[INTJ] Do INTJs Overdevelop Thinking and Underdevelop Intuition?

[ummm]

l see the objection that this would just be called an ENTJ but l see what you're saying, also.

l see a fear of irrationality in INTJs, Ni can be an extremely irrational function that Te may try to make sense of.

l don't think technically, then Ni can be underdeveloped since it's dominant. But Te could be overly developed in comparison. Which then might result as equal to?

 

[Entropic]

l see the objection that this would just be called an ENTJ but l see what you're saying, also.

l see a fear of irrationality in INTJs, Ni can be an extremely irrational function that Te may try to make sense of.

l don't think technically, then Ni can be underdeveloped since it's dominant. But Te could be overly developed in comparison. Which then might result as equal to?

According to Jung, the auxiliary can never become more egoic in position than the dominant since that would suggest there is no dominant function residing within the ego structure, meaning that you are typeless because all the functions are undifferentiated.

The purpose of Jungian theory is to differentiate your dominant e.g. make it more conscious within your ego, because when you do, you also gain better control of it, which overall makes it more useful to you as a function perspective.

In contrast, the auxiliary must always be a slave to the dominant because it can never rival the dominant function's position. If it does, then it is not an auxiliary anymore.

 

[highlander]

According to Jung, the auxiliary can never become more egoic in position than the dominant since that would suggest there is no dominant function residing within the ego structure, meaning that you are typeless because all the functions are undifferentiated.

The purpose of Jungian theory is to differentiate your dominant e.g. make it more conscious within your ego, because when you do, you also gain better control of it, which overall makes it more useful to you as a function perspective.

In contrast, the auxiliary must always be a slave to the dominant because it can never rival the dominant function's position. If it does, then it is not an auxiliary anymore.

It think it's better to say that the auxiliary provides balance with the dominant rather than being a slave to it. Being the slave seems like an unhealthy way to use the auxiliary.

 

[highlander]

I don't think the question is especially meaningful. I'm sorry, you don't just go, "Hey, I think I'll develop my Te, now," or "I think it's time to work on Fi."

I do not believe that the question has meaning, because it contains assumptions about how functions are "developed."

An ENTJ leads with Te; an INTJ leads with Ni. The notion of "overdeveloped" is not applicable in either case. If Te is "overdeveloped" one is an ENTJ. Period. By definition. One is necessarily a Te dom.

An INTJ might believe that Te is "overdeveloped", but that means nothing, if one essentially is "Ni". If one is an Ni dom, then Ni is in control, because one is Ni. Te is only believed to be "in control", because Te is conscious.

Now, all INTJs tend to emphasize Te to a degree, but that has nothing to do with "overdevelopment" of Te or underdevelopment of intuition. It has to do with the ability to use Te to turn our intuitive grasp of everything into something concrete enough that we can verify our understanding. We don't "overdevelop" Te so much as rely upon Te to allow communication of our more complicated ideas, especially in early years.

Actually, I think this misses the point I was trying to make. The point isn't that an INTJ would prefer Te over Ni. I am not also suggesting any of this is done consciously. As one matures, the functions tend to develop in order. I've seen this depicted on a timescale, where as a child, the dominant function comes first. In your teens, the auxiliary comes to life. Afterwards, the tertiary develops. It's not linear like that of course, but there is a general progression. Development of a judging function attitude (Te or Fe) is very important for Ni doms in general to operate in the external world effectively and there is external motivation for one to do that.

People evaluate you based on how you think. I recall one person 10 years ago criticizing me for my "arbitrary" decisions. Others who know me better have said that I "fool people with my smart guesses." The way in which Ni doms arrive at conclusions is obscure to other people. They don't understand it. It is much easier and more accepted to look at the facts, look at has worked before and other such things. An Se dom or aux would tend to suggest that we look at what's going on right in front of our face. An Si dom or aux would tend towards looking at what has happened or worked before. We are influenced by those around us. If a certain way of thinking is understood and accepted then you are encouraged to think that way. If a certain way of thinking is not, then we are discouraged from it. What I'm suggesting is that this outside influence impacts type development, which for example the Step III instrument is designed to help assess. It will be interesting to see what kind of patterns begin to emerge as this instrument is more widely adopted.

I suppose it is not so much over/underdevelopment as neglect or over/underemphasis. This is what I described in my last post, when I must tie up most of my mental energy and attention on things that have little to do with Ni. I can imagine that many jobs place a person in just this kind of situation, which would be unpleasant for an Ni-dom.

Maybe that is a better way of explaining it.

On a perhaps related note, my "EnnaThought for the day" for a 6 is,

Be aware that your "characteristic temptation" is to let doubt cloud your own inner knowing. Average to Unhealthy Sixes become increasingly dependent on others or on familiar beliefs and procedures for emotional security. How can you create mental clarity for yourself today? (Understanding the Enneagram, 103)

How much do I trust those intuitive perceptions? Not always as much as I should.

 

[Entropic]

It think it's better to say that the auxiliary provides balance with the dominant rather than being a slave to it. Being the slave seems like an unhealthy way to use the auxiliary.

No, it is a slave. You don't need an auxiliary function; this is why Jung only posits 8 rather than 16 types. We can all think, feel, sense and intuit, but what makes the function dominant and/or auxiliary is whether it is differentiated in the ego and becomes a part of the ego structure. If the individual does not seem to express any capability of having differentiated any function, then the person is typeless. If the individual has only differentiated one function, then the individual has a type but lacks an auxiliary.

Differentiation means, in this context, simply an acceptance of the function as an ego perspective. It is when the functions are undifferentiated that they become "mixed" and "messy", because they only really appear as some archaic feeling, thinking, sensation or intuition.

What you really are describing is when functions are undifferentiated. That's when they can appear to be "balanced". Differentiation is when one starts focusing on one perspective moreso than the other and clearly favors this perspective as one's ego structure.

 

[uumlau]

No, it is a slave. You don't need an auxiliary function; this is why Jung only posits 8 rather than 16 types. We can all think, feel, sense and intuit, but what makes the function dominant and/or auxiliary is whether it is differentiated in the ego and becomes a part of the ego structure. If the individual does not seem to express any capability of having differentiated any function, then the person is typeless. If the individual has only differentiated one function, then the individual has a type but lacks an auxiliary.

Differentiation means, in this context, simply an acceptance of the function as an ego perspective. It is when the functions are undifferentiated that they become "mixed" and "messy", because they only really appear as some archaic feeling, thinking, sensation or intuition.

What you really are describing is when functions are undifferentiated. That's when they can appear to be "balanced". Differentiation is when one starts focusing on one perspective moreso than the other and clearly favors this perspective as one's ego structure.

I would note that "slave" is a loaded word, that will make people tend to disagree with you, even though I believe you are technically correct. It would perhaps be more diplomatic to say that the other functions, properly differentiated, support the lead. When they aren't differentiated, they only support the lead function by accident, both working with and against the lead.

Properly understood, while raw, undifferentiated inferior Se often frustrates Ni-thinking, properly differentiated Se supports Ni-thinking, as real world experience is essential to refine Ni visions, and allow those visions to be applied in real life, and not just in your head.

 

[Entropic]

I would note that "slave" is a loaded word, that will make people tend to disagree with you, even though I believe you are technically correct. It would perhaps be more diplomatic to say that the other functions, properly differentiated, support the lead. When they aren't differentiated, they only support the lead function by accident, both working with and against the lead.

I would perhaps even use the word subordinate if I were to look for alternatives.

Properly understood, while raw, undifferentiated inferior Se often frustrates Ni-thinking, properly differentiated Se supports Ni-thinking, as real world experience is essential to refine Ni visions, and allow those visions to be applied in real life, and not just in your head.

How do you understand the process of differentiation? I am of the belief that the inferior cannot be differentiated since it would challenge the dominant ego perspective. We can at best differentiate the tertiary but this is uncommon. I think most only have a differentiated dominant function if they are a type at all, in a Jungian sense at least.

 

[uumlau]

How do you understand the process of differentiation? I am of the belief that the inferior cannot be differentiated since it would challenge the dominant ego perspective. We can at best differentiate the tertiary but this is uncommon. I think most only have a differentiated dominant function if they are a type at all, in a Jungian sense at least.

It depends on what one means by differentiation. I would regard "differentiation" of Fi and Se for INTJs more a matter of self-awareness than anything else. Remember, early on, we tend to dismiss their input outright, unless they demand our attention, at which point we try to find the quickest way to shut them up. If one is aware, then it's possible to figure out how to deal with them in an effective way. The overall decision-making would still be Ni-Te, but it would be Ni-Te strongly informed by Fi-Se.

 

[Entropic]

It depends on what one means by differentiation. I would regard "differentiation" of Fi and Se for INTJs more a matter of self-awareness than anything else. Remember, early on, we tend to dismiss their input outright, unless they demand our attention, at which point we try to find the quickest way to shut them up. If one is aware, then it's possible to figure out how to deal with them in an effective way. The overall decision-making would still be Ni-Te, but it would be Ni-Te strongly informed by Fi-Se.

I see. So to you, differentiation is not the same as taking on a function's cognitive perspective as a part of one's ego structure. Then what you suggested makes more sense, yes.

How do you separate the concept of awareness from ego, and why would awareness lead to a more informed or controlled input from the inferior function perspectives?

 

[uumlau]

I see. So to you, differentiation is not the same as taking on a function's cognitive perspective as a part of one's ego structure. Then what you suggested makes more sense, yes.

How do you separate the concept of awareness from ego, and why would awareness lead to a more informed or controlled input from the inferior function perspectives?

I'm hard pressed to assign a precise meaning to "taking on a function's cognitive perspective as a part of one's ego structure". While I'm well-versed in the functions and their principles, I usually don't see words like "ego structure". I do believe that the dominant function IS how you think, to the point that it's difficult to see how it affects your thinking, the same way you can't directly see the blind spots in your eyes (where the retina attaches to the nerve).

The awareness I'm talking about is learning how the other functions jibe with the dominant, inform the dominant.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Properly understood, while raw, undifferentiated inferior Se often frustrates Ni-thinking, properly differentiated Se supports Ni-thinking, as real world experience is essential to refine Ni visions, and allow those visions to be applied in real life, and not just in your head.

I'm wondering how these 'refined Ni visions' manifest into life.

I have a few thoughts about what might make your visionary Ni realizations process work:
1. Many mystics say things like, "you attract all events in your life", or "your focus determines your reality" and such, but I've never known how literally to take those radical beliefs.
2. Some philosophers (like Nietzsche or Spinoza) make claims like, "the will is a force and a world mover", or that "the will of God is the prime cause", making it a potential 'will to action'.
3. All of our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions. Perhaps they way you are 'seeing' the world influences the way it will be shaped (this combines the first 2 principles outlined).

 

[Kalach]

By the bye, ladies, how do you tell the difference between "developed" thinking and undifferentiated feeling? Both people would display concern for the impersonal, and probably argue a lot.

The answer, as we all know, is [something about your mother] but it means something for this "developed" idea too. Or are we still thinking functions can be developed in isolation? What does that even mean?

 

[Entropic]

I'm hard pressed to assign a precise meaning to "taking on a function's cognitive perspective as a part of one's ego structure". While I'm well-versed in the functions and their principles, I usually don't see words like "ego structure". I do believe that the dominant function IS how you think, to the point that it's difficult to see how it affects your thinking, the same way you can't directly see the blind spots in your eyes (where the retina attaches to the nerve).

I doubt many people utilize this particular expression. I am not sure if this is something I picked up or something I began using on my own, but it conveys what I am interested in expressing which is why I use it, for pretty much the reasons you describe. When a function perspective becomes a part of one's ego structure, it becomes a part of your ego, it informs your ego and thus, it also becomes a part of you and your sense of self. It is now inseparable from the ego, whereas I see the auxiliary and if differentiated, the tertiary, as informing the ego or in other words, the dominant function.

The awareness I'm talking about is learning how the other functions jibe with the dominant, inform the dominant.

Care to explain what you mean in greater detail, here?

 

[Kalach]

If "development" has any positive meaning it'd have to be something about increased sophistication of "use", and I sincerely doubt that can happen without "development" of the other end of the function. That is, develop an auxiliary means differentiate a tertiary. After all, what is a more sophisticated "Te" if not a deeper appreciation of what truths can be valued? Or for an ENTJ, what is a more sophisticated Ni if not the addition of a greater appreciation for physical process?

But do INTJ's overemphasize extroverted thinking? Of course. A reactive rush to judgment that closes off outside options is exactly what inner perception needs when it is building some new, conscious system of concepts. The concepts are being perceived, they're arriving slowly. Because they are new, they require a tending that is half structured and half wide open--structured, so they can take at least some kind of form, but wide open so they can be what they're going to be, a system of real concepts that were drawn in and from the stuff of everything so that they could be something. It doesn't have to be that the outer expression of these ideas *as they form* is rigid and a bit hysterically "true", but that kind of overemphasis on extroverted thinking does maintain a skeleton of ideas that lets the inner shapes be free of contingent misdirection.

The question then of "do intjs overdevelop thinking and underdevelop intution?" is more properly the question "WTF, you mean it's feeling?!" The inner world requires much less reactive outward defense if feeling, specifically as a relatively differentiated tertiary, is more pronounced. You can judge the burgeoning world of concepts from the inside using aesthetic evaluations that mirror your natural concern for "thought".

Don't thank me later. It'll be embarrassing for all of us.

 

[Zarathustra]

*can only imagine how lost this thread is without his input*

 

[uumlau]

Care to explain what you mean in greater detail, here?

It's easiest to see with Se contrasting with Ni. It's not so easy to see with Te informing Ni.

Without a clear awareness of Se, it mostly gets in the way of Ni. The pattern of how Ni thinks is a kind of focusing-not-focusing, what Nardi aptly describes as a kind-of-Zen state that all people use when performing an activity in which they are a true expert. Ni uses this state all the time: one focuses on the problem at hand, synthesizing the data one has already absorbed, pushing all other concerns away. Se directly intrudes on this state for Ni, even for someone who is fairly aware of the role of Se. Similarly, Fe throws Ti for a loop, Si throws Ne for a loop, Te throws Fi for a loop.

They're antithetical - except they're not.

Without Se, Ni is completely ungrounded. The Ni dom usually doesn't realize that the reason the sensory stimuli of the outer world intrude on his thinking is precisely because they inform his thinking. The real disturbance isn't that Se happens at all, but that it tends to happen ALSO when the Ni dom needs to process what has already been absorbed, and absorbing more disturbs that process.

So, without awareness, one will only randomly absorb/reject the contribution of the inferior. At worst, one will always reject the input of the inferior, and possibly appear to be insane.

What good is Ti, if it doesn't come up with ideas for the betterment of everyone (Fe)? How does one prioritize anything using Te, if one doesn't have values (Fi) to indicate priority? How does one think outside the box (Ne), without a box to think outside of (Si)?

By being aware, one is more likely to favor the varying inputs of the tertiary and inferior appropriately, learning how to properly reject bad input (e.g., a selfish Fi desire to get one's own way) and keep good input (an Fi desire to make things work well for everyone).

 

[Entropic]

It's easiest to see with Se contrasting with Ni. It's not so easy to see with Te informing Ni.

Without a clear awareness of Se, it mostly gets in the way of Ni. The pattern of how Ni thinks is a kind of focusing-not-focusing, what Nardi aptly describes as a kind-of-Zen state that all people use when performing an activity in which they are a true expert. Ni uses this state all the time: one focuses on the problem at hand, synthesizing the data one has already absorbed, pushing all other concerns away. Se directly intrudes on this state for Ni, even for someone who is fairly aware of the role of Se. Similarly, Fe throws Ti for a loop, Si throws Ne for a loop, Te throws Fi for a loop.

They're antithetical - except they're not.

Without Se, Ni is completely ungrounded. The Ni dom usually doesn't realize that the reason the sensory stimuli of the outer world intrude on his thinking is precisely because they inform his thinking. The real disturbance isn't that Se happens at all, but that it tends to happen ALSO when the Ni dom needs to process what has already been absorbed, and absorbing more disturbs that process.

So, without awareness, one will only randomly absorb/reject the contribution of the inferior. At worst, one will always reject the input of the inferior, and possibly appear to be insane.

What good is Ti, if it doesn't come up with ideas for the betterment of everyone (Fe)? How does one prioritize anything using Te, if one doesn't have values (Fi) to indicate priority? How does one think outside the box (Ne), without a box to think outside of (Si)?

By being aware, one is more likely to favor the varying inputs of the tertiary and inferior appropriately, learning how to properly reject bad input (e.g., a selfish Fi desire to get one's own way) and keep good input (an Fi desire to make things work well for everyone).

I understand your basic argument here and for most of the part I agree. Of course Ni needs Se in order to operate at all, in that Ni and Se are really the same thing, but the ego focus is different.

What I am not following here is how you understand awareness. How would you define it in this context? I find it rather relevant because you note that without awareness of Se, Ni visions are ungrounded and appear insane. However, another way of understanding it is that one does always reject the input of the inferior since it is what makes it inferior in the first place. The ego focuses its will towards Ni rather than Se. How can I Ni if I also focus on Se and vice versa?

The way I see things is that synergy occurs whether we like it or not. Functions don't operate in bubbles because in actuality, Te and Fi are really the same thing. Perhaps it is this understanding that causes discord with your description here. Yes, there is information-process moving between the two perspectives but I fail to see how awareness plays a role in this since this process occurs regardless at any given moment when we engage our dominant, especially as you didn't define what separates awareness from ego.

 

[uumlau]

I understand your basic argument here and for most of the part I agree. Of course Ni needs Se in order to operate at all, in that Ni and Se are really the same thing, but the ego focus is different.

What I am not following here is how you understand awareness. How would you define it in this context? I find it rather relevant because you note that without awareness of Se, Ni visions are ungrounded and appear insane. However, another way of understanding it is that one does always reject the input of the inferior since it is what makes it inferior in the first place. The ego focuses its will towards Ni rather than Se. How can I Ni if I also focus on Se and vice versa?

The way I see things is that synergy occurs whether we like it or not. Functions don't operate in bubbles because in actuality, Te and Fi are really the same thing. Perhaps it is this understanding that causes discord with your description here. Yes, there is information-process moving between the two perspectives but I fail to see how awareness plays a role in this since this process occurs regardless at any given moment when we engage our dominant, especially as you didn't define what separates awareness from ego.

Well, of course I agree with you that Te and Fi are "really the same thing". But a more apt analogy is "two sides of the same coin." They're opposite, but you cannot have one without the other. Like the coin, the two sides cannot both be "up." The coin is rarely on its edge, and even when it is, that is a temporary state. For most younger people, the coin lands on heads or tails and just stays there. There is only one side, not two. Any matters regarding the other side aren't merely ignored or disdained, often they are not even comprehended!

To extend the analogy, the reason the dominant side of the coin "resents" the inferior side is that in order to get to the inferior, you have to flip the coin - you have to make the dominant go away, at least to a degree, or at least for a short while. As you point out, the dominant perspective is the ego's perspective: flipping the coin is an attack on one's ego, and the natural reaction to that flip is to flip it right back, dominant-side-up.

Awareness, in this analogy, is the understanding that the coin is valuable because it is a coin, not because the dominant side is desirable. To stretch the analogy, in order to be able to "spend" the coin, you have to 1) see it as a coin, and 2) pick it up and expose both sides. Lack of awareness means your ego insists that the coin just sit there, dominant side up; the ego works against the coin's utility.

This is where the analogy breaks down, because as you rightly note, the coin still "works" even as the ego forces only one side to show, but it works in spite of the ego, not with the ego. Awareness means that the ego acknowledges the whole coin, and while it will always prefer the dominant side to be displayed, it no longer actively rejects the other side, and even encourages the other side from time to time, in an aware, not unconscious, manner.

 

[Entropic]

Well, of course I agree with you that Te and Fi are "really the same thing". But a more apt analogy is "two sides of the same coin." They're opposite, but you cannot have one without the other. Like the coin, the two sides cannot both be "up." The coin is rarely on its edge, and even when it is, that is a temporary state. For most younger people, the coin lands on heads or tails and just stays there. There is only one side, not two. Any matters regarding the other side aren't merely ignored or disdained, often they are not even comprehended!

To extend the analogy, the reason the dominant side of the coin "resents" the inferior side is that in order to get to the inferior, you have to flip the coin - you have to make the dominant go away, at least to a degree, or at least for a short while. As you point out, the dominant perspective is the ego's perspective: flipping the coin is an attack on one's ego, and the natural reaction to that flip is to flip it right back, dominant-side-up.

Yes. I got nothing else to add here. I agree on this.

Awareness, in this analogy, is the understanding that the coin is valuable because it is a coin, not because the dominant side is desirable. To stretch the analogy, in order to be able to "spend" the coin, you have to 1) see it as a coin, and 2) pick it up and expose both sides. Lack of awareness means your ego insists that the coin just sit there, dominant side up; the ego works against the coin's utility.

How does this differ from taking on the function as an ego perspective, though?

This is where the analogy breaks down, because as you rightly note, the coin still "works" even as the ego forces only one side to show, but it works in spite of the ego, not with the ego. Awareness means that the ego acknowledges the whole coin, and while it will always prefer the dominant side to be displayed, it no longer actively rejects the other side, and even encourages the other side from time to time, in an aware, not unconscious, manner.

How do you see inactive rejection of the inferior and encouragement of the inferior?