User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 144

  1. #71
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    INJs, by virtue of being in the Ni, will do a poopload more processing than falls strictly under the MBTI heading of "thinking". Thus I am for example relatively content to have my type be labelled the least rational of the rationals, because I, erm, intuit that intuition has some mighty fine chops. Ni synthesizes imperative sureties at a level others barely even know exists. Booyah, thinkers. In your face!

    Hey, does that mean INFJs are the least idealising of the Idealists?

  2. #72
    Revelation Lauren Ashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    3,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I, erm, intuit that intuition has some mighty fine chops. Ni synthesizes imperative sureties at a level others barely even know exists.
    ...I agree

    Hey, does that mean INFJs are the least idealising of the Idealists?
    No, I don't think it works the same way for INFJs. Because the Ni is largely what makes them idealistic. So they are arguably the most idealistic.

  3. #73
    Senior Member Llewellyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INtj
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Ashley View Post
    According to MBTT, INTP has Ti as their dominant function, where an INTJ has Ni. So an INTP would "think" more.
    According to some descriptions INTJs are in their head more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Ashley View Post
    ...Just noticed that you're European. Were you referring to "she" as in actual people, or "she" as in "theoretical INFJ/P female?"
    I thought I'd use she as general, indeed, but the reason so because the one INFP I know is female.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Ashley View Post
    Okay. So then why would Jung be INTJ over INTP, if Ti is the "thinking" function (not that I believe him to be INTP, but just curious)?
    Because he behaves like ISTJs I know (e.g. my father); this type of modesty, and 'good cause', a.o. And that points to INTJ.
    INtj | 9w1

  4. #74
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    INJs, by virtue of being in the Ni, will do a poopload more processing than falls strictly under the MBTI heading of "thinking". Thus I am for example relatively content to have my type be labelled the least rational of the rationals, because I, erm, intuit that intuition has some mighty fine chops. Ni synthesizes imperative sureties at a level others barely even know exists. Booyah, thinkers. In your face!

    Hey, does that mean INFJs are the least idealising of the Idealists?
    Depends on what you mean by idealizing. We could be considered the most idealistic in terms of having created a vision of how we want things to be that we're holding everything up to.

    But if you mean in terms of idealism about human behavior or an absolute sense of right and wrong, then we probably are the least idealistic. Remember, we're the most suspicious NFs, according to what I've read. The others are more trusting/naive.

    So we're idealistic about the good our visions will do when reached, and not so idealistic about values in and of themselves. At an extreme, it might manifest as us abusing or ignoring morality/emotion for the sake of our visions... we could take the attitude that the end justifies the means, though we'd have to be pretty unhealthy to do that. Normally we bend it a little to make it fit, but we won't go too far.

  5. #75
    Senior Member Llewellyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INtj
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    INJs, by virtue of being in the Ni, will do a poopload more processing than falls strictly under the MBTI heading of "thinking". Thus I am for example relatively content to have my type be labelled the least rational of the rationals, because I, erm, intuit that intuition has some mighty fine chops. Ni synthesizes imperative sureties at a level others barely even know exists. Booyah, thinkers. In your face!
    And this processing might require a lof of thinking (Te) of Fe-ing, to get it anywhere. And also the Ni sureties may be sureties, but still have to be evaluated by a rationalizing function (F or T).
    INtj | 9w1

  6. #76
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llewellyn View Post
    And this processing might require a lof of thinking (Te) of Fe-ing, to get it anywhere. And also the Ni sureties may be sureties, but still have to be evaluated by a rationalizing function (F or T).
    Here's the rub: it doesn't seem consciously like all that often the auxiliary can ever veto an Ni product. It seems like consciously the auxiliary is there just to sigh and backtrack to found or express or build a case for whatever thing Ni came up with. Ni products are sureties, after all. I assume this lack of veto power is true because unconsciously the auxiliary was in on the job all along, focusing, regulating, shaping, even though the real Ah Ha moment was mostly intuition. Or that's what it feels like, and intuition rightly hogs the limelight. So, at least in INTJ, it's not really about evaluating so much as finding ways to make other people believe it too.

    (Coincidentally, to be self-serving for a moment, the above means faulting an INTJ on his logic doesn't always, or perhaps directly ever, make a discussion go better. Intuition pumping is the real key. Or at least a key the INTJ will like better. Way to claim being bullet proof.)

    And in a heroic turning of the tide back to the topic: does Jung sound like he worked that way?


    (I have no idea. I joined the discussion when I saw the INFJs getting pissy about being thinkers.)

  7. #77
    Revelation Lauren Ashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    3,067

    Default

    ^+1 (except for the last sentence...hush panda!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Llewellyn View Post
    According to some descriptions INTJs are in their head more.
    Where are these descriptions? "In your head," doesn't have to mean "thinking" in the MBTI sense, btw.

    I thought I'd use she as general, indeed, but the reason so because the one INFP I know is female.
    Okay...so what I said previously: one individual does not speak for an entire type.

    Because he behaves like ISTJs I know (e.g. my father); this type of modesty, and 'good cause', a.o. And that points to INTJ.
    So your whole point about "thinking," that really has little to do with why you've typed Jung as INTJ? It's really because he reminds you of ISTJs? Well can't argue with that...moving right along

  8. #78
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    thinking is not just processing.

    perceiving = processing
    judging = processing

    perceiving arranges information. we focus on integrating information into a picture, a vision, a series of ideas.
    judging weighs information. it sorts and classifies, attempting to know the value of information and the relationships between specific things.

    i say jung was an infj. he has that big hanger grin, pulls you in with Fe. Ni dom bc the world is inside of his mind, so symbolic and representational. i see more Ti than Te, and he seems to want to connect in that infj with others, ideas, the world, etc.

    kalach, i don't think we injs (or any type) are as completely one way street as you seem to think. in my experience Fe or Te can overrule Ni or take the reins at times (and in a healthy way), Ni just has to get better at letting go and accepting not-knowing. Ni has a great understanding of the past but predict as it might, the future isn't yet written. and i think we over-rely on our first function bc we are afraid of letting these things clash and accepting a new way of viewing ourselves.

  9. #79
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    kalach, i don't think we injs (or any type) are as completely one way street as you seem to think. in my experience Fe or Te can overrule Ni or take the reins at times (and in a healthy way), Ni just has to get better at letting go and accepting not-knowing. Ni has a great understanding of the past but predict as it might, the future isn't yet written. and i think we over-rely on our first function bc we are afraid of letting these things clash and accepting a new way of viewing ourselves.
    No, I agree, it can't possibly be a one-way street. Ni has to have some judgment Xe, I think more or less constantly measuring outside information into the mix. The intuition has to be pumped or it isn't intuition.

    I am however very fond of stoically standing by such simple claims as "I am always right" or "I know everything." And people can list the number of times I've been wrong or ask me things I don't know, and it'll make no difference because trusting my intuition is the bedrock of my personality.

    I actually can't think of a better way than that of expressing how I approach being Ni dominant. A sentence like "I am always right" is the Te shortcut (in fact falsehood) to the truism claim that I trust my intuition more that I'll trust anything else. In fact I'm--*grits teeth*--not always right, but you'll never catch me suggesting, say, that true knowledge is impossible or that it's better to err on the side of doubt. Those and all similar claims amount to refusing trust in intuition, most particularly intuition focused inside.

    Yeah, almost everything I said just now is logically ludicrous. But there's a deep, dark layer of Ni under all those words where it's all true.



    *spirit fingers*

  10. #80
    Senior Member Llewellyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INtj
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    Ni has a great understanding of the past but predict as it might, the future isn't yet written. and i think we over-rely on our first function bc we are afraid of letting these things clash and accepting a new way of viewing ourselves.
    I think this is really a great sentence.
    INtj | 9w1

Similar Threads

  1. What MBTI type was Carl Jung
    By five in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 455
    Last Post: 04-13-2017, 12:51 AM
  2. Carl Jung 'Proves' Existence Of An Auxiliary Function
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-07-2013, 12:08 PM
  3. CARL JUNG, NEO-GNOSTICISM, & THE MBTI
    By marm in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 06:22 AM
  4. [NT] Defining Moments in the making of an NT.
    By ladypinkington in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 07-15-2012, 06:42 PM
  5. [NT] What Compels An NT to Cheat?
    By LadyJaye in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-23-2007, 01:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO