Honey, I J’d the Cat

[Article Poster]

Type Begins at Home
Type is an essential piece of our family life. It not only helps us to understand and support each other, it helps us to allocate chores and tasks, prevent and resolve conflict, choose presents, decide times and locations for family holidays, and develop a shared understanding of the social world we inhabit.
We are a reconstructed family. My husband Mark (INTJ) and I got together thirteen years ago as divorcees. To our new marriage, I brought my then 5-year-old son, Benedict (later discovered to enjoy INFJ preferences), together with something unexpected and at first somewhat unwelcome: a well-developed obsession with the MBTI®.
I was obsessed (and continue to be), as only an INTP can be obsessed. My husband, being among the most skeptical of all types, resolutely refused to consider taking the Indicator, and so for a few years I was kept guessing, and my obsession remained in the background of family life.
When he finally agreed, it was a shared work concern that clinched it. Both Mark and I are clinical psychotherapists and run a psychotherapy clinic together. At the time, we had just landed a lucrative civil contract with the London Metropolitan Police Service, and Mark was asked to provide most of the therapy. While it was a major boon for our livelihood, I was concerned about how Mark would fare providing therapy to police personnel. I’d read Thinking Cop, Feeling Cop: A Study in Police Personalities (Hennessy, 1998) and although I was not terribly concerned about Mark’s ability to negotiate different judging functions, I was very concerned about how the dominant Sensing preference of most police people would play out in the work. Typically, S-preferenced people are less likely to seek therapy, and even less likely to complete a course of therapy (Bryden, 2005). I’ve always suspected that the reason for this is that most therapists have a preference for Intuition and this is reflected in their style of therapy.
While I could (and did) speculate on his other functions, I was absolutely certain my husband was not S-preferenced. I foresaw the possibility of boredom, frustration, confusion—even failure—on the horizon. Everyone has seen on television how members of the police force typically react to ‘counseling.’ For myself, I grew up in a family heavily populated with police and military personnel. I was only too familiar with the theme, and knew my concerns were not misplaced. I explained the issue well enough that Mark was intrigued and I left him with Hennessy’s book.
Two days later, he asked if I would take him through the MBTI.
It seemed a victory of sorts, but the difficulties were far from over. Almost all of the Myers-Briggs instrument’s questions elicited a barrage of challenges. As his frustration grew, so did mine. “Look,” I said finally, “the questionnaire is not trying to sort for anything you might possibly do in a given situation. It’s trying to give you an understanding of what you mostly prefer.” I did the handedness exercise. “Yes, sure, you use your left hand for all sorts of things, but generally, you prefer to use your right hand. That’s what it’s trying to sort. Don’t worry about what you do when you’re stressed, in a coma, or have just returned from Neptune with a load of baboons. What would you do if you were pleasantly but thoroughly tired and no one was watching?”
Finally, I got a completed form M. And to this day, when someone delivers a similar barrage of challenges in response to completing the inventory, I suspect INTJ. I’m often right.
Mark’s preferences were very clear, and things really changed when he read his profile. I could see him shaking his head in amazement. “Can I read yours,” he asked, “just to make sure it’s not like a horoscope?” He was even more amazed: “This is you!” I recall a wonderful, tender moment of recognition between us.
“But could it also be you?” I returned, addressing his skepticism.
“Definitely not.”
I drew him an eight function-attitude line-up and explained his top four functions and how they worked together. He was hooked and close to tears. “Nobody has ever got that about me,” he said, referring to his dominant introverted intuition (Ni).
What followed was the first of many wonderful evenings, with lots of wine and introverted excitement, discussing type into the wee hours. It was the beginning of a wealth of understanding that would support and inform our marriage, our work, our life together for the next decade and beyond.
I helped Mark learn to ‘speak Sensing’ and to tailor his therapeutic offering to what was to be a steady two-year stream of troubled and traumatized police. He learned to be very concrete, to offer practical suggestions that would result in immediate change and relief, ‘hooking them into’ the process. He worked hard to use only simple metaphors, not to over-speculate, never to use jargon or indulge in existential meanderings. He learned not to challenge protocol or tradition (difficult for an INTJ), and learned why doing so would cause rupture. With few exceptions, his cops both liked and trusted Mark and the results were excellent, as measured not only anecdotally but through administration of before-and-after inventories that quantified depression, anxiety, and personality disturbance.
I had a convert. “Make It Work” seems the INTJ motto, and for Mark, type worked. It had earned its place in his toolbox.
That first major success also brought type ‘home’ for us. It became a language of understanding and tolerance—a way of exploring difference—a language of intimate curiosity for both of us. We learned that while our four-letter types seemed similar, we were actually vitally different.
The eight-function model helped us to understand just how profound our differences were. It was easy to see that while our type codes showed our personalities as broadly similar, the function-attitude model revealed the fundamental differences. We shared not one function in our conscious line-up. We explored judging differences: ‘Make It Work’ (extraverted thinking) vs. ‘Understand How It Works’ (introverted thinking); and perceiving differences: ‘What does this pattern tell me about the world?’ (extraverted intuition) vs. ‘What is the personal meaning of this?’ (introverted intuition). And that was just the beginning; we’re still exploring.
Mark trained in the MBTI, and joined me in the work of exploring its use, both at work and at home. At the beginning of our marriage, we had two divorces to negotiate, one extremely acrimonious. We moved three times in two years, and completed a major house renovation. Mark changed jobs, leaving a senior Health Service post he had occupied for over twenty years to join me full time in my little private practice. I was diagnosed with a chronic autoimmune disease and we had to learn how to accommodate this new demanding presence in our shared lives. We were further challenged when one of us was stalked by the spouse of an ex-patient. It was all simultaneous. In those first three years, we were challenged by life events any one of which might rupture a family, and type was part of the glue that held us together.
Mark came home one afternoon to find me sobbing uncontrollably, pots and pans all over the kitchen floor. I had had what might only be described as a tantrum. He comforted and soothed me, but I knew he was alarmed at my sudden violent outburst. I felt stupid, childish, and sheepish. When I was more or less calm and recovered, we worked at trying to understand what had happened. “It’s always been the same,” I said. “I’m fine, fine, fine in a crisis—reasonable, clear-thinking, and useful—until suddenly I’m not. It’s as if I don’t know what I really feel, deep down, until it overwhelms me. It’s a real disability. It’s as if I get no warning.”
Together we sought understanding from my eight-function line-up. The penny dropped. What had happened was not a 4[SUP]th[/SUP] function (extraverted feeling, Fe) eruption, but an 8th function (introverted feeling, Fi) eruption, according to the Beebe model. My outburst was not about what I felt others should be doing, what others thought of me, or how they might or might not have transgressed norms or even exiled me. It was an eruption of very primitive, childlike, undeveloped, but nonetheless deeply held Fi. It was an explosive upsurgence of “But what about me?!”
Indeed, in navigating all our crises on many different fronts, I had neglected my own needs, not out of martyrdom, but simply because I was unaware of them. With tertiary Fi, Mark was so much better at this brand of self responsibility than I was. Without type, the incident might have ended at the comfort stage, without further understanding. It might even have ended before the comfort; he might have judged me immature and volatile. The net result could easily have been increased wariness on his part, guilt and isolation on mine. Instead, it was one of many incidents involving different functions and sparks that brought us closer in compassion, appreciation, and gratitude.
Type provided a structure, a map, a way of understanding issues that were deeply personal, and often elusive.
How events affected our children was a minefield of potential misunderstanding. Mark’s adolescent daughter (INFP) remained living with her mother. She struggled with understandable feelings of abandonment and betrayal. But with her dominant function my 8th function, and vice versa, she and I continually sparked each other. As the adult, it was up to me to be the elastic in the situation, and I did my best. While my best was often insufficient, I know it was better than it might have been without type understanding.
Type also helped Mark and my son in their new relationship. Even though only five at the time, Benedict’s INFJ preferences were already very clear, and I know it was helpful for Mark to understand how hard it was for Benedict to be in the middle of a divorce. Divorce separated him from his peers. Just the difference between his name and his parents’ names made him feel unpleasantly different and ‘misfit.’ What others thought (and there was plenty of moral judgment swirling around us) really mattered to my son. While community ‘judgment’ was a matter of angry rebellion for Mark, it was cringe-worthy and exiling for Benedict.
And Benedict was at a real disadvantage, type-wise. He was a beleaguered extraverted feeling (Fe) type in a very thinking-intensive world, with four T-preferenced parents: His father has ENTJ preferences and his stepmother, ISTP.
Understanding how differently our F-preferenced children might encounter family upheaval has been vital to our present equilibrium. We knew that we were prone to misunderstanding our kids in difficult and volatile situations. At the very least, it gave us pause. We did our best to reflect on their judging differences whenever we took action that affected them, and most importantly, whenever we explained the changing situations to them.
Benedict was so keen to please, so eager to do what was considered ‘right;’ he never wanted to make a mistake or do anything that wasn’t OK in everyone’s eyes. He didn’t want to stand out; he cared deeply about what others thought of him, and very clearly wanted those around him to be in harmony. This is not a typically ‘T’ way of being; harmony was not our greatest priority. The situation we were in would not be harmonious for quite a while; we knew that, and accepted it in a way that our children could not. Had we not understood type, Mark and I might have dismissed our children’s needs as merely childlike rather than vital.
It was a very humbling business, working to avoid imposing parental type, and along with it, parental judgments and assumptions. It was also far from easy, nor even always successful. There were bumps and land mines and huge misunderstandings along the way, not least because all differences cannot be understood by type alone. But all of us are clear: it would have been much lonelier and more difficult—for us as a family and for each individual—without the understanding that type provided.
As the dust cleared, the crisis died, and we slipped into gentle family routine, suddenly it was differences in our lifestyle attitudes that created challenge.
Both my son and my husband are Js, and I am a P. By far, this has become the most profound difference for all of us. They are goal oriented; I am process oriented. I remember Benedict once asking me quite mildly, “What’s for dinner, Mum?” while I was cooking. I didn’t know. “Food!” I replied irritably. Typically I don’t always know what the result might be until I am two-thirds of the way through cooking something. I might just start with an onion, and add things until it takes shape. Until recently, I failed to see this as unusual. But Benedict, having gained substantial ‘type-savvy’ from his parents, was far from being put off by my irritable response to a perfectly understandable question (after all, I was cooking dinner). He asked sagely, “Sorry, Mum, am I J-ing you to death?”
In our home ‘to J’ is a commonly used verb. “Who J’d the gaffer tape?” which means, ‘Who put the gaffer tape away somewhere where I can’t find it?’ My J-preferenced housemates need predictable order; I need a multitude of choices always visibly at hand. This means they like surfaces clear and things relatively tidy. I need everything out where I can see it. If it’s put away, it stops existing for me, and I often buy it again. (Why does any family need three sifters?) These two different ways of organizing our worlds cause conflict and drive us a bit nuts sometimes. Understanding type, they more easily put up with my chaos and I do my best not to feel their need for structure as controlling.
We clearly see advantages in the difference. They know they can rely on me to help one of them explore every conceivable angle of something important before they present it or commit to it, whether it is a letter asking for a job or buying a new car. If something needs precision they know I will reliably and patiently provide it. If I need to know how to structure or finish something, I know either one of them can provide valuable help. If I get bogged down in details, I can trust that either Mark or Benedict will help me cut to the chase.
Our tasks aren’t divided up by gender but by type. If it’s detailed and requires patient persistence, endless experiment, or attention to minute detail, I end up with the task. If it’s something that ‘just needs to get done’ well enough and quickly, the chaps tend to take care of it. They do the vacuuming; I dust. They tidy the house in a flash; I ensure the bathrooms are MRSA free, and clean the lime scale with a toothbrush. We admire each other’s strengths and skills.
Don’t ask me to develop a filing system; it will take months. When finally finished it will be the most flexible, detailed filing system in existence, and you’ll never find anything. So Mark does the finances and the household filing; he keeps it all wonderfully ordered in lists and spreadsheets. He hates it; but he does it. I am deeply grateful.
I manage all the digital technology. I keep passwords, hardware, software, websites, DNS and domains, blogs, phones, apps, music, email addresses, passwords, routers and internet providers sorted and working. Unlike Mark or Benedict, who both have introverted sensation (Si) in the 8[SUP]th[/SUP] position, I can see where the lack of a dot determines whether you do or don’t get your email. Like my husband with the finance, I hate it (I have Si tertiary, a relatively conscious but not very competent position); but I can do it and they can’t. They are both grateful.
Type provides us with a way of understanding why some things are harder for one person to ‘get’ than for another. Its understanding allows us to see these things as differences, like height or strength or eye color, rather than shortcomings. It makes us more patient, more kind. It also allows us to bring humor to bear on our differences.
We laugh at our type peculiarities—my addiction to precision: “Don’t ask her the time; she’ll tell you how her watch works”—Benedict’s need for moral clarity: “Beware the Indignator.” Benedict and I nicknamed Mark, “Bucket” (as in, “of cold water”) because of the regularity of hearing, “That won’t work.” ‘Bucketing’ has become a verb in our household as well, and it doesn’t mean pouring with rain.
Type informs our cooperation, and aids our joined desire to always be able to say ‘yes’ to the world, rather than ‘no.’ Quite simply, it helps us love each other well.
________________________________________
References:
Hennessy, S. (1998). Thinking cop, feeling cop: A study in police personalities. Gainesville, FL: CAPT.
Bryden, B. (2005). Sundial: Theoretical relationships between psychological type, talent, and disease. Gainesville, FL: CAPT.
Header Image: Franz Marc, “Zwei Katzen, blau und gelb” (“Two Cats, Blue and Yellow”), (1912). Courtesy: Kunstmuseum Basel.


RSS Feed - Link To Personality Type In Depth Article

 

[EJCC]

I love this. <3 Makes me want to start a thread about people's household in-jokes regarding the MBTI.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Mark came home one afternoon to find me sobbing uncontrollably, pots and pans all over the kitchen floor. I had had what might only be described as a tantrum. He comforted and soothed me, but I knew he was alarmed at my sudden violent outburst. I felt stupid, childish, and sheepish. When I was more or less calm and recovered, we worked at trying to understand what had happened. “It’s always been the same,” I said. “I’m fine, fine, fine in a crisis—reasonable, clear-thinking, and useful—until suddenly I’m not. It’s as if I don’t know what I really feel, deep down, until it overwhelms me. It’s a real disability. It’s as if I get no warning.”

Together we sought understanding from my eight-function line-up. The penny dropped. What had happened was not a 4th function (extraverted feeling, Fe) eruption, but an 8th function (introverted feeling, Fi) eruption, according to the Beebe model. My outburst was not about what I felt others should be doing, what others thought of me, or how they might or might not have transgressed norms or even exiled me. It was an eruption of very primitive, childlike, undeveloped, but nonetheless deeply held Fi. It was an explosive upsurgence of “But what about me?!”

I didn't like this part, actually. I want to say what I saw [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] type in a thread recently:

"Say it with me - 'feeling is not emotion', 'feeling is not emotion', 'feeling is not emotion', etc"

It gets so wearying to see Fi portrayed as the selfish, childish, tantrum-y "it's all about ME puking emotion on the world" function. It is a way of THINKING, not FEELING.

 

[chubber]

I didn't like this part, actually. I want to say what I saw [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] type in a thread recently:

"Say it with me - 'feeling is not emotion', 'feeling is not emotion', 'feeling is not emotion', etc"

It gets so wearying to see Fi portrayed as the selfish, childish, tantrum-y "it's all about ME puking emotion on the world" function. It is a way of THINKING, not FEELING.

The irony of your post

 

[á´…eparted]

The irony of your post

It's ironic if you assume that the emotion she is expressing is linked with what she thinks about this. I venture to guess that they aren't, and it's just incidental (and justified). As such, I don't see any irony.

 

[prplchknz]

I read the article because i was hoping it had to do with someone successfully training a cat, but it was good it actually held my attention, even after i realized it wasn't about that. i don't have anything to add, except the title is a bit misleading

 

[Red Herring]

I didn't like this part, actually. I want to say what I saw [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] type in a thread recently:

"Say it with me - 'feeling is not emotion', 'feeling is not emotion', 'feeling is not emotion', etc"

It gets so wearying to see Fi portrayed as the selfish, childish, tantrum-y "it's all about ME puking emotion on the world" function. It is a way of THINKING, not FEELING.

The author's description might sound nothing like how you exerience Fi as an Fi dom. But as a fellow INTP I have to say that what she writes sounds eerily familiar to me. It's expert Fi vs crippled baby Fi.

 

[PeaceBaby]

The irony of your post

Actually, the irony is deliciously contained in yours. It reveals information about you, your lack of emotional insight and awareness, and your lack of functional comprehension. When I say, "I don't like X" it's because I find that feeling, that "something is wrong here" feeling to be an important signal to dig deeper - it gets my attention. Emotions are information, and they guide the discovery of fresh insights about the world and about yourself. I examine that first "ping" and the resultant emotions to find both factual errors and areas requiring my attention towards personal growth.

So, what happened after that "ping"? It's true I didn't expand on it here, first of all because I have work to get done and can't sit typing up an essay working through the reams of data revealed from examining the "ping" but also because Fi doms inherently seem to understand this element of communication between each other. I trust that from that quickly offered shorthand they would chime in to say they either felt the ping or didn't, and then collaboratively we would dig together to suss out the truths and falsehoods contained in that examination. Remember what I said earlier, that emotions are information. They are not just information for Fi doms. They are universal messengers of growth and development for all of humanity. Unfortunately, most people (and I include myself in here because I've done my fair share at times) spend a lifetime trying to evade the "bad" ones and get as many "good" ones as possible. Yet some of those undesirable ones yield such wonderful harvest.

So, the "ping" told me there were factual errors in opposition to my understanding of type, first and foremost. I pointed out the most personal one to me above, in the quote. I didn't mind the premise of the article and it was a good read with some cogent analysis. However, considering the article was written by someone purporting to have enough knowledge to use MBTI in her clinical practice and who holds an MSc in Counselling Psychology, I found the usage of it towards the emotional realm inappropriate and kind of lacking. I think it's quite good that they find practical usage of type in their family (I have too), but it unfortunately draws an errant connection between an outburst of emotion and a primitive understanding of introverted feeling. I'm not going to do a point-by-point analysis as a "proof" since I do have other tasks pressing to get done atm. But suffice it to say, that's one layer to examine.

Next, what did the ping tell me about myself? It tells me I am still sensitive to this common misconception. It irritates me more than it probably should. After all, I know who I am inside and these words don't really affect that much. However, misinformation such as this does cause people to mistakenly type themselves and other people as Fi dom when they either exhibit or see such emotional "behaviour" in "real life". Again, behaviour does not predicate type, and type is about the different ways of thinking, not the different adaptations to feeling. That woman sitting on the floor crying had no more to do with introverted feeling than me being able to type this up in a cogent, connected, dispassionate and logical fashion has anything to do with introverted thinking. This cognitive error, conflating emotional outburst and introverted feeling, is an issue and one I don't know the solution to. Likely there isn't a simple one. So, that "ping" also tells me I have taken it somewhat personally since I am protective of emotion in general and dislike it being misrepresented. Yet it also reminds me to look for opportunities to clear up misconception as they present themselves. The "truth" as I know it about the usefulness of emotion is important to me. Annnd here I am.

And your reply ... what you see as a clever and insightful reply is only a reflection of your own inner insecurity in the emotional realms. Poking out alleviates your stress by taking it out on what you perceive as my weakness, the vulnerability of another person. But you do not know who I am, that this is my strength, and you do not realize how much of yourself you reveal of your own pain in these occasional and intended to be somewhat hurtful comments to me. I know it stems partly from your age, in that you are young, and you have likely not experienced healthy modeling in your childhood or youth of emotional awareness and control. Be aware I don't take it personal, but it does hurt me, and because it does hurt me, it sure can't help you grow much, because you are only hurting yourself in the end.

And then there's AGA ... liking your post. Again, a reflection of her but unfortunate that it kind of "eggs" you on to keep poking out. It's an Fe that equally neglects the emotional realms and looks out to other people as the cause of emotion rather than looking inside.

So for you, even though you poke me with a stick, I return a hug to you and the hopes that you do some self-examination at the "why" of why you need to lash out in the future.

It's ironic if you assume that the emotion she is expressing is linked with what she thinks about this. I venture to guess that they aren't, and it's just incidental (and justified). As such, I don't see any irony.

Thanks for your support. Hopefully I've clarified the thought processes involved.

 

[chubber]

I didn't like this part, actually. I want to say what I saw [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] type in a thread recently:

"Say it with me - 'feeling is not emotion', 'feeling is not emotion', 'feeling is not emotion', etc"

It gets so wearying to see Fi portrayed as the selfish, childish, tantrum-y "it's all about ME puking emotion on the world" function. It is a way of THINKING, not FEELING.

Oh ok, I guess what I saw was wrong then. There's no emotion in your post, right? Just a coincidence. My bad.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Oh ok, I guess what I saw was wrong then. There's no emotion in your post, right? Just a coincidence. My bad.

Congratulations, you've proven nothing.

 

[uumlau]

Yeah, I'm finding her use of the Beebe model for her emotional breakdown problematic, too. Inferior Fe explains her outburst just as well if not better. Being "inferior" can have one mistake it for "introverted", as its unconscious, as it appears to arise from nowhere, for no reason.

But note: she doesn't go into depression, she doesn't go into an Si-Fi loop or anything analogous or introverted. No, she throws an explosive tantrum that destroys her environment. She does it in private, but that's primarily an extroverted expression of feeling.

Further, if you read Quenk's seminal book on the subject ([INTP] Recognizing the Inferior Function in INTP), Ti doms inferior erupts when their own personal values remain unrecognized (by others - extroverted!), and as she says, "But what about me?!"

PeaceBaby is correct, Fi isn't emotional, nor is Fe. Fi and Fe are about how you HANDLE emotions, which is kind of a "meta-emotion" concept. Fi is introspective about emotions. Read how PB strives to investigate and understand them more fully. Fe is more proactive about emotions, trying to resolve things externally.

As a contrary example, an ENTJ having an emotional burst isn't going to throw a temper tantrum. Being loud and forceful is their NORMAL mode. When they get emotional, they crawl inside themselves, become depressed, avoid contact, and try to protect their emotional core from being hurt. This is the opposite of the author's Ti-dom episode.

In general, I think the Beebe model overexplains things. And even though Nardi's EEG studies are unscientific, there is one thing they DO disprove: the functions do not appear in BOTH attitudes in an individual. Only the Ne dom/aux types exhibit the "christmas tree" pattern. None of the other types do. As such, I find that the four-function model, with each of the four functions assigned a particular attitude, explains things "just enough". In this case, inferior Fe explains the author's outburst. She needs to put her feelings "out there" in order to examine them. She can't examine them while they're still internalized and unconscious.

 

[violett]

Honey, that Cat and I P'd.....

(facepalm)

 

[grey_beard]

Yeah, I'm finding her use of the Beebe model for her emotional breakdown problematic, too. Inferior Fe explains her outburst just as well if not better. Being "inferior" can have one mistake it for "introverted", as its unconscious, as it appears to arise from nowhere, for no reason.

But note: she doesn't go into depression, she doesn't go into an Si-Fi loop or anything analogous or introverted. No, she throws an explosive tantrum that destroys her environment. She does it in private, but that's primarily an extroverted expression of feeling.

Further, if you read Quenk's seminal book on the subject ([INTP] Recognizing the Inferior Function in INTP), Ti doms inferior erupts when their own personal values remain unrecognized (by others - extroverted!), and as she says, "But what about me?!"

PeaceBaby is correct, Fi isn't emotional, nor is Fe. Fi and Fe are about how you HANDLE emotions, which is kind of a "meta-emotion" concept. Fi is introspective about emotions. Read how PB strives to investigate and understand them more fully. Fe is more proactive about emotions, trying to resolve things externally.

As a contrary example, an ENTJ having an emotional burst isn't going to throw a temper tantrum. Being loud and forceful is their NORMAL mode. When they get emotional, they crawl inside themselves, become depressed, avoid contact, and try to protect their emotional core from being hurt. This is the opposite of the author's Ti-dom episode.

In general, I think the Beebe model overexplains things. And even though Nardi's EEG studies are unscientific, there is one thing they DO disprove: the functions do not appear in BOTH attitudes in an individual. Only the Ne dom/aux types exhibit the "christmas tree" pattern. None of the other types do. As such, I find that the four-function model, with each of the four functions assigned a particular attitude, explains things "just enough". In this case, inferior Fe explains the author's outburst. She needs to put her feelings "out there" in order to examine them. She can't examine them while they're still internalized and unconscious.

I also disagreed with the OP's characterization, or Beebe's model (I couldn't tell which, from the writing...!), on the differences between Ne and Ni, i.e.

perceiving differences: ‘What does this pattern tell me about the world?’ (extraverted intuition) vs. ‘What is the personal meaning of this?’ (introverted intuition).
I don't regard Ni as a "personal" meaning but rather as a (if you will) pattern, or data map of the world -- the map may be internal, personal, true, but it contains information (and information which is as accurate as I can make it, too) embodied in a pattern, which contains essentials about the *external* world. Conversely, the Extraverted Intuition is a shallow knowledge of the external world, but it is something that is *stored* internallly.

I've never figured out a better choice of language: but then, I am not in a position to revise MBTI theory and nomenclature single-handed.

 

[Ene]

[MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION] I agree with you completely on this.

As [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] said,

PeaceBaby is correct, Fi isn't emotional, nor is Fe. Fi and Fe are about how you HANDLE emotions, which is kind of a "meta-emotion" concept. Fi is introspective about emotions. Read how PB strives to investigate and understand them more fully. Fe is more proactive about emotions, trying to resolve things externally.

However, I did appreciate the way studying types helped her and her husband. I also like how she said they divided their tasks based on type.