• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Introverted Intuition not Introverted thinking the primary\dominant function of INTPs

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
you see dat dere does not make any sense, you first say Myers extrapolated her own system from some of Jung's ideas then you say her ideas PREDATED jungs published work? how is that possible?

Everything's right there in that paragraph:

  • She had her own ideas first. (1917)
  • Later, Jung published his (1921) and she saw them after 1923 or so.
  • She realized the similarity between his and her ideas and basically made a mix of the two.

Make sense ?

.. and, honestly, this stuff happens all the time in the world of ideas.

sorry, but Isable Myers is a nobody who owes her fame to Jungs works, you can't compare the two that just retarded.

You're allowed to have an opinion, I suppose, regardless of how purposefully (mis)informed it might be.

case in what point, you haven't proven anything.

Sorry, but the speed of light is a nobody who owes its fame to the power of chocolate, you can't compare the two that just <well, you know!>.

Nanook said:
however i just don't believe that briggs had any ideas at all, that are similar to cognitive functions, before jung. i bet all she had were observations of skills and behavior.

quite probable, based on the quote you have repeated from my post above plus the part that you did not quote:

Upon meeting her future son-in-law, she observed marked differences between his personality and that of other family members. Briggs embarked on a project of reading biographies, and she developed a typology based on patterns she found.

Looks to me like she took an external behavioral approach (outside in), not a theoretical (inside-out) approach. She then realized that the cog functions meshed decently with her observations.
 

ObliviousExistence

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
178
MBTI Type
loco
Enneagram
5W4
No, I never once said that. I gave you a simple and self-depreciating analogy to explain why some systems survive better than others, hoping you would derive the obvious conclusion- that they do so because they work better than the alternatives. Clearly, I expected too much of you.

your analogy was not applicable to the current situation. you can't compare a testable system to a pseudo-science theory, in psychology a theory only needs to be widely accepted as true for it to become mainstream, hence based on subjectivity and not objectivitity.



It's all relative, subjective and depends on the context. I wouldn't be quick to judge.
its actually not, how can you compare a giant like Jung to a nobody like Myers?? do you even know the extent of Jungs work? I doubt it.



You cannot put a numerical value to a non-constant, and even if you could- you're missing the point entirely. In case you need me to spell it out for you, the statement that the joke is referencing DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
Why was it a "non-constant"??

Please explain why that statement does not make any sense?
 
Last edited:

visaisahero

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
557
MBTI Type
ENTP
its just not the truth. it's not that Ti folks are called INTP, its that INTP are accused of Ti. Ti folks are called INTJ and they are accused of Ni. this is because the four letter code adresses archetypes. its not something you can define as you wish. you can not. perceivers and judgers existed before anyone had discovered and labeled them. its only that some are unaware of their or anyone's archetypes (because the have no perceptive skills), but possibly aware of their functions, so they identify with the false function order and fake their archetype, meaning their 4letter dichotomy results. they cant fake their cognition though. nor their behavior. nor their enneagram types. so J-dominant people will always be "Judgers" in all dimensions but that of make-believe. you can not create reality by creating a theory. you just don't realize it, because you have never met reality. as jung points out, you stop at thinking.

This is an interesting perspective and something genuinely worth discussing.

I used to think that I was an ESTP, for example, because I didn't like how much the ENTP was about being a "lawyer-type" and the ESTP just seemed cooler with better taste and flair.

I also vehemently wanted to believe that I was an S type despite being Ne-dominant since childhood, because of how the questions were phrased- "do you prefer theory or practice?"... To me theory sounded like sitting in a classroom and studying, in which case I'd much rather be out and about getting things done- but I most definitely theorize heavily along the way... that sort of thing. It was only much later until I truly realised what the N/S divide was all about, and even later that I learned what functions actually were. When I learned about Ne, and Ti... everything just clicked perfectly into place.

On to what you have said- I believe what you're trying to say is that everyone is as they are and that you can only truly derive your type through intense and accurate perception? I agree with you there. I do have a slight issue about what I have bolded in your quote- because I don't believe that theories are created from scratch or out of thin air; they're often based on reality. I don't attempt to create reality when I theorize, for example- I attempt to interpret it.

Also, is the line between thinking and reality really such an impervious fence? Personally, I think it's more of a grey area and the two do bleed into one another- reality influences thinking, and thinking influences 'reality'. The simple reason for this lies in the fact that all of 'reality' as we know it is simply what we perceive of it, and we all know that we routinely face errors of perception.

Even if the perception were perfect (which we know it cannot be), our subsequent analysis of it might be flawed. Ultimately, reality itself isn't as concrete as we would like it to be- or rather, the CONCRETE reality that you are talking about cannot truly be accessed by humanity (although you could argue that we are getting closer to it, and I would be inclined to agree).

Which brings me to my next point- if you really, really idealized an archetype, and you focused all your energy on developing the functions that you desire, is it not possible for your type to morph? I can totally imagine myself turning into an INTP in my old age.

I've just thrown out some random ideas here (all Ne, not very much Ti) so feel free to poke holes in them for the sake of discussion!
 

visaisahero

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
557
MBTI Type
ENTP
ObliviousExistence:

You are obviously not interested in anything I have to say- but I cannot fault you, as you are obviously far superior to in all realms of the human condition. I concede defeat to your overwhelming wit, intellect and grace, and bow my head in your awe-inspiring presence. Please, do not allow your greatness to be tarred by the petty banter of ignorant and insignificant minds like mine. May you have lots of vigorous sexual intercourse with multiple attractive individuals of your preference, and may the glory of your name and deeds echo across the universe.

:worthy:
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
typing biographies is almost impossible. also it will never lead you to an understanding of how the mind works, and before you have that understandig you do not have any insight (patterns) that you could apply to biographies, so all your observations about them are confirmations of your own prejudices. by prejudices i mean the external view on behavior that lacks understanding of the character of internal cause and effect. of course this external view consists of patterns too, but they are hardly related to the kind of "characteristic" cognition that typology is about and they are related to 2 million other factors. autobiographies are a different story, of course. any writing can help to gain some true theory of mind about the author of the writing. however the observation of neurotic fights or rants is the very best source of insight. and that is what carl jung observed day in day out.
 

ObliviousExistence

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
178
MBTI Type
loco
Enneagram
5W4
ObliviousExistence:

You are obviously not interested in anything I have to say- but I cannot fault you, as you are obviously far superior to in all realms of the human condition. I concede defeat to your overwhelming wit, intellect and grace, and bow my head in your awe-inspiring presence. Please, do not allow your greatness to be tarred by the petty banter of ignorant and insignificant minds like mine. May you have lots of vigorous sexual intercourse with multiple attractive individuals of your preference, and may the glory of your name and deeds echo across the universe.

:worthy:

Shalom, go in peace son. May you also be fortunate and have many bouts of vigorous sexual intercourse and deflower and conquer many beautiful women.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Nanook said:
typing biographies is almost impossible... autobiographies are a different story, of course. any writing can help to gain some true theory of mind about the author of the writing.

I agree -- out of the two, autobiographies are far more preferred... and with biographies you're getting a lot of prefiltered information/perspective (i.e., the mind of the biographer is muddying the waters).

however the observation of neurotic fights or rants is the very best source of insight. and that is what carl jung observed day in day out.

Yup, and it's better in general to observe behavior first-hand, in context. Rant/Breakdown points do reveal the stresspoints in the personality, which can be helpful.

ObliviousExistence:

You are obviously not interested in anything I have to say- but I cannot fault you, as you are obviously far superior to in all realms of the human condition. I concede defeat to your overwhelming wit, intellect and grace, and bow my head in your awe-inspiring presence. Please, do not allow your greatness to be tarred by the petty banter of ignorant and insignificant minds like mine. May you have lots of vigorous sexual intercourse with multiple attractive individuals of your preference, and may the glory of your name and deeds echo across the universe.

:worthy:

Shalom, go in peace son. May you also be fortunate and have many bouts of vigorous sexual intercourse and deflower and conquer many beautiful women.


Okay, this is a Jungian thread, not a Freudian one. :alttongue:
 

visaisahero

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
557
MBTI Type
ENTP
^personally I think the more sources the merrier! In a funny way, it's sort of like having a relationship with someone- you think you like a person, but you don't know for sure until you see them at their worst, for example
 

visaisahero

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
557
MBTI Type
ENTP
I hereby rename this thread Duke Nukem Forever; Chinese Democracy 2
 

ObliviousExistence

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
178
MBTI Type
loco
Enneagram
5W4
one last thing, to those who proclaim the validity and unshakable foundations of mbti based on the fact that it has been used for years and by thousands of people. Since when did the majority of people believing something is true make it an actuality?


Everything's right there in that paragraph:

  • She had her own ideas first. (1917)
  • Later, Jung published his (1921) and she saw them after 1923 or so.
  • She realized the similarity between his and her ideas and basically made a mix of the two.
where can I find this?

[*]She had her own ideas first. (1917)
you mean this, "She identified meditative types, spontaneous types, executive types, and sociable types", lol, please be serious.


I got this from wikipedia
Katharine Briggs read Carl Jung's book, Psychological Types and recommended it to Isabel Myers; the mother and daughter then formulated the MBTI together. Later in life, Myers collaborated with Mary McCaulley to conduct tests of her research and of the MBTI.


The other thing is that myers cognitive functions are very similar to Jungs function-types(most differentiated functions) so its obvious she took it from him. According to Jung perceiving and judging are on opposite ends of the scale, the preference for one involves the suppression of the other. Feeling and thinking and factors used for juding. Before Jung Myers understanding of types went as far as this..."She identified meditative types, spontaneous types, executive types, and sociable types", lol, you don't need to be a psychologist to figure out the existence of such basic types.

"When Katharine Briggs discovered C. G. Jung's book, Psychological Types, she reported to her daughter, 'This is it!' and proceeded to study the book intensely. Mother and daughter became avid 'type watchers' over the next twenty years.

EUREKA!


have a look at Jungs ideas on perception and judgement and tell me what you think
Jung said:
Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgement is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening.
...
refering to rational types:
The reasonableness that characterizes the conscious management of life in both these(extr. thinking & extr. feeling) types, involves a conscious exclusion of the accidental and non-rational. Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim. Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted. This limitation of sensation and intuition is, of course, not absolute. These functions exist, for they are universal; but their products are subject to the choice of the reasoning judgment. It is not the absolute strength of sensation, for instance, which turns the scales in the motivation of action, but judgment, Thus, in a certain sense, the perceiving-functions share the same fate as feeling in the case of the first type, or thinking in that of the second. They are relatively repressed, and therefore in an inferior state of differentiation. This circumstance gives a particular stamp to the unconscious [p. 455] of both our types; what such men do consciously and intentionally accords with reason (their reason of course), but what happens to them corresponds either with infantile, primitive sensations, or with similarly archaic intuitions.
...
In reference to extraverted irrational types (Extr. intuition & sensing)
I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not. One might reverse it and say that we apply the term law-determined to the occurrence appearing so to our reason, and where its regularity escapes us we call it accidental. The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception. Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational. Hence my term 'irrational' corresponds with the nature of the perception-types. But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical; they are grounded exclusively upon experience, so exclusively, in fact, that as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience. But the functions of judgment are none the less present, although they eke out a largely unconscious existence.

This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational, whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events.

The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself.
...
Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience,
...
5. Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types (Intr. Feeling & Intr. Thikinking)
Both the foregoing types are rational, since they are founded upon reasoning, judging functions. Reasoning [p. 496] judgment is based not merely upon objective, but also upon subjective, data.
...
refering to the introverted intuitive:
As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem...

have a look at the bolded sections

its just not the truth. it's not that Ti folks are called INTP, its that INTP are accused of Ti. Ti folks are called INTJ and they are accused of Ni. this is because the four letter code adresses archetypes. its not something you can define as you wish. you can not. perceivers and judgers existed before anyone had discovered and labeled them. its only that some are unaware of their or anyone's archetypes (because the have no perceptive skills), but possibly aware of their functions, so they identify with the false function order and fake their archetype, meaning their 4letter dichotomy results. they cant fake their cognition though. nor their behavior. nor their enneagram types. so J-dominant people will always be "Judgers" in all dimensions but that of make-believe. you can not create reality by creating a theory. you just don't realize it, because you have never met reality. as jung points out, you stop at thinking.

it's as easy for Pdoms to identify with their J while taking a 4 letter code test, as it is for Jdoms to identify with their P, we just have to focus on aspects that we actually do have "somewhere". it not a crime or a sign of madness. temporary identification is mostly subjective. but we can not fake our true preferences. they remain obvious from the outside.


it's funny, even mbti agrees that perceivers are right brained, because that is obvious and some mbti guru guy and another copycat author write that they have aligned/compared brain types with 4-letter-dichtotomy-tested-people and they found out that introverted perceivers are right brained. but instead of reporting this as they have found it, they map the brain types with an unproved made up wishfull function-order-theory according to which introverted perceivers are attributed with Ti and ever since we read nonsense like "Ni is leftbrained". no its not. and Ti-Doms are not right brained either. IXXp (PiJe) are right brained. and the archetype of a perceiver is not available for definition, it's an obvious thing to any observer who is actually observing as opposed to projecting. the obvious archetype of the perceiver is in alignment with Si and Ni types meaning with right brained introverted people. and even more so with them, than with extroverted perceivers, as their archetype is a different animal which is primarily related to interaction and manipulation and the creative aspect of their perception is automatic/unconscious, while the original perceiver (the introverted one) is concerned with the conscious art of perception and unification of the world by means of perception, aka synthesis.

my thoughts exactly, thank you.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
from another thread, to avoid off topic
If this is your sig:
"Intuitive Ethical Introvert [Ni/Si] [Fe/Te]. Perceiver is perceiving you."
then how are you not a J???????????

i am P because P is more important to me than J and contrary to J people I would or could never stop at J, skipping P.
however, J can become the searchquery of my Pi.

more importatly i am able to do all the Pi things that most people can't do, which makes for my talent-profile. it's what makes my race. there is hardly anything unique about my average Je. i can be nice and accommodating better than many (Fe) and responsive (Te) (not excelling at that) but often i am lazy about both. it drains me, distracts me from my original source.

while i can more or less use all the j functions consciously, prefering Je, i can go without conscious usage of them and i do for long periods every day when i don't work on something specific, other than shaping my immediate perception, meaning when i am not searching for specific insight.

also i am not at an early stage of development, i am at stage 6 (integral vision logic), so i am almost as much J as I am P. however stages transcend and include their predecessors. P is still my entry point and it is still who i am basically ("my self" rather than "me") as far as i can tell it will always be that way. it still shapes my livestyle, which to my best understanding, is influenced by Ni and Se quite a bit more than by Fe or Te. i must admit that i have lost some specific P powers, i am not so much an idiot savant any more, like i used to be as a child, as my savant(island)* became greater during my youth, but my P is really just less specific because it includes so much more possibilities, its not weaker in terms of volume, but less focus. *(island of my ability, "island-gifted" is the german word for idiot savant: inselbegabt )
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Eh, I don't know. For me, the description of the Introverted Thinking and the Introverted Thinking Type is the epitome of my entire life. I cannot relate to introverted intuition in the least. I am not sure your reasoning, but if it's because you fail to see how a perceiver can have a judging function as their dominant function, well then it's a problem with how Myers/Briggs defined a perceiving type or a judging type than anything else: it's really just a classification issue. Is a rose by any other name still a rose? Same issue here.

I'd like to hear your thoughts though.

I have nothing more to add than to enforce this post. I experience the same. Ti rules me, Ni is alien to me.

edit: Oi, was a bit late, 10 pages already. This post was just initial response to OP. Carry on, I got some reading to do.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
and how does it make perfect sense to call someone judger who does not use a judging function?
(meaning a perceiver (Ni-dom) who stops at perception, cause he hasn't developed past it.)
that's where observation (of development) comes into play.
and how does it make sense to call someone perceiver who does not know how to use a perceiving function ...

lol - not a classification issue. more like a classification retardation.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Did anyone work this thread out yet? is it about Socionics INjs or is it the claim that MBTI INPs have introverted intuition as their dominant function?

The second option is more interesting (a) because it's stupid--you guys are reinventing definition, not making reference to realities, and (b) same as option a really but the other way around.

Introverted thinking (or feeling) that gets a jump start when extraverted intuition provides data is not introverted intuition.

And that's about all I have to say about that because as far as I can tell no one has said anything stronger than, gee, everything might be different, y'know?...

Which is what you get if you're using an Ne philosophy to maintain a bunch of inner convictions that you don't talk about from some Ji you asses. Ni doesn't do that. Ni would say "If everything were different, then blah would come and XYZ would follow, and ooo, that means these two other things are the same, holy crap, would look at that, I wonder what that means! And then this could happen, and jesus I just know that this other thing would pop up, which would mean...

Is that what you big ole Ni users are doing?




PS. it doesn't matter how you answer because I didn't characterise Ni properly, so you're still wrong.
 

Oaky

Travelling mind
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
6,180
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
So did Einstein use TiNe or NiTe?
 

visaisahero

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
557
MBTI Type
ENTP
one last thing, to those who proclaim the validity and unshakable foundations of mbti based on the fact that it has been used for years and by thousands of people. Since when did the majority of people believing something is true make it an actuality?

It may not be true; of course. Nothing ever really is, nor can really be proven to be. You could say the same about any field of human understanding- just because we all believe in something doesn't mean it won't be proven obsolete in a few years time- in fact, it is the likeliest option!

Regardless, systems that seem to work are allowed to remain until better alternatives are conceived and assimilated by the general public.

All great geniuses and their groundbreaking ideas face ridiculous opposition before they are accepted. Sucks, huh? That's the way it is when you're dealing with an ignorant flock of sheep.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Just out of interest, if Ni is the dominant function for INPs, and you also have the, I guess now auxiliary Ji, what's your extraverted function? Do you have one? Do you face the world at all?


Just waiting on the demonstration that INTJs are dom Ne.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
Just out of interest, if Ni is the dominant function for INPs, and you also have the, I guess now auxiliary Ji, what's your extraverted function? Do you have one? Do you face the world at all?


Just waiting on the demonstration that INTJs are dom Ne.

Basically, all introverted types would flip flop. MBTI INTJs would be TiNeSiFe, INTPs NiTeFiSe.
 
Top