[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Introverted Perception: Fixated

[violet_crown]

I've always been fascinated by how mature judging functions can often lead to similar behaviors for radically different reasons, and have been giving some thought to how this might apply to perceiving functions, specifically introverted intuition and introverted sensing.

A common theme of strong Pi usage is fixation. In the case of either function, the assumption is that the fixation will be an idiosyncratic construction of past or future events. These constructions—once codified in the Pi-users mind as symbols—take on a certain life of their own as they become the symbols by which the Pi-user navigates his or her world.

A couple thoughts on what causes fixation in the respective Pi-types:

Ni Fixation

I feel a lot of times I’ve heard discussion of how those with strong Si-use can distort the future because of their past-orientation. I don’t hear as often how Ni’s future orientation impacts how it understands the past. I feel Ni can just as easily become “stuck” by it’s own selective memory. Like, you have these experiences, and you have a certain way of remembering them. Because there’s less unpacking of those memories and less conscious effort to re-contextualize prior experience in the same systematic way Si might, it can bake in certain flaws into how the Ni-user projects the future that are neither obvious nor easily rectifiable because of the preference for Se data. The Ni corruptions creates a rut of self-fulfilling prophesy that just becomes deeper and deeper over time.

Si Fixation

Second thought is on the Si-version of tunnel vision, or “What is it?” My observation of Si-driven fixation is the centrality of visceral resonance. Processing physical experience by putting words to how it’s been internalized. In the absence of comparable personal experience, finding something out there that has the best explanatory power. If a match cannot be found, a sort of breakdown occurs, and the search becomes increasingly neurotic. Because the initial sensation was subjective to begin with and Ne is constantly filtering in alternative explanations, the initial experience becomes warped as new additional possibilities contaminate it.

The issue of contamination seems to contribute to why touch is such an intense experience for those with a strong Si preference. They have a feeling for their internal status quo, something new is introduced, and the process of sorting out what changes as a result seems to sometimes be overwhelming.

These are just kind of sketches of ideas. Anyone who has their own experiences or interpretations of Ni/Si fixation are definitely welcome. I'm kind of curious about those who are tertiary Ni/Si. IxxPs seem to have a unique approach to introverted perception that I don't really have a handle on just from observing them.

 

[senza tema]

I'm going to assume tertiary Ni for myself as best fit and take a stab at this.

When I'm unable to glean very obvious, unambiguous data from a situation, either because people can't or won't communicate clearly or because external circumstances are unpredictable and outside my control, I default to thinking that the worst that could happen will happen and prepare myself for that. It's not really based on a strong, visceral sense of resonance from the past as much as it is the sense of reassurance that having a worst case scenario in mind provides.

 

[Poki]

our goal is not to build a perception, but an understanding. perception is just data that is dropped for understanding. we can then use that to create perceptions on the fly.

stay open to perception just like we choose to stay open to understanding. how does Pi do that? live life, dont get stuck in perception. i remain open to understanding and that can and always will be maleable and adjusting. find the balance that works best for you. we are all in different phases of life.



Ji and Je should feed into perception, not Pi feeding into Je and Ji.

 

[violet_crown]

I'm going to assume tertiary Ni for myself as best fit and take a stab at this.

When I'm unable to glean very obvious, unambiguous data from a situation, either because people can't or won't communicate clearly or because external circumstances are unpredictable and outside my control, I default to thinking that the worst that could happen will happen and prepare myself for that. It's not really based on a strong, visceral sense of resonance from the past as much as it is the sense of reassurance that having a worst case scenario in mind provides.

I feel like I do some version of this. I automatically spend time in the worst possible version of events so I can prepare for it.

The question for me right now is how I came to that "worst possible version". I think that Ni/Se assumes a level of objectivity that's not always there because Se data makes us feel like we're working from something objective. I feel like I see that in the odd dogmatic streak that I come across in ITPs I know. Where someone who's normally the most chill person around will just pop off about how all the facts point to the fact that the world is clearly about to end, and nothing can shake that person's belief in the truth of that. IFPs seem to just believe everyone is probably terrible.

our goal is not to build a perception, but an understanding. perception is just data that is dropped for understanding. we can then use that to create perceptions on the fly.

stay open to perception just like we choose to stay open to understanding. how does Pi do that? live life, dont get stuck in perception. i remain open to understanding and that can and always will be maleable and adjusting. find the balance that works best for you. we are all in different phases of life.



Ji and Je should feed into perception, not Pi feeding into Je and Ji.

I don't think that IxxPs are interesting because they're necessarily more objective. I just think tertiary Pi creates a very particular kind of fixation in them that is less explicable to me than it is in other positions.

 

[senza tema]

I feel like I do some version of this. I automatically spend time in the worst possible version of events so I can prepare for it.

The question for me right now is how I came to that "worst possible version" I think that Ni/Se assumes a level of objectivity that's not always there because Se data makes us feel like we're working from something objective. I feel like I see that in the odd dogmatic streak that I come across in ITPs I know. Where someone who's normally the most chill person around will just pop off about how all the facts point to the fact that the world is clearly about to end, and nothing can shake that person's belief in the truth of that. IFPs seem to just believe everyone is probably terrible.



I don't think that IxxPs are interesting because they're necessarily more objective. I just think tertiary Pi creates a very particular kind of fixation in them that is less explicable to me than it is in other positions.

Realistically, a spectrum of stuff from best to worst is always possible but that's too many possibilities to consider and isn't ultimately very helpful unless you're part of the "wait and see what happens" school of thought. Extremes and exact middle points are easiest to deal with. However, best case feels unrealistic and an exact middle point is hard to determine ... whereas if you're prepared for the worst you're probably prepared for anything so that's what feels the most real.

You're right that all of this involves an assumption of objectivity that doesn't really exist but it still feels pretty fucking real.

 

[Tilt]

For me, Ni fixation = runaway extrapolations... I will end assuming a lot of things based on shaky foundations. My ISTJ friend is much less prone to do so because he tries to leave info as is and keep it simple.

Observing my ISTJ friend, his Si fixation tends to be basing almost his whole understanding through his experiences, books he's read, what trusted sources have told him and then analyze it on his own. He struggles with off-the-cuff brainstorming. He gets amused by anything random and unusual.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

My experience is something akin to what senza wrote.

A general sense of expectation of and preparedness for worst case scenarios when data is lacking or unclear. Generally that preparation might not involve any actual physical readying but simply entering a state of mind that is probably described as "expect the worst"

A sort of mental bracing for impact. Sometimes an idea of what will happen that is probably informed by a feeling or my own skewed way of seeing things.

Knowledge of past trends in my personal experience can inform my expectation of things to come but I don't think the future is written in stone by the scribes of past happenings.

That was more non-answer than answer. I'll need to think on this some more.

 

[senza tema]

I think Ji combined with tertiary Ni results in a kind of impenetrability to the outside world. It's a self-contained, self-regenerating cocoon ... not the most pleasant cocoon but a cocoon nonetheless.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I've been observing to see if I'm more inclined towards Ne or Ni. The discussion of Ni memory is an interesting one. I think it is a logical presentation of the theory. In MBTI theory it is not possible to have a preference for both Si and Ni, and so the assumption is that these two perspectives are mutually exclusive. It is something I'll spend some time thinking about.

For myself the present is like the trunk of a tree and the past is like the roots and the future like the branches. I can get tunnel vision in the present, but when I revisit the past, I have multiple lenses through which I view it. It opens the door to a lot of second guessing, so in my mind there are multiple possibilities of what happened in the past. This is true both of how I see the world globally and how I remember my own personal experience. I also plan for the future to accommodate as many contingency plans as possible, so I hope for the best and plan for the worst.

My own experience growing up involved a great many changes. We moved around a lot, and life was continually uncertain. Then in my own life I've made plans over the years that have continually changed, and my own life has fallen apart multiple times. Reality, both the past and future, tend to feel like they are in flux. I wonder if there is an inclination to have more singular focus in my assumptions of the past or the future. I would have to think about that for a while to determine which. Perhaps in my case the constant flux of the past is actually what I am expecting in the future, in which case that would be a Si-Ne preference, but I'll have to think about it a bit more to be sure.

 

[violet_crown]

I think Ji combined with tertiary Ni results in a kind of impenetrability to the outside world. It's a self-contained, self-regenerating cocoon ... not the most pleasant cocoon but a cocoon nonetheless.

Do you feel the cocoon ever changes? If so, what do you feel precipitates that change?

 

[senza tema]

Do you feel the cocoon ever changes? If so, what do you feel precipitates that change?

Unexpected turns for the better.

 

[senza tema]

I don't want to overstate this as any kind of absolute because this is based solely on my own experience ... but my own perception of dominant Fi is the overwhelming consciousness that the outside world is impervious to my influence. At some level I truly don't believe I can change anything or anyone. What I can nurture, cultivate and monitor is my own internal landscape ... my own impressions, perceptions, judgments, reactions, etc. So I guess that's what a tertiary Ji fixation is to me. It's an acceptance of mutual impermeability.

 

[violet_crown]

I've been observing to see if I'm more inclined towards Ne or Ni. The discussion of Ni memory is an interesting one. I think it is a logical presentation of the theory. In MBTI theory it is not possible to have a preference for both Si and Ni, and so the assumption is that these two perspectives are mutually exclusive. It is something I'll spend some time thinking about.

For myself the present is like the trunk of a tree and the past is like the roots and the future like the branches. I can get tunnel vision in the present, but when I revisit the past, I have multiple lenses through which I view it. It opens the door to a lot of second guessing, so in my mind there are multiple possibilities of what happened in the past. This is true both of how I see the world globally and how I remember my own personal experience. I also plan for the future to accommodate as many contingency plans as possible, so I hope for the best and plan for the worst.

I really like this metaphor. I think I often feel hamstrung as an Ni-user trying to understand myself and my own past because a lot of my memories are in actuality summaries I had assembled at some point. For instance, if I wanted to make sense of something that might have been painful to me as a child with my adult mind, I feel like I'm accessing that information through the lens of that summary, rather than revisiting the events themselves. What ends up happening is like...a meta-analysis of a meta-analysis, and I find that my memories end up falling in line with whatever the updated assessment is.

Part of what prompted this thread is that for the longest time, I had assumed that this was as much a function of my preference for Ni/Se as it was the fact of my inferior feeling usage. As in, maybe all of these experiences were so abstract to begin with because I had a weird relationship with the emotions of them even at the time they were happening. It interested me to see that my INFJ partner seems to deal with something similar, though.

It's led me to believe that Ni tunnel vision is a kind of red flag. Even though there's kind of a perverse pleasure in it, in much the same way that [MENTION=23222]senza tema[/MENTION] was describing about the Ji/Pi cocoon, it's more often than not a sign that there's a breakdown occurring between my expectations for a situation and the reality of that situation. And I'm doubling down on the expectation to MAKE it align with the reality, such that I'm setting myself up for some Pyrrhic bullshit even if what I want does come around.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[Virtual ghost]

I've always been fascinated by how mature judging functions can often lead to similar behaviors for radically different reasons, and have been giving some thought to how this might apply to perceiving functions, specifically introverted intuition and introverted sensing.

A common theme of strong Pi usage is fixation. In the case of either function, the assumption is that the fixation will be an idiosyncratic construction of past or future events. These constructions—once codified in the Pi-users mind as symbols—take on a certain life of their own as they become the symbols by which the Pi-user navigates his or her world.

A couple thoughts on what causes fixation in the respective Pi-types:

Ni Fixation

I feel a lot of times I’ve heard discussion of how those with strong Si-use can distort the future because of their past-orientation. I don’t hear as often how Ni’s future orientation impacts how it understands the past. I feel Ni can just as easily become “stuck” by it’s own selective memory. Like, you have these experiences, and you have a certain way of remembering them. Because there’s less unpacking of those memories and less conscious effort to re-contextualize prior experience in the same systematic way Si might, it can bake in certain flaws into how the Ni-user projects the future that are neither obvious nor easily rectifiable because of the preference for Se data. The Ni corruptions creates a rut of self-fulfilling prophesy that just becomes deeper and deeper over time.

Si Fixation

Second thought is on the Si-version of tunnel vision, or “What is it?” My observation of Si-driven fixation is the centrality of visceral resonance. Processing physical experience by putting words to how it’s been internalized. In the absence of comparable personal experience, finding something out there that has the best explanatory power. If a match cannot be found, a sort of breakdown occurs, and the search becomes increasingly neurotic. Because the initial sensation was subjective to begin with and Ne is constantly filtering in alternative explanations, the initial experience becomes warped as new additional possibilities contaminate it.

These are just kind of sketches of ideas. Anyone who has their own experiences or interpretations of Ni/Si fixation are definitely welcome. I'm kind of curious about those who are tertiary Ni/Si. IxxPs seem to have a unique approach to introverted perception that I don't really have a handle on just from observing them.

I can agree on these definitions. As matter of fact this is actually the main reason why I just stopped seeing myself as INTJ, since I am pretty much always after direct and empirical (Se) data and it's confirmation. While I look as an introvert simply because I am alienated, depressed or sick. Also many people don't like having their Si/Ni challanged so sometimes/often it is smart to skip what is on my mind, since people are unlikely to change their views.


Hower I also think that it is not good to go too far against interoverted perception since otherwise you will end in ExxP ADHD zone. Therefore it is good to try keeping introverted perception in reasonable amounts, since in extremes it can be dangerous for the person and people around. Si by making you blind or too open to new data and ideas, while with Ni you may have self-fulfiling prophecies or leaps of faith about the future that are unfounded.

The issue of contamination seems to contribute to why touch is such an intense experience for those with a strong Si preference. They have a feeling for their internal status quo, something new is introduced, and the process of sorting out what changes as a result seems to sometimes be overwhelming.

To me Si can just be "terrible" function in some situations, since it creates agony.


This is partially why I feel alienated or annoyed by many, since they just can't let it go or realize that their "data" is no longer relevant. As a matter of fact holding it can be openly counter productive: for example in my country the war for independance ended over 20 years ago but none the less good chunk of people acts as if it ended 6 months ago. What isn't so bad on it's own as much as political figures then use all that "facts" and experiences in order to manipulate people through them, in order to get more votes or cover up their own failures and corruption.



I've even shocked many people with my claims that history should be bannished or at least greatly reduced in the time spent on it in school's. People tell me that there is so much to be learn from history and I just don't see it. We live in the world where things make a 180 degree turn in just a few years, where military strategy has nothing to do with what was just a few decades on the field, where attrocities happen pretty much regardless of people knowing history in detail, history was written by victors and therefore it's factual basis is often questionable, in many countries history is used as a start of political indoctrination of childern and therefroe it is dragging them into worldviews that are openly counter-productive. Therefore instead of endless historical facts I think that it would be better to give children the classes on ethics, which openly tries to prevents atrocities, or we should give them "modern media culture" classes that will make them more resistant to TV brainwashing. Why teach this indirectly through history when you can do it directly through named subjects ? However in order to put this is practice you have to brake someone's worldviews ... and that is politically incorrect.


(just a perspective on how Ni and Se attack Si and Ne worldview over differences in perception, in my opinion)

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

history was written by victors and therefore it's factual basis is often questionable, in many countries history is used as a start of political indoctrination of childern and therefroe it is dragging them into worldviews that are openly counter-productive. Therefore instead of endless historical facts I think that it would be better to give children the classes on ethics, which openly tries to prevents atrocities, or we should give them "modern media culture" classes that will make them more resistant to TV brainwashing. Why teach this indirectly through history when you can do it directly through named subjects ? However in order to put this is practice you have to brake someone's worldviews ... and that politically incorrect.

I wouldn't abolish the study of history altogether but I think there's a tendency, at least with K-12 curriculum makers, to overemphasize factual data that is kind of irrelevant, especially if the 'grand scheme of things' isn't being examined or considered. At the same time, it seems like humans have a tendency to study history as fulfillment of prophecy, or inevitable happenings on a line from year 0 to the present, not necessarily acknowledging how precarious and uncertain the present moment often seems--no one in past history was thinking in terms of inevitability, at least no more than people would be thinking in those terms in the present moment--cave dwellers certainly weren't thinking of themselves as a chapter or prologue in a story leading to some concrete now-point in the future, or maybe they were?. So studying the 'bigger picture' in history also has drawbacks, as we might see what came before as solid and predestined...there is never a question 'good' would prevail when we study the history as written by the victors, when really, looking at history as the story of some conflict between subjective abstractions or concepts such as good and evil can be quite limiting. The narrative approach to viewing and teaching history ruins it for me. Certainly I love to see recurring patterns and trends, and to some extent it can be useful in comparing different scenarios and events, but events are only events when we commemorate them or memorialize them as such. There is no event but the grand universal event and linear time is a nice abstraction that helps us split up everything into separate, isolated points.

Universal truth just IS. Everything we split it into just represents scattered interpretations and hints of the whole.


I like the absurdity I see when I read about history. As much as I enjoy it, I look at it the way MST3K looks at old B-movies. The what-ifs are also more interesting than the what-happeneds. That should be discussed more in history courses, starting at an early age. I think it might help encourage creative thinking as well as encouraging kids to think of possibilities in the "history" being made in the present moment.

apologies for this incoherent mess of a rant. Maybe I'm being naive.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I wouldn't abolish the study of history altogether but I think there's a tendency, at least with K-12 curriculum makers, to overemphasize factual data that is kind of irrelevant, especially if the 'grand scheme of things' isn't being examined or considered. At the same time, it seems like humans have a tendency to study history as fulfillment of prophecy, or inevitable happenings on a line from year 0 to the present, not necessarily acknowledging how precarious and uncertain the present moment often seems--no one in past history was thinking in terms of inevitability, at least no more than people would be thinking in those terms in the present moment--cave dwellers certainly weren't thinking of themselves as a chapter or prologue in a story leading to some concrete now-point in the future, or maybe they were?. So studying the 'bigger picture' in history also has drawbacks, as we might see what came before as solid and predestined...there is never a question 'good' would prevail when we study the history as written by the victors, when really, looking at history as the story of some conflict between subjective abstractions or concepts such as good and evil can be quite limiting. The narrative approach to viewing and teaching history ruins it for me. Certainly I love to see recurring patterns and trends, and to some extent it can be useful in comparing different scenarios and events, but events are only events when we commemorate them or memorialize them as such. There is no event but the grand universal event and linear time is a nice abstraction that helps us split up everything into separate, isolated points.

Universal truth just IS. Everything we split it into just represents scattered interpretations and hints of the whole.

I like the absurdity I see when I read about history. The what-ifs are also more interesting than the what-happeneds. That should be discussed more in history courses, starting at an early age. I think it might help encourage creative thinking as well as encouraging kids to think of possibilities in the "history" being made in the present moment.

apologies for this incoherent mess of a rant. Maybe I'm being naive.

No offence but you are from the country that has short and relatively clear history. Therefore you have easier time seeing it as a academic topic. While in some countries history can openly border on propaganda. For example my country has changed 6 political systems over the 100 years and each system was basically build on the corpse of previous one, so each one has it's own view on the previous ones. Therefore objective truth got lost in the transitions/genocides ... and because of that it is completely pointless to be the slave to the past. I mean past shouldn't have the direct impact on the future since it is uneraliable, especially at the current rate of changes and especially since most of the documents got lost in wars, destruction and repression. Therefore it is basically impossble to be certain about the facts, even the witnesses can be questionable since they may lie and distort the truth for some reason. (probably because they were part of "the system") However most of the world is more like my country than your country, therefore history in general should be taken with the grain of salt.



Of course you should know a thing or two about Hitler or Roman empire and various social processes but doing history as we are doing it here is counter productive. Which is basically learning all the facts about countless wars, rulers and agreements over the last few thousand years. Therefore I think that it is perhaps better that children learn extra foreign language or something like that instead of all those facts that just don't serve anything even if they are correct. However the system is build on certain paradigms and that never changes, we didn't change any basic premises of education which rate decades back.



Therefore I have constant clashes with Si since this function almost by default tries to stablize everything ... even the stuff that just should not be preserved due to their toxic or counter productive influence. We don't have the time or enough place for "everything" and Over last 100 years human life bacame too short for that, the basic goal of Si "know it all" just isn't possible anymore on individual level.


I am sorry for so open Si bashing ... I just that can't help myself.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

No offence but you are from the country that has short and relatively clear history. Therefore you have easier time seeing it as a academic topic. While in some countries history can openly border on propaganda. For example my country has changed 6 political systems over the 100 years and each system was basically build on the corpse of previous one, so each one has it's own view on the previous ones. Therefore objective truth got lost in the transitions/genocides ... and because of that it is completely pointless to be the slave to the past. I mean past shouldn't have the direct impact on the future since it is uneraliable, especially at the current rate of changes and especially since most of the documents got lost in wars, destruction and repression. Therefore it is basically impossble to be certain about the facts, even the witnesses can be questionable since they may lie and distort the truth for some reason. (probably because they were part of "the system") However most of the world is more like my country than your country, therefore history in general should be taken with the grain of salt.



Of course you should know a thing or two about Hitler or Roman empire and various social processes but doing history as we are doing it here is counter productive. Which is basically learning all the facts about countless wars, rulers and agreements over the last few thousand years. Therefore I think that it is perhaps better that children learn extra foreign language or something like that instead of all those facts that just don't serve anything even if they are correct. However the system is build on certain paradigms and that never changes, we didn't change any basic premises of education which rate decades back.



Therefore I have constant clashes with Si since this function almost by default tries to stablize everything ... even the stuff that just should not be preserved due to their toxic or counter productive influence. We don't have the time or enough place for "everything" and Over last 100 years human life bacame too short for that, the basic goal of Si "know it all" just isn't possible anymore on individual level.


I am sorry for so open Si bashing ... I just that can't help myself.

Oh, you'd be surprised how much of US history has been either whitewashed or omitted from textbooks. there's a lot of common misconceptions and falsities that are continually repeated for the sake of maintaining a certain narrative. Motives behind many events, policies, actions, are often distorted to fit said narrative. That's why I don't particularly like narrative approaches to studying any history, US, or otherwise. Might as well be talking about literature when narratives are involved. Life is never as neat or tidy as literature and there's rarely finality or closure to any "chapter" in history.

People's political leanings in the US do very much color their perception and understanding of many past events. This even happens with recent history that occurred within a generation or two ago.

And I don't particularly view this nation's history as separate from world history. So yes, it's "short" depending on what point we go back to. Although I prefer to look at it as history of the Americas than I do as US history, in which case we're looking back at the tribes and kingdoms that predated colonization, with the current North and South American States as a very recent development. And nothing is ever isolated. We can tie Viking history to North American history and so on. No culture develops in a bubble.

Sorry to go off topic

 

[Virtual ghost]

Oh, you'd be surprised how much of US history has been either whitewashed or omitted from textbooks. there's a lot of common misconceptions and falsities that are continually repeated for the sake of maintaining a certain narrative. Motives behind many events, policies, actions, are often distorted to fit said narrative. That's why I don't particularly like narrative approaches to studying any history, US, or otherwise. Might as well be talking about literature when narratives are involved. Life is never as neat or tidy as literature and there's rarely finality or closure to any "chapter" in history.

People's political leanings in the US do very much color their perception and understanding of many past events. This even happens with recent history that occurred within a generation or two ago.

True, but you did't have decades of open dictatorship(s) which are completely foggy. Therefore it is easier to make Si constructs of your reality, even if they may not reflect perfectly what actually happened. This is exacly why Si can be dangerous if goes completely unchecked. It feels like succes even if founding logic is not that good.


What I am simply trying to say is that introverted perception and especuially Si can drag you into a maze from which it is hard to get out. I know that since this happened to me, since due to circumstances I lost realistic perspective on reality.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

True, but you did't have decades of open dictatorship(s) which are completely foggy. Therefore it is easier to make Si constructs of your reality, even if they may not reflect perfectly what actually happened. This is exacly why Si can be dangerous if goes completely unchecked. It feels like succes even if founding logic is not that good.

Well, yeah, that's sort of what I was trying to get at initially, so I think we're in agreement more than we're disagreeing.

What I am simply trying to say is that introverted perception and especuially Si can drag you into a maze from which it is hard to get out. I know that since this happened to me, since due to circumstances I lost realistic perspective on reality.

That's why I look for the absurdity in history. Trying to make sense of it all can be like trying to understand a story with a lot of conflicting narratives and plot holes.