At the first site in that list I found this: "In the past, people with introverted intuiting have been known to act as oracles, fortune tellers, shamans and medicine men. In fact many people with dominant Ni will tell you that while growing up they did have mystical experiences."
That's exactly what I was talking about.
"I absorb energy like a sponge everywhere I go. It allows me to see the world and my purpose in it." Zak Bagans, Ghost Adventures (INFJ)
Enneagram: 6w7 (phobic) > 2w1 > 9w1 Alignment: Neutral Good Holland Code: AIS Date of Birth: March 15, 1996 Gender: Male Political Stance: Libertarian Liberal (Arizona School/Strong BHL) ATHEIST UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST HUMANIST and SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST
I say this as a reminder to myself, but this goes for everyone:
You can achieve anything you set your mind to, and you are limited only by how dedicated you are to succeed!
You're attempting to address Ne-Aux in your own so-called type, but you have references to INTP, ENTP, and ESTP in your O.P.
Jung didn't come up with J/P, Myers did. Clearly, you're not sticking with Jung.
"In his memoir, On Writing, Stephen King, most certainly an INJ type, describes his process of writing novels."
What?? No way. Stephen King is either an INFP or an ENFP. The site is dumb.
Who gives a crap? This isn't about King.
I didn't post those links to endorse all of the extra content at those websites.
The point was Ni, and to address your comment: "From my understanding of Ni, it is not at all about the Aha experience."
The irony is, your dogmatic approach to type is such that even Jung probably wouldn't have agreed with you, were he alive.
Jung broke away from Freud for the same reason - his dogmatic approach. You continue to focus on a single tree: "No way is Stephen King type X!" while missing the forest of Jung's work.
What you're doing is nothing shy of playing the children's game, Pin the Tail on the Donkey:
George is INFP! Pin the tail on the donkey.
Betty is INFJ! Pin the tail on the donkey.
Steve is ENTP! Pin the tail on the donkey.
From my understanding of Ni, it is not at all about the Aha experience.
Well it's typically associated with Aha moments. Nardi fleshes that out more by saying that it's a basic - not refined - use of Ni if you have Aha moments.
Ni identifies with the mystical and mysterious. Its truths are formed, as with Ne, from a desire to achieve satisfaction, only in this case through belief in and verification of mystical experiences. External or internal reality may form the impetus for the experience. Sometimes Ni manifests itself in the interpretation of reality as a mystical construct, and of reified mental illusions. And sometimes the experiences have no logical explanation. But Ni does not try to explain them away logically, although the experiences are made to fit into a theory.
Yeah got that part. Alright I can see now why you think Ne > Ni for yourself, because you aren't really into the mystical craziness, you're more into analysing stuff related to the external world.
Though I wouldn't say this on its own confirms INTP over ISTP (as Ni is weak-ish for ISTP anyway). I don't know you of course. Just saying.
Still, I think this remains unclear:
Originally Posted by Mal12345
The concepts are higher than the facts themselves, it is a moment of intellectual synthesis in which many facts are brought together beneath a single mental idea that serves to unify them all. There is nothing "logical" about this, Ti has nothing to do with it.
This to me sounds like an introverted function. You are saying Ti has nothing to do with this. It cannot be Ne because Ne is not focused and introverted like this. Then what is this? Do you disagree that this is describing an introverted function attitude?
I think that it's due to the Ne side of me that is so open to considering all kinds of data, not just the data considered verifiable by science. The important thing is to keep it separate from science, and the Ni type is not likely to do this. For example, I have an INTJ friend who, when he was studying genetics in college, sincerely found evidence of God's creative influence in his examination of the DNA molecule.
Heh this part about your INTJ friend.. lol. Hmm the way I see it, yeah I don't really keep my little intuitive side (Ni) separate from science. I see science as only part of the world, it's just the most refined way of human thinking and it's not above of or separate from anything else in this sense. I just think your INTJ friend really got it wrong by trying to stick to one little piece of data of whatever he found in DNA and trying to explain everything from that. That's both logically and intuitively wrong, to me. How it's illogical is easy to explain. I can't explain why it's intuitively wrong, my Ni isn't as refined or anything, it's more vague but I just have this sense that it's wrong to take one little part out of the whole like that. Well though maybe that's really Ni "contaminated" with a lot of Ti too :P
Guess if you don't relate to what I've tried babbling about here, you're probably not the same type I am :P