INFp Turning into INFj

[Lethe]

There is no Ni to be found in the OP's posts, unless everyone else knows about a different Ni than I do. But it's a lot more likely that people just don't know exactly how Ni presents itself (in INFJs), and are attributing the result of Fi-Ne to Ni.

I lead with Ni dominant and Fi tertiary, so this is very likely what I'm seeing if his functional order is Fi; Ne & Ni; Fe.

Some INFJs have this order: Ni, Ti, Fe, and I assumed this was one of those cases.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I lead with Ni dominant and Fi tertiary, so this is very likely what I'm seeing if his functional order is Fi; Ne & Ni; Fe.

But that's not his functional order, according to the first couple of cognitive tests. Fe is nowhere up there, and Ni likely isn't either.

 

[Lethe]

But that's not his functional order, according to the first couple of cognitive tests. Fe is nowhere up there, and Ni likely isn't either.

I used his cognitive testing results as a reference, in addition to what he has written in the thread. His Fe does sound weak (as I've mentioned earlier), though I doubt his Ni is just as weak. He questions his own perceptions rather frequently and this is likely to occur in Ni doms.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I used his cognitive testing results as a reference, in addition to what he has written in the thread. His Fe does sound weak (as I've mentioned earlier), though I doubt his Ni is just as weak. He questions his own perceptions rather frequently and this is likely to occur in Ni doms.

I don't really question my perceptions (or do I? ). But I think that is just the mark of a self-aware person, and has nothing to do with Ni.

 

[Lethe]

I don't really question my perceptions (or do I?). But I think that is just the mark of a self-aware person, and has nothing to do with Ni.

In some ways, it could be. I've always been very Ni dom and while I stubbornly adhere to my goals, I switch my frame of reference quickly.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

In some ways, it could be. I've always been very Ni dom and while I stubbornly adhere to my goals, I switch frame of references quickly.

All the literature says things about questioning perceptions, and yes, I do. I question others' perceptions. Not mine so much. I've yet to meet an INFJ (and I know a lot, due to certain circumstances) that does, in any obvious way. We all believe in our perceptions, even in the face of all opposition.

I think we need better literature on Ni. If only to sort out all this rampant INFJ/INFP confusion.

 

[Lethe]

All the literature says things about questioning perceptions, and yes, I do. I question others' perceptions. Not mine so much. I've yet to meet an INFJ (and I know a lot, due to certain circumstances) that does, in any obvious way. We all believe in our perceptions, even in the face of all opposition.

I think we need better literature on Ni. If only to sort out all this rampant INFJ/INFP confusion.

Haha, yes, the descriptions of Ni overlapped too easily with the Ne's and it was difficult for me to discern their defining characteristics.

Generally:
Ni - Multiple starting points, one ending point
Ne - One starting point, multiple ending points

My Ni is mostly tied into Te. If someone could prove to me that their way could take me to the same conclusion, then I will immediately switch tracks, or at least include their point of view. Most of the time, I find myself doing this on my own. The only internal view I refuse to debate on is introverted feeling, which I would not announce openly in the first place. [And the reason why I tend to keep Ni to myself is that people can't resist narrowing down my insights. Why should I choose one small view when I could tie them all into a larger view?] Indeed, we can stubbornly defend our perceptions, yet the question of how we do this would roughly answer the MBTI type we are.

 

[Ginkgo]

Generally:
Ni - Multiple starting points, one ending point
Ne - One starting point, multiple ending points

I do both of these things. Are you sure this isn't too vague?

I'm about to give up trying to understand all of this. The functions can be misinterpreted so many ways. It's not scientific.

 

[Lauren Ashley]

I'm about to give up trying to understand all of this. The functions can be misinterpreted so many ways. It's not scientific.

Good lad. Not that MBTI is scientific, and not that it needs to be. But the rest of the post -- thumbs up.

 

[Ginkgo]

Good lad. Not that MBTI is scientific, and not that it needs to be. But the rest of the post -- thumbs up.

And even the scientific method is subject to partial skews.

I would go into a rant about it, but I'm sure you already know.

EDIT: What I think I've learned from this thread-
-MBTI lists the functions which are strongest in a person, not the order. Correct?
-Ni "sees past interpretations"
-I haven't had lunch yet.

 

[Lethe]

I do both of these things. Are you sure this isn't too vague?

I'm about to give up trying to understand all of this. The functions can be misinterpreted so many ways. It's not scientific.

No, people can do (and prefer) both.

Although the Ni and Ne points in different directions, the perceptions can easily overlap with each other.

Here's an example:

A. Ni Sample Focus # 1: Various literary archetypes undergo the same thematic obstacles.
B. Ne Sample Focus # 1: One literary archetype manifests themselves in various characters, who all lead separate lives.

A. Ni Sample Focus # 2: All the characters who share these traits contribute to an archetype -- Byronic heroes, supervillains, crones, etc.
B. Ne Sample Focus # 2: A character who has this trait is comparable to another character, which leads to this character and so on.

=================

-MBTI lists the functions which are strongest in a person, not the order. Correct?

They list the order of preference, not ability. For instance, I am talented at singing, but I dislike doing so.

Ni "sees past interpretations"

Mmmmmm...to clarify: Ni would see the different (but related) interpretations of a single point. Ne would see how a single point could be interpreted into an entirely new point that shares little foundation with the previous.

Ni and Ne could both see past an interpretation.

I haven't had lunch yet.

 

[Ginkgo]

No, people can do (and prefer) both.

Although the Ni and Ne points in different directions, the perceptions can easily overlap with each other.

Here's an example:

I more closely identify with the Ni samples here, but that's just because I am under the assumption that the author is trying to illustrate s specific archetype. edit: THEME, not archetype.

This is why Quintin Terentino Movies frustrate the hell out of me. There's no meaning behind them. Therefore, Quintin Terentino's purpose in making movies is not to illustrate any sort of "meaning", but to be as demented as possible.

 

[Lethe]

I more closely identify with the Ni samples here, but that's just because I am under the assumption that the author is trying to illustrate s specific archetype. edit: THEME, not archetype.

This is why Quintin Terentino Movies frustrate the hell out of me. There's no meaning behind them. Therefore, Quintin Terentino's purpose in making movies is not to illustrate any sort of "meaning", but to be as demented as possible.

(The author is myself. )

Themes and archetypes, in general, are iNtuitive subjects. However, Ni and Ne deals with them separately. I would guess that Quentin is a Pe (Se or Ne) dominant: he jumps around from a new thought to another, with little connections. Perhaps he's an ESTP.

I highly enjoy his films because I can effortlessly see (my) meaning in them. As they say, you see the world through your lens, so I'm not completely sure what Tarantino's objective is. I need to read more about him to figure that out.

 

[Ginkgo]

Mmmmmm...to clarify: Ni would see the different (but related) interpretations of a single point. Ne would see how a single point could be interpreted into an entirely new point that shares little foundation with the previous.

When I read this, I have the habit of tracking back to Brave New World.

So, in that context, would you say that a person's Ni would know that one reader may interpret the book as a lampooning of Communism, while another reader views it as criticizing Capitalism, and another reader would interpret it as Socialism?

While a person's Ne would relate all of the themes of the book as an Alarm against that person's current condition?

Edit: All of these thoughts occur to me as I read the book.

 

[Lethe]

When I read this, I have the habit of tracking back to Brave New World.

(Ironically, that is my INFP friend's favorite book.)

in that context, would you say that a person's Ni would know that one reader may interpret the book as a lampooning of Communism, while another reader views it as criticizing Capitalism, and another reader would interpret it as Socialism?

Ni would also try to seek the common threads within those ideas.
Ne would see how those interpretations are different from each other.

While a person's Ne would relate all of the themes of the book as an Alarm against that person's current condition?

Sounds more like Ni.
Ne would say observe how an Alarm against a person's current condition can result in numerous, unrelated themes.

Example:

Simulatedworld explains in this thread how his ideas are seen in a Fi+Ne light when they are not supposed to be, while I see the Fi+Ne mindset as a different (and relevant) way of tackling the same individual needs.

 

[Ginkgo]

(Ironically, that is my INFP friend's favorite book.)

Yes, I hear that Aldous Huxley was also an INFP.

Ni would also try to seek the common threads within those ideas.
Ne would see how those interpretations are different from each other.

I do all of these things. I can't even help it. It's what keeps me living.

Sounds more like Ni.
Ne would say observe how an Alarm against a person's current condition can result in numerous, unrelated themes.

Are you sure you aren't biased against Ne? There has to be a common thread among the themes, otherwise, the connection isn't even there. At least, that's how I perceive it.

Alright, would someone's Ne prompt the following scenario:

The doctor asks me "On a scale of 1-10, how much do you hurt?"

I want to say "I don't know. What is your perception of 1 or 10? There is no way I can accurately describe my pain level because there are so many perceptions and types of pain."

However, I just say "6" because I know the doctor just wants an answer so he can move on with treating me.

Or is this some sort of fusion between Ne and Ni?

 

[Matthew_Z]

Yes, I hear that Aldous Huxley was also an INFP.

I've heard the same about John the Savage.

 

[Ginkgo]

Simulatedworld explains in this thread how his ideas are seen in a Fi+Ne light when they are not supposed to be, while I see the Fi+Ne mindset as a different (and relevant) way of tackling the same individual needs.

I recognize these differences. Thank you for tackling the needs.

I don't really know what to say to this, really. Other than that's the way it is.

You think the Fi+Ne mindset is effective because it allows people to identify with each other, correct?

While Sim is extremely biased on some emotional level. It's kind of a game for him and he doesn't take it seriously.

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Lethe]

I do all of these things. I can't even help it. It's what keeps me living.

Not many individuals completely fit into a MB archetype. It's more or less a mere guidance.

Are you sure you aren't biased against Ne? There has to be a common thread among the themes, otherwise, the connection isn't even there. At least, that's how I perceive it.

Ah, you mean this.

For classic Ne-ers, they mainly use their inner judgment (Ti & Fi) to connect the dots.
For classic Ni-ers, they use their outer judgment (Te & Fe) for the connection. The tiny dot connections (Fi/Ti) doesn't matter nearly as much as the conclusion because Ni will create a system for the common threads.

Example: An ENTJ and INTP are on the opposite ends in a debate. One is trying to get things done (Te) using any method (Ni), while the other is trying to analyze how accurate (Ti+Ne) their reasoning and method is.

Alright, would someone's Ne prompt the following scenario:

The doctor asks me "On a scale of 1-10, how much do you hurt?"

I want to say "I don't know. What is your perception of 1 or 10? There is no way I can accurately describe my pain level because there are so many perceptions and types of pain."

The Ni (by itself) would see how all the types of pain fall under the category of "pain".
The Ne (by itself) would see how general pain results in many types of pain.

In a normal individual, they would incorporate other preferable functions to balance out the situation so that if they need to discern these subtle differences, they are able to do so. (Re: Mimicking Ne with other functions.)

 

[Ginkgo]

Not many individuals completely fit into MB archetype. It's more or less a mere guidance.



Ah, you mean this.

For classic Ne-ers, they mainly use their inner judgment (Ti & Fi) to connect the dots.
For classic Ni-ers, they use their outer judgment (Te & Fe) for the connection. The tiny dot connections (Fi/Ti) doesn't matter nearly as much as the conclusion.

The former makes more sense to me. My initial response to Brave New World is "Totalitarianism is bad". Then I read 1984 and also say "Totalitarianism is bad."

Therefore, I can connect the dots and say that both books, while different, fall under a common theme.

However, I know that both authors obviously had strong convictions against totalitarianism, so who really cares in the end? What is the result?