• 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.

How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

Wonkavision

Retired Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
So, N-users all, the connections you make, are they created by you or do they exist prior to you and you tap into them?


(Will the i users say they create and the e users say they discover?)


I can't say for sure, but it seems that I'm perceiving connections that exist "out there", rather than creating them.

Of course, the only reason I lean in that direction is because my intuition tells me the connections exist "out there".

That may sound overly simplistic, but I think it IS fairly simple. I don't know if it can be explained any better than that.

I'm an ENFP. It's EXTRAVERTED INTUITION.


I'd love to hear from someone who has a more technical explanation for it, though.





Also, in order to keep this post from being a complete derail, I should add something about Sim's definition of Ni.

Though I think it seriously lacks tact, I don't actually disagree with it at all.

I think it's pretty spot on.

Just my opinion.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I can't say for sure, but it seems that I'm perceiving connections that exist "out there", rather than creating them.

Of course, the only reason I lean in that direction is because my intuition tells me the connections exist "out there".

That may sound overly simplistic, but I think it IS fairly simple. I don't know if it can be explained any better than that.

I'm an ENFP. It's EXTRAVERTED INTUITION.


I'd love to hear from someone who has a more technical explanation for it, though.





Also, in order to keep this post from being a complete derail, I should add something about Sim's definition of Ni.

Though I think it seriously lacks tact, I don't actually disagree with it at all.

I think it's pretty spot on.

Just my opinion.

Extraverted Intuition

Uses the inner understanding in the interests of the objective situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary and aims to escape by means of some sweeping change in the objective situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Is wholly directed upon outer objects, searching for emerging possibilities, and will sacrifice all else for such possibilities when found.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Finds self-expression natural and easy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Finds its greatest value in the promotion and initiation of new enterprises.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Requires the development of balancing judgment not only for the criticism and evaluation of the intuitive enthusiasms but also to hold it to the completion of its various activities.


I hope this isn't too technical.

In my own words, I would call it the motivation of seeking novelty in the objective situation. This can give it the appearance of being creative or future oriented.
 

Wonkavision

Retired Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,154
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w8
Extraverted Intuition

Uses the inner understanding in the interests of the objective situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary and aims to escape by means of some sweeping change in the objective situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Is wholly directed upon outer objects, searching for emerging possibilities, and will sacrifice all else for such possibilities when found.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Finds self-expression natural and easy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Finds its greatest value in the promotion and initiation of new enterprises.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Requires the development of balancing judgment not only for the criticism and evaluation of the intuitive enthusiasms but also to hold it to the completion of its various activities.

Hmmm.....interesting.

But I don't know what to make of it.

What does it tell us, in regard to Kalach's question?

Here's Kalach's question again:

So, N-users all, the connections you make, are they created by you or do they exist prior to you and you tap into them?
 

Chloe

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
2,196
Didnt really read the thread, but saw this post and I completely agree about Ne.

I can't say for sure, but it seems that I'm perceiving connections that exist "out there", rather than creating them.

Of course, the only reason I lean in that direction is because my intuition tells me the connections exist "out there".

That may sound overly simplistic, but I think it IS fairly simple. I don't know if it can be explained any better than that.

I'm an ENFP. It's EXTRAVERTED INTUITION.


I'd love to hear from someone who has a more technical explanation for it, though.

I explained it very similar in thread about how I use Ne in math (though i didnt know about Ne then), and how to understand math better: it's from iINTPc, 2009

chloe said:
To understand math you need to realize nothing is there because it's invented, because someone thought "hey, it'd be so nice if i invent trigonometric functions so people can learn them the way i invented it", no.. it's just already is there, as it is.
so since the math already is there, understanding is there too.
Dont go and learn one by one... try to perceive it.

Basically this is all I ever did while doing math.. Just look out there and see what's already there. Like stepping in some endless room and just looking around, spinning around yourself and your horizont never really ends... Ne!
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I would say that the latter sentiment "exist prior to you tapping into them" is the more extraverted approach, as extraversion prefers that which is "out there", already in existence, while introversion is derived and in some ways created by the subject.

This does not mean that extraverted intuition impedes us from "creating our own connections", because extraverted intuitives are quite capable of perceiving connections between objects in the outside world. Rather, the patterns perceived are synthesized by the introverted intuitive, giving it a kind of originality that may be contrary to external influences.
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
Extraverted Intuition

Uses the inner understanding in the interests of the objective situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary and aims to escape by means of some sweeping change in the objective situation..

"Prison" sounds like an extreme word though.. I just have to point that out. Instead of shunning it's surroundings, or even looking inwardly (it is extraverted perception, after all), it could take everything about surroundings into account, combine it with a few outside ideas, unify it's impressions of things - and generate a new thing to do.. maybe it could even apply to slightly mundane things at times, but in a way to enhance your current situation into something more enjoyable (rather than a prison to escape from per se...I think any inclination to diss surroundings is almost always introverted judging and maybe Si.. not Ne. Ne knows how to unify if necessary). For instance (pardon this lame example btw), maybe you're with a group of friends and everyone wants to go to a restaurant. Some of the girls want to dance too.. You remember one of them had a craving for fried oysters, others are down for tropical drinks, and just the other day, this dude you met was playing live music at a seafood restaurant not too far from where you're at..so that might be cool too. And so on and so forth. It all comes into place and you've got a good idea for a night out. You've just enhanced experiences by thinking contextually. Ne doesn't necessarily need to be some sweeping, existential change to things. It could, but to define it as such would be inaccurate, I think?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
"Prison" sounds like an extreme word though.. I just have to point that out. Instead of shunning it's surroundings, or even looking inwardly (it is extraverted perception, after all), it could take everything about surroundings into account, combine it with a few outside ideas, unify it's impressions of things - and generate a new thing to do.. maybe it could even apply to slightly mundane things at times, but in a way to enhance your current situation into something more enjoyable (rather than a prison to escape from per se...I think any inclination to diss surroundings is almost always introverted judging and maybe Si.. not Ne. Ne knows how to unify if necessary). For instance (pardon this lame example btw), maybe you're with a group of friends and everyone wants to go to a restaurant. Some of the girls want to dance too.. You remember one of them had a craving for fried oysters, others are down for tropical drinks, and just the other day, this dude you met was playing live music at a seafood restaurant not too far from where you're at..so that might be cool too. And so on and so forth. It all comes into place and you've got a good idea for a night out. You've just enhanced experiences by thinking contextually. Ne doesn't necessarily need to be some sweeping, existential change to things. It could, but to define it as such would be inaccurate, I think?

The bold sounds like it could be Se and Ni.

Not that that's a bad idea, but it's difficult to look at functional definitions without giving them your own bias. I have this problem too, when thinking about Ti, Ni, or other functions that I don't prefer. I see them through the cloud of my own preferences without knowing how they truly work for someone who might prefer them more.

Introverted Intuition

Uses the objective situation in the interests of the inner understanding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary and aims to escape through some sweeping change in the subjective understanding of the objective situation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receives its impetus from outer objects but is never arrested by external possibilities, being occupied rather by searching out new angles for viewing and understanding life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finds self-expression difficult.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finds it greatest value lies in the interpretation of life and then promotion of understanding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requires the development of balancing judgment not only for the criticism and evaluation of intuitive understanding but to enable it to impart its visions to others and bring them to practical usefulness in the world.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Listen anyway. Really listen.

If they're right, but your knowledge has more depth, you can slowly share the depth.

If they're right, but in their slow way eventually get to depths you don't already know, you might learn something.

If they're wrong, you can gently show them that they're wrong, by sharing your ideas.

When you really listen to others, they can tell that you've done so. They will return the favor.

The "rejecting input" habit of xNTJs is not as efficient as it would seem at first glance. It seems that if you already know something, it's a waste of time listening to it again, right? But really, there are layers and layers of knowledge, as you already well know, as an INTJ. As an example, I learned the elements of salsa dancing in about 2-3 months, in the "level 1" classes, but for many months and years later, I was still going to the "level 1" classes, in addition to levels 2 and 3 and other kinds of lessons. In particular, every new "level 1" instructor had new concepts that I had not fully understood before, which were not being taught in levels 2 or 3, because the concepts were so "basic."

Sometimes, of course, you have to reject input because the time to assimilate it simply does not exist, and you have a job to get done. Most of the time, however, it's detrimental.
This is S. Sapienne and I love you, seriously, in a platonic true sense, I do.

Your wisdom, patience and humility are so, so uplifting and illuminating.

:hug:
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
The bold sounds like it could be Se and Ni.

Not that that's a bad idea, but it's difficult to look at functional definitions without giving them your own bias. .

I guess all I'm trying to say is that Ne is able to brainstorm well and think contextually, and combine varying elements to broaden a situation (rather than discriminate, or throw out things while it's play). Whether it's in intellectual matters, or in the workplace, or in giving advice to a friend, or even in the mundane, there can be a positive/affirming angle to it that both takes what it sees into account and also broadens the situation, rather than escapes. By itself it's not shooting down anything, but percieving possibilities. Anyone utilizing it is simply looking and glossing over all the little options on what's possible. And even when Ne glosses over, it's not judging.. it's just capturing the essense of things, shortcuts the details, thrives in context. There is no inner understanding at work other than this ability to get the "gist" of things at a glance and processing how they may be connected.

If there's more discrimination or dissastification at work in someone, then it's serving the needs a judging function first..(and that's why some of us are introverts. Whether I myself am ISFP or INFP, I don't gravitate towards the extroverted percieving side of myself either, so none of my example above is how I experience Ne or Se really. I'm probably not all that different than you. The world's a friggin prison. :laugh:).
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
How would you distinguish between a PD and natural maturity? From another perspective, what ENTP under 20 isnt somewhat NPD like at times? Also, how do you "develop Ti"? How would other aux functions be developed in other types to prevent full blown PDs?

Well considering that a PD is generally a negative thing and natural maturity is a positive thing, I would think they'd be pretty easy to distinguish.

I suspect that what you intended to ask was how I distinguish a PD from natural immaturity, in which case the answer is not very clear cut.

An "official" diagnosis of a PD just means that a psychological professional felt the symptoms were bad enough that they were significantly interfering with normal functioning. Some people manage to live and cope with PDs; others have symptoms mild enough to avoid diagnosis, but imho most personality disorders are just extreme preferences for certain types of perspectives to the near exclusion of others that might balance them out.

Aux functions are best developed by putting yourself into situations that require you to use them to succeed. Unfortunately, this doesn't guarantee that you'll develop them; since we are talking about grasping a new perspective and not just learning a new skill, there is nothing we can do to guarantee development of any function; however, trying to open our minds to the positive aspects of our less developed functions by practicing skills associated with them and by listening to people who are strong in those perspectives is a good start.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If INTJs were secretive and held things back, do you think they would tell you?

No. They're secretive because they recognize the strategic value in withholding information. If they talk too much they give away how much they know or don't know; if they say nothing and simply let others assume from their silence that they know everything, they never have to reveal exactly how much they do or don't know, which leaves them with the upper hand. That way they know more about how much you know than you know about how much they know (phew!)

They've just very cognizant of not giving away more information than strategically necessary. They like to be one step ahead of everyone.

Amusingly, when you actually correctly call out their motivations, they do everything they can to discredit your claims because they're threatened by the idea of a loud-mouthed extrovert blabbing their secret plans to everybody.

This, I think, is one of the biggest reasons INTJs dislike sharing their deepest feelings and ideas with extroverts, especially EPs. They don't want the whole world to hear about it!

As far as I can tell, giving away way too much information when it's not strategically useful seems to be one of the biggest INTJ criticisms of ENTPs...am I right, Z? :headphne:


Sim's definition is mostly fine. I don't find much wrong in it. There, however, may be a number of missed points that may be added to it.

I'd enjoy hearing more elaboration on this from Ni doms. Please feel free to share your thoughts.


I'm chillin' so don't you worry bout me. :smooch:
:wubbie:

Hmm, my mother is all Fe with a marginal amount of Si.

Her mind is never still, she is constantly worried or thinking about something she needs to do, someone she needs to take care of, something she needs to take care of.

:sad:

My mother's genetic makeup and the way she was raised, well, she has no self, no identity, she can't be alone. She's never been alone, she can't even be "alone" with someone in the house, she needs to have company all the time, it's so sad. :sad:

But, if depth entails or encompasses having a focus, my uber-extroverted mom certainly has one, and it's called her family, I cannot tell you how many times she has told me that her daughters are her life, that that is all she cares about, us, and our well-being, and she ain't lyin', nope.

Both breadth and depth have foci; one is just more localized/specific (I), while the other is more generalized/global (E.)

On the contrary, I don't think you know, a.) my deeply ingrained predilection for introverts, both male and female, I'm patient as fuck when it comes to someone I care about, even in the moment, (no, the irony does not escape me), and I have always had a knack to open even the most introverted people up, hell, some took me years, but they opened up, others, well, yes, they were introverted, but no, they at least for me, had absolutely nothing to bring to the table, and listen, I did not and would not come at them with this notion, I would be like, hmm, that person seems cool, wait it out, get in a convo, and, wow, major disappointment.

There is no such thing as someone with absolutely nothing to bring to the table. You may have been majorly disappointed by the conversation with that person but the fact that you didn't enjoy their contributions doesn't mean they didn't have any.

The quiet, mysterious, shy, introverted guy is sometimes only that.

Sim are you trying to imply that all introverts have depth?

No, you are still misreading context here. The idea is that introverts prefer to focus on depth over breadth, not that they are all inherently deep people. Some of them prefer to focus on depth but still don't do a very good job of attaining it.

As Jaguar always says, preference =/= skill.

Listen, I've got a pretty good intuition regarding introverts, as in, I seek the attention of those who usually end up being smart and lovely, but I have erred in the past, or not even erred, there have been many times in uni when an introvert felt comfortable enough to open up to me of their own volition and I was, well, unimpressed.

You need to also realize that I am truly an Idealist, and that I want to see the good in people, but some people are not worth, what I've come to relatively recently realize, waste your precious time.

That's true, but the criteria you use to evaluate those people are still ultimately relative. A person who seems a waste of time to you might not seem that way to someone else.

You need to have at least one of the following qualities in order for me to willingly choose to expend energy on you.

1.) Be genuinely kind and sweet

2.) Be funny

3.) Be highly intelligent

If you don't meet any of the above criteria, sorry, but I got better things to do, like hang out on the interwebs with the likes of you people. :D

Okay? I don't understand the relevance.

Regardless, Sim, I know you don't know me personally, but I have always preferred the company of introverts, and I can't ever recall one not opening up to me, irl, and I am telling the fucking truth.

We see a young guy or girl wearing glasses and we automatically assume that he or she is a nerd/bookworm/smart. :rolli:

I think the same thing happens with introverts, oh, he's quiet, he must be pensive and deep, not always the case m'dear.

I don't think you're lying; I think you're just being presumptuous about certain introverts having no worthwhile contributions to anything, simply because you personally didn't find their contributions interesting.

I don't think all introverts are deep people; I do, however, think all introverts prefer to focus on depth over breadth. Whether or not they're actually good at it is another thing entirely.


Only in THEORY do I understand and accept what you are saying, but for the most part, IRL, especially with Ns, our dom and aux functions are so integrally entwined that I just don't see how an extroverted NP, (ENJs don't hate me. :)) could possibly be lacking in depth.

This happens to Ne doms (and any extrovert) when their introverted functions suck. Likewise, any introvert with poor command of his extroverted functions will be lacking in breadth.

But, I am not a dumbtard, you are saying Ne left to its own devices would consume a vast breadth of knowledge/information. That is very true.

Yes, and without the aid of an accompanying introverted perspective, it would be all breadth and no depth. Since you (apparently) have very strong Fi, you probably have a good balance between breadth and depth (though as an extrovert you are inherently more attuned to breadth, even if only slightly.)

Hahahaha, I wrote my previous point without reading this, and what I was going to add was this, all of my bookmarks, well, some are just odd, (I likey theoretical mathematics), have a flavor, a focus, an umbrella you can put them under, I just started bookmarking on this computer but I would say that 20 % are wiki articles about cool theoretical mathematics/abstract geometry and that the rest are about human beings,

I can't post an image of all of them so I will hyperlink a few on the list. :)

Complex number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cetacean intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Riemann sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(psychology)

SENG: Articles & Resources - Counseling Gifted Adults - A Case Study

Psychological mindedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ When I came across this article I was astounded that such a thing was labeled/categorized, let's just say my therapists in the past have often told me how great a therapist I would be. :p

Man I think I get why Z is always complaining about Ne doms wandering off topic.

Oy vey, what is it with Ti and analysis, i.e. dissection, I'm all about synthesis, I tend to see things in large nebulous chunks, and regarding typology, and granted this is my Fi talking, why wouldn't we be discussing things regarding complete people, I think we analyze aspects of behavior and pieces of ourselves with the intent to understand the whole, amiwrong?

Sweetheart, do you realize you are projecting your own experiences with introverts onto me.

Do you?

No, but the assumption on your part that any given introvert has no depth and nothing to contribute is implausible if that introvert hasn't really opened up and shared him or herself with you. You don't know what's going on in there unless the person has made an effort to show you.

Are there introverts with very little depth? Sure, but they still have a preference for focusing on depth, even if they suck at it.

IRL I have had nothing but success with introverts, my best friend in high school, an INTJ, A HARDCORE INTROVERT, though she would spend her free time with me, and listen to me, and chime in once in a while, it wasn't until senior year and we were on MDMA that she expressed how she felt about me.

Hahah I've had MDMA interventions with I_T_ friends and hearing them finally express emotions for the first time in their lives is really a lot of fun. (I have a close INTP friend who did exactly the same thing!)

Honestly, thinking back on that moment is gonna make me cry, she, to this day was the hardest introvert to "crack", I was constantly insecure that she thought I was some idiot, but she liked me, no, loved me and admired me, who knew, I didn't. :blushing:

I agree it's awesome when they finally open up. I take it as a big sign of respect and trust if an introvert is willing to be very open with you.


I agree with you on the Te, mayhaps, but with your description of Fe, this horse emphatically says NAY?!!?!?

The bolded part is where I REALLY disagree with you.

Fe dom users do whatever they can at the moment, i.e. modify their behavior, make some sacrifice for the sake of harmony, to make you happy for the moment, period. When an Fe user is in the company of people, s/he will do whatever it takes to bring harmony to the people. The end.

That's kind of half right; however, they don't really care about helping you or making you happy if they don't feel some sort of familial or cultural connection to you. Fe will do anything for you--as long as you're part of "the group." If you're not, sorry--Fe has no responsibility toward you.

Some Fe users (especially NFJs) consider the entirety of humanity to be part of "the group" and thus will pretty much do anything to help anybody, but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Anyway though, I'm talking about the way Fe users derive morality, not their habits regarding helping others. They look for a moral standard that can apply to everybody equally and uniformly in any context--Fi takes issue with this, as it feels that generalizing moral standards circumvents individuality and freedom of expression, freedom to do what feels right to you, no matter what "the group" thinks.


Fi wants the depth of personal individuality; Fe wants a one-size-fits-all moral standard because it has broader external applicability.

Your first statement is true, your second statement is partially true.

Many dom/aux Fe users ime have been religious, so you are right in that they will adopt a code that their community seems to adopt to too, but how is this showing breadth?

Also, um, pffft, once you get an Fe user alone, or in a small group, all religious bets are off, they will do what feels good/right right now instead of having to deal with temporary negative emotions, they want harmony first and foremost, period. (Once again how does this display breadth?)

This displays breadth because doing whatever promotes group harmony depends on everybody agreeing upon and behaving according to one collective moral standard. Fe reasons, "If your moral idea only applies to you and can't work for everybody collectively, then you need to set it aside in favor of something we can all agree to be bound by."

Fi doesn't like that because it squelches the personal freedom that goes into deciding what feels right to each person individually. Since Fe considers morality in terms of an externalized standard, though, giving up this individualized depth is fine because it allows to agree upon a universal standard by which everyone can be judged consistently.

Think of it in Te terms, since you are a Te user--when it comes to impersonal ideas, you want to establish a collective consensus based on externalized evidence; that way we can all get on the same page about what standards of measurement to use when we discuss impersonal ideas. Te doesn't really care if this removes the degree of theoretical precision that Ti prefers, because Te thinks impersonal ideas should be dealt with collectively and according to an objective standard, while personal feelings/morality should be dealt with privately by the individual (Fi.)

FeTi inverts that. It's doing exactly the same thing, just the other way around--in FeTi's view, morality/ethics is something we should all collectively agree on, while impersonal ideas and logic should be dealt with privately according to a subjective and individualized perspective. Fe shows breadth by giving up the depth and complexity allowed by Fi's personalized treatment of ethics in favor of coming up with a collective, one-size-fits-all moral standard by which everyone in the group can be consistently judged.

Unfortunately we have to make that moral standard fit everyone in the group for Fe to accomplish this, so the degree of personalized depth that Fi prefers is no longer possible. In Fe terms, morals need to fit everyone, not just you personally.

It's just like how Te wants impersonal ideas and theories to be externally demonstrable in a way that can make sense to everyone, not just you--and this is why Te users constantly insist that Ti users provide more externally verifiable backing for their ideas. But asking us to do that is like us asking you to provide external evidence that your moral opinions are objectively correct, which completely defeats the purpose!

You say: "I feel that this is right for me." An Fe user says: "Oh yeah? Well you need to prove objectively that your moral viewpoint is shared by a majority of people!" But that's not the point for Fi! Fi and Ti are both inherently personalized, so they don't understand why Fe and Te constantly want them to use external means to prove their validity. For Ji, externalized proof is completely beside the point.

Errrrrr you had me till the last sentence.

Though you did use the qualifier "tend" I dunno, if by expertise on one subject qualifies as depth, then maybe, maybe I get what you are saying but no.

I am an extrovert, both by MBTI standards and real life standards, but my extroversion is like I dunno, just a facet of my personality, my extroversion IN NO WAY IS A DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF WHO I AM.

Like, I'd put it on the same level as...

This took me a while, I'm extroverted, I also am pretty easy going.

There.

My being extroverted and easy-going do reveal something about me but in no way do these two traits even scratch the surface of describing who I am.

I have probably, off the top of my head, four to seven main interests in life and my acquiring knowledge in these interests helps me gain a deeper understanding of what I care about, the human condition, Life.

:)

Cool, it sounds like you have a pretty solid balance between Ne and Fi. The point, of course, is that you are inherently more attuned to Ne's breadth, even if you also have a relatively strong command of Fi's depth.

MAJOR EDIT:



^LULZ, I totally didn't see this part of your post, and, I agree wholeheartedly.

:D

Yeah, again note that preference doesn't equal skill. Preferring introversion means that one prefers a narrower but deeper focus, while preferring extroversion means that one prefers a broader but shallower focus, most of the time.

As an ENFP, when you look at something from an Ne perspective, you are favoring breadth over depth.

When you switch it up and look at it more from an Fi perspective, you are then favoring depth over breadth.

If you are a balanced individual (and it sounds like you are), then you'll be able to use aspects of both at the right times--sometimes breadth is more useful; sometimes depth is.

The fact that you an extrovert means the Ne breadth focus comes more naturally to you than the Fi depth focus, but it certainly doesn't mean you're incapable of focusing on depth!
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Well considering that a PD is generally a negative thing and natural maturity is a positive thing, I would think they'd be pretty easy to distinguish.

I suspect that what you intended to ask was how I distinguish a PD from natural immaturity, in which case the answer is not very clear cut.

An "official" diagnosis of a PD just means that a psychological professional felt the symptoms were bad enough that they were significantly interfering with normal functioning. Some people manage to live and cope with PDs; others have symptoms mild enough to avoid diagnosis, but imho most personality disorders are just extreme preferences for certain types of perspectives to the near exclusion of others that might balance them out.

Aux functions are best developed by putting yourself into situations that require you to use them to succeed. Unfortunately, this doesn't guarantee that you'll develop them; since we are talking about grasping a new perspective and not just learning a new skill, there is nothing we can do to guarantee development of any function; however, trying to open our minds to the positive aspects of our less developed functions by practicing skills associated with them and by listening to people who are strong in those perspectives is a good start.

I dont disagree. With respect to the PD theory your proposed on the other thread, The downside to your discussion is that the social stigma of NPD and BPD are particularly severe as there is no known treatment for either. The advice loved ones and associates receive is "run away". Thus I am very, very wary of using those as labels. Things like depression and ADHD are very treatable and more acceptable and less "scary". I realize it defies logic to change labels for the sake of social stigma, but for NPD and BPD, it would be advised.

If these illnesses were continuum based it would be better, but often they are diagnosis of last result and are very poorly understood. Just a label to justify medications or inability to "fix" the person.

My ENTP from last year was a real NPD at 44. When given a list of jungian functions he selected "Ne, Fe, Ti and Se being an occasional player". Oddly he was not unintelligent...but he Ti ideas had no basis in reality, no ground, no historical testing-thus were totally nuts. Yet he would defend them bitterly, even though they were Te fail and not implementable. I call this an Si fail. He also displayed true Fe caring. He really did care deeply, transiently for others. All ENTPs experience transient Fe, I suppose, but he could had three INFJ girlfriends at one point, one who lived with him for 8 years. It was very interesting to watch him interact with an INFJ...you could see him feeding off of them. His eyes would be filled with adoration as he absorbed their Fe. He was exceptionally prissy and dainty. He never responded to emails unless you were important enough. I initially assumed malice, but later I pondered and I think he used so much Fe, that writing anything required excessive amounts of time to draft "just right", thus he could never answer all of his emails.

Interestingly his dad was a nasa scientist. NPD has the highest rate of heredity of any PD and more so of almost any mental disorder. However if it really is Ti(Si) not developing fully I would suggest this is amplified by being in an intellectually critical home, where attempts at Ti expression are belittled.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
"Prison" sounds like an extreme word though..

I must say, prison is a fitting word for me...although I have grown to temper this over time.

Ne discovers things that are already there, even if they could not be seen by others.

The really fun part of to have say, 8 Ne connectivity blobs. They are sitting on a flat plane. You connect at a 90 degree angle on the plane and peel up a layer as you have Ne connected something across the layer-the plane...then all 8 blobs fall ldown a level and become locked into place a dimension below and are now connected to each other-thus are one big Ne connection. Suddenly you have a complete self consistent system. Each blob was tentative, but by nature of the new connections, it actually confirms the blobs orientations to each other.

It is like building architectures of new worlds.

Yup, but dont look at the spaces in between the blobs too closely or you start to use Ni...thus are cheating. Ni generates insane ideas.

This is how I view MBTI for example. It lacks the needed dimensionality, but it seems that across types, the functional symmetry is always present. If an ENTP does X due to Fe, you can bet an ENFP will do the inverse of X due to Te for instance:

Symmetry1.jpg
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
The ability to get to know my partner, for us to get to know each other, really know each other, to reveal our true selves via peeling all the pleasantries and fear-based facades.

I've read somewhere that INTJs have a tendency to be very secretive, and to hold back, is this true? Why do you think that is?

P.S. I don't think he's accustomed to chilling out with intelligent chickas who are sexual freakas. :newwink:

I would suggest that perhaps INTJs highly protect as Fi as not only does it not have words, but it also is very raw and gaping. We have Ne and Si and Te to protect our Fi. They seem to have only Se which doesnt really protect Fi quite so well, once exposed-thus the value of touch. My INTJ and I pet each other like puppies. It is sooo funny. But incredibly soothing and calming. Holding, being held, gently running my fingers through his hair....

(I must note my ENTP says to be careful that I dont pet him so much his skin falls off....)

Anyways, wow uumlau, looks like silly knows something I dont...Have you been hiding a secret lover from your 1000+ closest friends at Type C? :D Awwwwww.....so sweeeet!! Alas, hundreds of nfp hearts will broken....:cry:
 

slowriot

He who laughs
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
1,314
Enneagram
5w4
What do you think of this definition Sim posted on personalitycafe?

I find it really interesting - especially the examples. It seems to be missing the essence of some things though.

"Ni, or introverted iNtuition, is dominant for INxJ, secondary for ENxJ, tertiary for ISxP and inferior for ESxP. It is an inward sense of abstract perceptual shift. Rather than imagine different ways we could change the outside world, Ni acknowledges many different ways we could change the subjective meaning of things to ourselves by looking at them from different angles. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ni will often solve problems by simply looking at them from a different angle. Doing a bunch of community service sucks? Just think of it as an opportunity to get lots of exercise! Note that Ni doesn't think about how to change the outer world the way Ne does; it only thinks about how to change *the way we interpret* the outer world. Ni leads you to try and see "through the smoke and mirrors" to what is REALLY going on below the surface, that other people are not perceptive enough to pick up on...so in its unhealthy form, it turns into conspiracy theories, a la Dale Gribble from King of the Hill.

Strong Ni users like being the person behind the scenes who pulls all the strings (even better if most people don't even realize it) and understands the dynamics of everything on a deeper level than everyone else. They are threatened by the idea that there might be any perspective or angle they cannot see, and as such they sometimes overestimate their own ability to fully grasp and work around the attitudes of others.

As with all introverted functions, Ni doesn't pay attention to external conditions outside the self so it doesn't care if anyone else grasps the ideas the same way the Ni user does. To Ni, I get the significance and that's all that matters. Ni songwriters (e.g. Thom Yorke, INFJ) will often write lyrics that could not possibly make any sense to other people without a direct explanation from the writer, but they don't really care because Ni considers intuition such a personal thing that it can't make its perspective/ideas clear to others very easily at all, and frequently doesn't even bother trying.

For another example, Isaac Newton (INTJ) invented calculus and didn't bother telling anyone about it for 20 years. Ne would have been out showing the idea to others and changing it based on their reactions--but not Ni!

As a result Ne is typically much better at putting its abstract ideas into terms that others will understand than Ni.

On a side note: Ni appreciates definitional freedom (and thus is often annoyed by Ti) in the same way Ne appreciates freedom to change its plan of action abruptly (and thus is often annoyed by Te.) Ti users will tend to frame debates by first assigning precise definitions to terms, but Ni often objects to this by wondering: "How are we unconsciously limiting our understanding by assigning such rigid definitions in the first place?" Ni always seeks to escape the unconscious assumptions that limit its understanding of as many different conceptual viewpoints as possible."

I think a major problem, as much as some of what he writes about Ni is true, is that simulatedworld's way of describing anything is by comparing it to Ne. And that gives no value to Ni only Ne since that is where he bases his perspective from.

An Ni description needs to be described by objective views not something influenced/contaminating the view.

And as to the question why I dont make a Ni description. I dont think its neccesary since many people have done so brilliantly before me.

Introverted iNtuiting
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think a major problem, as much as some of what he writes about Ni is true, is that simulatedworld's way of describing anything is by comparing it to Ne. And that gives no value to Ni only Ne since that is where he bases his perspective from.

An Ni description needs to be described by objective views not something influenced/contaminating the view.

And as to the question why I dont make a Ni description. I dont think its neccesary since many people have done so brilliantly before me.

Introverted iNtuiting

You're right...unfortunately as an Ne dominant I have no way of escaping Ne's influence on the way I conceptualize everything.

So, any input on the nature of Ni/Te/Fi/Se from users of those functions is much appreciated!
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think a major problem, as much as some of what he writes about Ni is true, is that simulatedworld's way of describing anything is by comparing it to Ne. And that gives no value to Ni only Ne since that is where he bases his perspective from.

Well, I don't know if that is true. (NO value?)

It's not like people totally always understand themselves or their own ways of seeing. We can't even assume people who think in a framework totally understand it; in fact, often if they've never stepped outside of it, they are vulnerable to their own distortions of perspective even within their natural framework.

And we typically describe things or understand things in comparison with other things. The more things something is compared to, the more angles you're going to see it from; and hopefully you will have a fuller grasp of what it actually is not and, thus, what it is.
 

slowriot

He who laughs
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
1,314
Enneagram
5w4
yes agreed jennifer I think that we can use other functions to find new perspectives on ourselves and our functions. But the problem I find with simulatedworld's Ni description here is that he dont use Ne to find the differences between Ne and Ni but only compares them to his already established view of Ne. Hes not as you say using his own functions to find differences he only giving them value according to his own view of himself..
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
yes agreed jennifer I think that we can use other functions to find new perspectives on ourselves and our functions. But the problem I find with simulatedworld's Ni description here is that he dont use Ne to find the differences between Ne and Ni but only compares them to his already established view of Ne. Hes not as you say using his own functions to find differences he only giving them value according to his own view of himself..

It's impossible for me to do anything else. I cannot ever understand Ni firsthand; the best I can do is approximate it in Ne terms. I have to translate this foreign language into a language that I can grasp.

Such is one limitation of being human.


It's not like people totally always understand themselves or their own ways of seeing. We can't even assume people who think in a framework totally understand it; in fact, often if they've never stepped outside of it, they are vulnerable to their own distortions of perspective even within their natural framework.

so so so true
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Exactly.

The one thing I would add just to clarify, as I believe non-dom-Ni users don't quite understand us in this regard: when uumlau says interesting discoveries lie inward, it does not mean merely inward toward ourselves, but deeper within the object itself. In a sense, we become the object, and we then try to better understand the object by better understanding "ourselves".

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/33971-enfp-our-inner-simulacrums.html

I created the above thread to subjectively capture what FiSi does in ENFPs.

To Ne the idea along, I assume very similar things may happen in INFPs with FiSi and that the equivalent occurs in TiSi with respect to logical "archetypes" in both NTPs.

If You guys make the object become part of you....are you using Te inside of your head to study the potentials present once you understand the object? And the object becomes an "archetype" at this point and can represent a whole class of similar objects?

Do the INFJs somehow do this with people? Or are the objects they incorporate more Fe oriented...thus forming people archetypes?

once the object is part of you, is it there forever? Do you have emotive attachments to the object/archetype? (Oh.....Hey U-this is why INTJs fall in love with the "idea" of love....while ENFPs just fall in love with imaginary people in our heads :) )

If we initially start as small children using our dom or aux introverted function to mirror our world, those mirrors become part of us and are self defining....we become as adults what our introverted functions saw as children....and absorbed from our world around us...

However we get a second chance to evolve when we start growing in that second introverted function, in our 20s....as it finds very different things to imprint, mirror, and mold....

thus our internal world, our sense of self is defined by two introveretd functions......at some point I would guess the second introverted function starts to play a larger and larger role over the first....

yeah Ne babble....sorry...
 
Top