Ni vs Ne Eyes

[Mesmeric_Moon]

An ENFJ friend of mine is such an excellent example of the Ni eyes or Ni gaze if you prefer, it makes me a little less sceptical about the whole thing. Se as well. He maintains excellent eye contact with whomever he is talking to and then when the other person/people start talking, while he's listening he will still look at them but in between there will be moments when his eyes will be fixated somewhere else in a single point like meowington described, it sometimes seems like he stopped listening but that's not the case at all. You can also notice it with him even more so when he has indeed drifted off (in his thoughts) if you walk/sit in front of him it seems like he is looking right through you, like he is looking through a glass or something, like you're invisible to him. Se also shows more visibly when he is angry, few times when we've gotten even into small arguments his eyes would become just so focused on you and intense it's even a bit scary haha and now then I think about it I've seen the same thing with an ESTP friend too, though more the Se thing not the Ni tendency to zone out so much, maybe that's much more apperent in my ENFJ friend because he has auxilary Ni.

 

[A Demonic Lover]

Honestly, I have poor social skills (I just don't care about being polite, I could be if I wanted to). If you can call it like that? Well, I really struggle with eye contact. Most of the time I look down or up. Not directly at the speaker. But from the MBTI videos I've seen, I relate a lot to the description of Ni (no, it is not mysterious).

 

[Yara the Corpse]

I'm defo Ni/Se by this...

 

[Turi]

To buy into this horseshit would mean one has to buy into the Harold Grant cognitive functions stack model that is supported by no empirical evidence whatsoever.
Pass.

It's a "no" from me.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

To buy into this horseshit would mean one has to buy into the Harold Grant cognitive functions stack model that is supported by no empirical evidence whatsoever.
Pass.

It's a "no" from me.

Since when is typology largely empirical? Why are you here?

 

[Turi]

Since when is typology largely empirical? Why are you here?

Never said it was but there's literally none for the whole Ni/Ne etc horseshit.
Dichotomy though, much better.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Never said it was but there's literally none for the whole Ni/Ne etc horseshit.
Dichotomy though, much better.

How deeply have you looked into it though? There is some seemingly reliable methodology for analysis of physical features and microexpressions. Still, I can't say the data is empirical.

 

[1487610420]

 

[Turi]

How deeply have you looked into it though? There is some seemingly reliable methodology for analysis of physical features and microexpressions. Still, I can't say the data is empirical.

What seemingly reliable methodology? There's nothing for vultology, and there's nothing for the Harold Grant stack of cognitive functions we all subscribe to either.

Dichotomy on the other hand, actually has research and studies behind it - you can actually look at the Supplement for Form M and see the studies for yourself, entirely dichotomy based.

There's literally nothing, zilch, zip, nada like that, with regards to the "cognitive function stack" that we all use i.e Ni-Fe-Ti-Se etc.
Nothing at all. Its support is based entirely off of anecdotal evidence.

I note that the official MBTI folks do indeed break the types apart i.e, they recognise an ENFP as someone who leads with extraverted intuition and has introverted feeling auxiliary - however they don't test for any separation of say, Ne, or Ni, etc etc - so they don't actually test for "cognitive functions" ergo, there's no official research to be found with regards to Ni v Ne in anything, etc etc.

A better and more valid way of doing this would be to look at perhaps NF eyes, NT eyes, SF eyes, ST eyes, etc etc.
Then perhaps ENF eyes, INF eyes, ENT eyes, INT eyes, etc etc I'm sure you see where this is going, and I'm sure you have already clicked just how much more flexible and worthy this idea is of researching.
Far more depth to dichotomy.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

What seemingly reliable methodology? There's nothing for vultology, and there's nothing for the Harold Grant stack of cognitive functions we all subscribe to either.

Dichotomy on the other hand, actually has research and studies behind it - you can actually look at the Supplement for Form M and see the studies for yourself, entirely dichotomy based.

There's literally nothing, zilch, zip, nada like that, with regards to the "cognitive function stack" that we all use i.e Ni-Fe-Ti-Se etc.
Nothing at all. Its support is based entirely off of anecdotal evidence.

I note that the official MBTI folks do indeed break the types apart i.e, they recognise an ENFP as someone who leads with extraverted intuition and has introverted feeling auxiliary - however they don't test for any separation of say, Ne, or Ni, etc etc - so they don't actually test for "cognitive functions" ergo, there's no official research to be found with regards to Ni v Ne in anything, etc etc.

A better and more valid way of doing this would be to look at perhaps NF eyes, NT eyes, SF eyes, ST eyes, etc etc.
Then perhaps ENF eyes, INF eyes, ENT eyes, INT eyes, etc etc I'm sure you see where this is going, and I'm sure you have already clicked just how much more flexible and worthy this idea is of researching.
Far more depth to dichotomy.

I think the mistake a lot of us make is that we want the system of functions to be testable and true and solid and specific, but it's a system of preferences that when used appropriately leads us to greater satisfaction and success. So if you have an ENFP using the functions of an INFJ, they are probably going to feel pretty miserable because they aren't using what they excel at. It's not that they can't use other functions, it's that they don't flourish using other functions. They are more likely to find fulfillment using Ne Fi Te Si than Ni Fe Ti Se, or any combination really other than Ne Fi Te Si. Will they still use other functions regardless? Yes. But they should favor their preferences.

I'm not informed enough to go much further in depth than that. I have grown tired of self-proclaimed MBTI experts online, so I have consciously decided to take a more casual approach to the whole thing. I guess something just clicked in me, and now I look at it as a system of preferences.

I do have to say that I do not think that the dichotemy approach works for everyone. If I typed myself solely on dichotemies, I would be an INFP, but the actual reason for that is that I am a 4w5, so essentially very withdrawn, and I value my Sp needs above all else, so I spend a LOT of time at home, seemingly hermitting. However, upon objective analysis of my behavior, I realized that I am never just fully "off" like an Fi dom would be on occasion. I do not just sit and process in order to recharge. In order to recharge, I have to get my ideas out there or joke around with strangers on the internet. When I do get tired, I prefer to just sit and veg in front of the TV, but I rarely do that for long because I need intellectual stimulation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not as black and white as people think it is.

Dario Nardi is here right now answering questions, btw. Perhaps he'd be a better debating partner.

 

[great_bay]

Ni have a more intense gaze. Ne have a more child-like quality and more expressive.

ENTJ and other NJs also have Ne eyes. The thing is that Ne eyes are just more masked behind their other fifth or fourth functions. NJs should have the Ne eyes as well.

 

[Turi]

If I were to even consider believing in this horseshit, wouldn't this be accurate:

Ni - seemingly stare into space, zone out, doesn't blink much, look off to the side when asked a question and basically appear frozen until they have an answer, appears distracted by internal stimuli.

Ne - eyes dart around a bit, seemingly more engaged in what is happening, appears distracted by external stimuli, blinks more often due to more frequent eye movements, kind of stalls for time when asked a question i.e vocalising "oh, ahh" or "ehh" or "hmm haven't thought about this before" etc.


I just wrote those up clean off the top of my head by comparing myself to my ENFP brother in law, I think it's a decent comparison because we're both N dominants and both of the Idealist/NF temperament - so it's probably the best Ni v Ne comparison you can get, really.

Yeah, they're not pictures - but I could provide some if necessary.

A problem arises here, as I've got both an INTP and an INFP friend, and they're both probably a little more similar to me than the ENFP.
There's a difference though - I actually think they're a little more intense.
Above poster suggests Ni is more intense, but this doesn't reflect me - it's more like spaced out, 'not present' - I get called out on this all the time by people, it's really annoying to some - it's almost disrespectful, to them.

My ENFP friend isn't very intense, he's an upbeat extravert, but my INxP friends both have intense glares, they kinda frown when thinking as well, whereas I just kinda 'derp'.