object. much like Ne it can appear to be coming of nowhere, it's not really. unfortunately, Ni doms have a severe lack in Si which would enable them to notice the contrast between the "ahah" moment of feeling certain and all the times they were wrong, giving them a false pretense that their observations are beyond doubt.
for a clear cut example, Ni can look at a supper between friends, and see this:

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

[MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]

I appreciate your taking the time to differentiate between INFPs and INFJs. I still don't relate to one more than the other. Deciding on my type honestly doesn't matter too much to me, but I'm curious how well you relate to the following:
(although I'm not sure if the above has anything to do with Fi-Ne or Ni-Fe, or if it's more related to sx-dominance)

I do relate to that quote, but I am also a sx-dom. There is an interesting tension in the INFJ type because there is a need for autonomy and connection. There is a need for a great deal of time to introvert to make sense of the Ni-Ti aspect, and yet without some connection there is absolutely a feeling of non-existence. Existential isolation is one of the dominant driving forces in my life and is the reason I am in the arts, because when I create a work that someone else connects with, I feel there is something not isolated.

If this is an accurate portrayal of Ni, then I'm definitely an Ni-dom. But it seems as though I've heard INFPs describe their mental processes similarly...?

That is one aspect of my experience, and I have always spent large amounts of time in nature, obtaining an inexplicable sense of the eternal. I am comfortable thinking without language, which is why I have always been mystified by those who say that thought is dependent on language because in my experience it is clearly not.

I work harder than some Ni-dom to create a structured sense of reality because my Ti is rather strong. I have spent a couple of decades living and working with Ti-doms, and especially because of empathy, this has influenced me a great deal. I feel a great deal of tension and frustration with language which is at odds with my INTP partner who has a high level of giftedness with language and relies on it to construct complex logical structures of ideas. When we resolve conflicts he sometimes analyzes our comparative semantic spaces, which I am infinitely charmed and fascinated by, and so it seems to work. It is interesting that many INFJ descriptions also talk about their use of metaphor, along with this description of rejecting the symbolic. I'll have to think about that for a while. I do reject archetypes, and there is a difference with my INFP sister who creates symbols and projections based on powerful experience (Fi-Si). I feel I often begin with a blank slate in many instances moreso than some people.

Edit: What could distinguish this transcending of language of both Fi and Ni could be the nature of what is inexplicable. Would Fi have an inexplicable sense of deep perception of the intensely personal, while Ni has an inexplicable sense of the nature of reality, a glimpse into eternity, a glimpse outside of self to the boundless and cohesiveness of reality?

 

[mintleaf]

it isn't a description of a cognitive process, it's a self-help styled sales pitch taking something real and promising you it's a sign of hidden superpowers (not quite at the level of "the secret" but damn close).

I don't know your opinion of Jung's Ni description, but from what I remember, the two seem pretty similar. I don't see how Thompson's description of Ni makes it sound like a superpower.

 

[mintleaf]

I do relate to that quote, but I am also a sx-dom. There is an interesting tension in the INFJ type because there is a need for autonomy and connection. There is a need for a great deal of time to introvert to make sense of the Ni-Ti aspect, and yet without some connection there is absolutely a feeling of non-existence. Existential isolation is one of the dominant driving forces in my life and is the reason I am in the arts, because when I create a work that someone else connects with, I feel there is something not isolated.

I tend to be extremely private about my interests in art, music, poetry, etc. because I'm hyper-aware of the fact that no one will perceive it exactly as I do, especially those with a stronger attachment to archetype and symbolism (which only stifle the scope of perception). I'm obsessed with the ideas of nuance and immediacy, and I'm always terrified that what I feel the most connection with will seem melodramatic or highfalutin to others. It's such a relief when I meet someone who doesn't see that, who's able to side-step around the most obvious "messages" of a work and really get to the heart of it. Even if his perception is completely unique to him, that deeply personal/subjective approach itself makes me feel less alone. Does that make any sense to you?

That is one aspect of my experience, and I have always spent large amounts of time in nature, obtaining an inexplicable sense of the eternal. I am comfortable thinking without language, which is why I have always been mystified by those who say that thought is dependent on language because in my experience it is clearly not.

I work harder than some Ni-dom to create a structured sense of reality because my Ti is rather strong. I have spent a couple of decades living and working with Ti-doms, and especially because of empathy, this has influenced me a great deal. I feel a great deal of tension and frustration with language which is at odds with my INTP partner who has a high level of giftedness with language and relies on it to construct complex logical structures of ideas. When we resolve conflicts he sometimes analyzes our comparative semantic spaces, which I am infinitely charmed and fascinated by, and so it seems to work. It is interesting that many INFJ descriptions also talk about their use of metaphor, along with this description of rejecting the symbolic. I'll have to think about that for a while. I do reject archetypes, and there is a difference with my INFP sister who creates symbols and projections based on powerful experience (Fi-Si). I feel I often begin with a blank slate in many instances moreso than some people.

I don't know if I've ever actually encountered another person who thought this way. ♥ you might find this article interesting.

about INFPs and symbols -- I've noticed this too. regardless of whether I am one, I've always felt this deep-seated disconnection from many INFPs and I think it might be related to what you've touched on.

yeah, both of the Ti-doms I know are gifted writers, it seems to come so naturally to them...whereas I have to spend an hour on a paragraph just to make it vaguely cohesive.

Edit: What could distinguish this transcending of language of both Fi and Ni could be the nature of what is inexplicable. Would Fi have an inexplicable sense of deep perception of the intensely personal, while Ni has an inexplicable sense of the nature of reality, a glimpse into eternity, a glimpse outside of self to the boundless and cohesiveness of reality?

I've been wondering about that, too, and I think you might be onto something.

 

[INTP]

J types have their first J function in extraverted attitude.

also it helps to see the similarity between for example the two NTP types, if INTP would be INTJ, that would just cause problems because now INTJ and ENTP would be more similar with each others than ENTP and INTP.. but like i mentioned, its the direction of the first J function that makes the big difference in the types judging tendencies, not whether the J function is dom or aux

 

[Society]

I don't know your opinion of Jung's Ni description, but from what I remember, the two seem pretty similar. I don't see how Thompson's description of Ni makes it sound like a superpower.

have you read his crap? Jung was a mystic, and while IMO he was onto something, he was actually on to a rather natural organic mechanisms, emergent aspects of what happens when you have a species whose brain is specialized in pattern recognition, and didn't have the mental vocabulary to explain it without it.

edit: though i guess i am derailing the thread.

 

[mintleaf]

have you read his crap? Jung was a mystic, and while IMO he was onto something, he was actually on to a rather natural organic mechanisms, emergent aspects of what happens when you have a species whose brain is specialized in pattern recognition, and didn't have the mental vocabulary to explain it without it.

edit: though i guess i am derailing the thread.

I've only read a small part of Psychological Types and random excerpts from other works, so no, I'm not very familiar with Jung's crap. I do remember being somewhat put off by the flowery language -- but tone it down a little, and the descriptions would seem to me to be pretty good. I think they're valuable as long as the reader remembers that he is describing natural organic mechanisms. I guess I assumed when I read them that the mystic language was just part of his writing style, and not reflective of how he viewed the connection between personality + neuroscience. Did he really not acknowledge its existence? (I guess I wouldn't be surprised, since I did read the first few chapters of The Book of Job.)

the thread has already been derailed several times. it's in the wrong part of the forum, anyway, so people might as well keep veering off topic. it was borne of disorder, it will continue in disorder.

 

[Society]

I've only read a small part of Psychological Types and random excerpts from other works, so no, I'm not very familiar with Jung's crap. I do remember being somewhat put off by the flowery language -- but tone it down a little, and the descriptions would seem to me to be pretty good. I think they're valuable as long as the reader remembers that he is describing natural organic mechanisms. I guess I assumed when I read them that the mystic language was just part of his writing style, and not reflective of how he viewed the connection between personality + neuroscience. Did he really not acknowledge its existence? (I guess I wouldn't be surprised, since I did read the first few chapters of The Book of Job.)

the thread has already been derailed several times. it's in the wrong part of the forum, anyway, so people might as well keep veering off topic. it was borne of disorder, it will continue in disorder.

that's the spirit!

as for jung, i've being told by an ancient [MENTION=6071]Oakysage[/MENTION] that apparently he believed he got his insight through divination - by speaking to ghosts. i am not sure the source thought. either way, i wouldn't dismiss it based on that - he did examine a lot of patients on his path there, and it seems entirely natural to me that some Ni users will use mysticism as a crutch to rationalize their insight.

 

[mintleaf]

that's the spirit!

as for jung, i've being told by an ancient [MENTION=6071]Oakysage[/MENTION] that apparently he believed he got his insight through divination - by speaking to ghosts. i am not sure the source thought. either way, i wouldn't dismiss it based on that - he did examine a lot of patients on his path there, and it seems entirely natural to me that some Ni users will use mysticism as a crutch to rationalize their insight.

oh, wow. I wonder if he ever actually wrote about that.

My dad seems to be an INFJ, and he's pretty adamant (though private, because he knows how it comes across) about his belief that God can lead people in certain directions, and that a person can know -- if they're clear-headed enough? -- when it's God talking to them and not their own instincts/desires. I think it's a pretty flawed idea and I wish he would examine it more closely.

I do identify with some of the negative aspects of Ni you've mentioned. And I've realized that, while I see myself more as an FP, I definitely come across (at least irl) as an FJ. So the answers to my initial question do make sense, and I guess INFJ is most probable.