[INTJ] Common INTJ Issues

[Coriolis]

I have yet to experience this from Te, not even an ISTJ. I have yet to be offended by an IxTJ. You sure your dealing with TP? Or are you possibly just feeling the fact that you offended him good and are just patting yourself on the back?

Some of the people in my examples have been tested as INTP. Others display similar patterns of behavior. The inf Fe vs aux Te interaction just has potential for escalating the disagreement into an ugly conflict if the people are not aware of these tendencies and willing to override them with professionalism and maturity. There is rarely any purpose served by offending others, and in general, the INTPs and INTJs in my workplace get along rather well.

The INTPs I know dont care about politics crap. I have even known one who hung a shower curtain on his cube just for shits and giggles among other things that really irritated the crap out of the manager 2 levels up. He also used to do things he shouldnt have done, but needed to be done because of the politics crap that people have to wade through to get things done in a heavy Te environment. And then he started to become bitter because the hand of the law came down when what he did helped and advanced things. Curious if that would be inferior Fe and leads to the bitterness.

I agree here. INTPs don't care about politics. INTJs care only to the extent that we can use it to our own ends.

 

[Salomé]

INTPs don't care about politics. INTJs care only to the extent that we can use it to our own ends.

Why else does anyone care about politics?
What is politics (in the sense we have been using) other than pursuit of power for personal gain? The fact that you only care for selfish reasons, is a given.
Machiavelli was INTJ.

Actually, I'm just using words that I'm supposing are supposed to go with inferior considerations. Inferior Se for instance manifests not rarely as exaggerated concerns for physical security. And inferior Fe doesn't manifest as exaggerated concern for intellectual security?

No. It manifests as a fear of being engulfed by other people's (read our own) emotions and defensive maneuvres to avoid that.

The observations about inferior Se are interesting. Care to expand on those?
(Given that this is likely to be at the core of many of your "common issues".)

If I may, "If you aren't aware of it, that's not surprising. I suppose that's what makes these threads so valuable..."

I am aware of it though... This whole derail was prompted by my acute awareness that inferior Fe is the INTP achilles heel and looks nothing like well-adjusted Fe.
The main reason I avoid INTPc is because I see that weakness writ large and it repulses me. That site draws INTPs (and others) who are stuck in denial, who believe, for example, that Fe is universally evil (much as you seem to) and that it's all about other people's problems. Hence the attempt to isolate themselves. The only value in type-specific fora (as far as I'm concerned) is to be able to observe such maladaptation.

I am going to start using a new notation - iFe (borrowed from imaginary numbers) to make explicit the difference between regular and inferior Fe.

Probably all true. Except maybe "don't give a shit" might perhaps be "don't know how to give a shit"... Or perhaps "Feel undermined by sometimes having to give a shit".

Agree.

Ironically thereby giving a shit.

You are being disingenuous. You didn't really think you'd get away with equating Fe with "giving a shit", did you?

Let's take political correctness. Someone who doesn't care to be politically correct will sometimes get annoyed by the impositions of a politically correct society and may react to those constraints by being deliberately as offensive as possible. To suggest that extreme focus on being PC is equivalent (in terms of the conduct of that person) to extreme focus on not being PC is pretty absurd. To suggest that anything like the same process is operating internally, is similarly, absurd.
Political correctness has, as its focus, the psychological well-being of others and harmonious relations within society.
Objections to political correctness have, as their focus, the freedoms of the individual (and occasionally, an "objective" interest in actual correctness or "truth".)
The first is extroverted in nature, the second is introverted. They are not the same thing. They do not look the same.

iFe <> Fe

I'm kind of surprised you're unwilling to admit to how much INTPs do bend to social winds. From the outside it seems clear that you guys do adhere to weirdly ritualistic interpersonal norms.

It's not all that surprising: you haven't come up with a valid example.
It has been frequently observed that we are the type MOST resistant to "social winds". Take, for example, the relatively common experience of gender ambiguity across the type.

This seems more characteristic of enneagram 5, especially sp variants, than INTJ specifically. Many INTJs are 5 sp, so there is overlap. Many INTP are 5 as well.

Yes, this did occur to me as I was writing it. Enneagram has a stronger emphasis on the negative aspects of personality development; it doesn't have a monopoly on it.
It can apply to INTPs too, but to a lesser extent, I'd argue. We are interested in the mastery of a subject area for it's own sake, rather than as simply a means to an end.

If we play for power, it is only because of what we can do with that power. Same with political capital. If we can't use it for something, there is no point in bothering about it.

Again, why does anyone want power other than for what they can do with it?

This is backwards. Yes, the highlighted is characteristic of Fi, but as such it is typical of INTJs and other TJs, not INTPs.

You are simply parroting a senseless theory without thinking it through. What is genuinely backwards (in every meaning of the word) is insisting that because it looks like Fi it must be TJ. Or because they're INTP, it must be Fe. You are effectively arguing that a behaviour is impossible in an INTP because the theory doesn't allow it, despite observing the behaviour yourself.

This is the fundamental mistake people who lack critical thinking skills make.
If you are going to suggest that a behaviour is a manifestion of a function, you CANNOT go on to use the person's type as support for that argument. This is beyond simple confirmation bias; it is an entirely fallacious circular argument.
I'm surprised I have to spell this out to you, but it seems like a trap INTJs fall into a good deal. Perhaps it's another of those Common Issues?
/on-topic

If, as we have agreed, INTPs' inferior / least-developed function is Fe, our conscious feeling judgements will in all probablity, be Fi-based. How could it be otherwise? This is certainly the case in my experience and I reckon I'm a better judge of my facility with Fi than you are. And in fact, empirically, INTP Fi scores are almost universally higher than their Fe scores. Which is completely to be expected. It all follows logically from being Ti-Dom.

As you often do, you are using loaded words to try to make my comment fit your argument. You are also overlooking the distinction between actions and principles.

No. What I was doing was showing you how easy it is to reframe someone's actions as "evidence" of function-use to fit your own cognitive biases. How it actually gets in the way of impartial observation and understanding.

This is your reasoning:
"INTPs have Fe" <- invalid premise
["Fe makes me uncomfortable / is inferior" <- emotive judgment
"This INTP did something that made me uncomfortable/I couldn't understand" <-an accurate observation]
Therefore:
"INTPs are Fe-users" <-a baseless conclusion

Remove the irrelevant stuff in brackets and you will see that your argument is pure tautology.

It's another level of wrong to go on to suggest that INTPs cannot therefore, use Fi.

Fine.

Imma assume for a moment that I don't know what Fe is. Intellectually I'd like to call it a cognitive approach centered on deliberating over and developing the mechanisms of social and socially expressed value. Where that even an adequate approximation, I still wouldn't know what Fe feels like. Thus, when I see a person I've typed as TP displaying some kind of reaction to some kind of stimulus, I don't actually know if I'm witnessing feeling and evaluation. But I see them doing something. INTPs display concern and angst in my presence. They are watchful. They will sometimes display a seeming anger of sorts. One or two notable times I've discussed some issue with an INTP and near the end of the discussion I've attempted to back up and state the plan or decision that has been accepted. This causes negative display. It looks for all the world like they're offended, as if by attempting to bluntly reinforce the decision or plan I am questioning their resolve. You freaks are touch-eeeeee.

At last! He gets it.
The touchiest freaks are arguably Fi-doms, so this doesn't support the case for INTP Fe.

I'm going to guess that what makes INTPs concerned/angry in your presence is that they fear/resent being bludgeoned over the head with Te. This isn't a manifestation of Fe. Fe is not the alpha and omega of emotional response. We are a pretty angsty bunch even without the additional burden of a dogmatic individual. (Note that we are even more concerned/angry when we are bludgeoned over the head, or emotionally blackmailed, by Fe, since we are less equipped to deal with it and see it as having even less validity: it does not respond to reason.)

The "negative display" when you end the discussion and state your plan, is related to the above. It is also a manifestation of the anxiety Ps feel about premature closure. (And almost all closure feels premature to us. It's a MASSIVE source of anxiety for me to be rushed into making a decision, and the main reason we are such terrible procrastinators).

You can interpret these behaviours without resorting to writing someone off as an "irrational Fe user". And it is always more productive to do so.

 

[Coriolis]

Why else does anyone care about politics?
What is politics (in the sense we have been using) other than pursuit of power for personal gain? The fact that you only care for selfish reasons, is a given.
Machiavelli was INTJ.

Some people seem to get an emotional thrill out of the one-upsmanship aspect of it, out of playing the game for its own sake, out of controlling others just because they can rather than because it gets them something they cannot get another way. These are the hardest people to reason with, because they are often not acting from reason. (Compare this with INTP mastery of a subject for its own sake, as you put it, vs. INTJ mastery to reach a desired goal.)

Let's take political correctness. Someone who doesn't care to be politically correct will sometimes get annoyed by the impositions of a politically correct society and may react to those constraints by being deliberately as offensive as possible. To suggest that extreme focus on being PC is equivalent (in terms of the conduct of that person) to extreme focus on not being PC is pretty absurd. To suggest that anything like the same process is operating internally, is similarly, absurd.
Political correctness has, as its focus, the psychological well-being of others and harmonious relations within society.
Objections to political correctness have, as their focus, the freedoms of the individual (and occasionally, an "objective" interest in actual correctness or "truth".)
The first is extroverted in nature, the second is introverted. They are not the same thing. They do not look the same.

This is simplistic. There are many motivations for supporting political correctness, and many for resisting it. You cannot tell what function someone is using just by observing their behavior; you need to understand why they are doing it. A function is not a value or an outcome, though people can certainly value using one function over another, or rely on one function more than others in getting a specific kind of result. A chef's knife is still a chef's knife, whether I use it to dice onions or to stab someone to death.

You are simply parroting a senseless theory without thinking it through. What is genuinely backwards (in every meaning of the word) is insisting that because it looks like Fi it must be TJ. Or because they're INTP, it must be Fe. You are effectively arguing that a behaviour is impossible in an INTP because the theory doesn't allow it, despite observing the behaviour yourself.

No. Behaviors in and of themselves do not map onto functions. Anyone can exhibit any behavior, it is why and sometimes how they do it that reveals which functions are at work.

If, as we have agreed, INTPs' inferior / least-developed function is Fe, our conscious feeling judgements will in all probablity, be Fi-based. How could it be otherwise? This is certainly the case in my experience and I reckon I'm a better judge of my facility with Fi than you are. And in fact, empirically, INTP Fi scores are almost universally higher than their Fe scores. Which is completely to be expected. It all follows logically from being Ti-Dom.

Why? Because yours are? You may have a perfect theory to explain how you work, but that is not the same as generalizing it to the type as a whole. INTPs are not great with feeling overall (and INTJs are not far behind). This is not inconsistent with having one's highest/most comfortable/most likely to be consciously used feeling function be in inferior position (as INTJ's is only in tertiary). Without any feeling function in dom/aux, this will never be our forte, for either type.

No. What I was doing was showing you how easy it is to reframe someone's actions as "evidence" of function-use to fit your own cognitive biases. How it actually gets in the way of impartial observation and understanding.

This is your reasoning:
"INTPs have Fe" <- invalid premise
["Fe makes me uncomfortable / is inferior" <- emotive judgment
"This INTP did something that made me uncomfortable/I couldn't understand" <-an accurate observation]
Therefore:
"INTPs are Fe-users" <-a baseless conclusion
It's another level of wrong to go on to suggest that INTPs cannot therefore, use Fi.

I am not reframing someone's actions to fit the function I think they are using. I am using their stated motivations to identify the function they seem to be using. My reasoning is: INTP is justifying his position by referencing external values or protocols designed to maintain harmony in a group. Perhaps he doesn't really believe that and just thinks it will make an effective argument, but not being able to see into his mind, I will accept his reasoning at face value. Based on this assumption, it looks like (inf) Fe. Now if the INTP goes on to explain that he doesn't really care about authorship conventions, but wants Fred to be listed on the paper because Fred is in the other group, and doing so will ingratiate us with their management so they will collaborate with us more, I would consider it more of a Te argument. Same behavior (insists on listing Fred as an author), very different motivation.

I have long understood that everyone is capable of using every function. Type preferences are just that - preferences, not incapacities. I know for a fact that however rudimentary my Fi use may be, my Fe use is much worse, and many NTJs share this (im)balance. Many NTJs do things that look like Fe, but are very much not, once you understand why and sometimes even how they are doing it. The function theory that states one's preferences as dom, aux, tert, inf makes about as much sense to me as any other. Lenore Thomson has some discussion along the lines of what you describe, namely that an INTPs Ti dom is related to some facility with Fi, and that in some cases, this is the function the INTP reaches for when dom/aux do not work. I wonder sometimes if what looks like Fi, as with INTJ ersatz Fe, is really some combination of other functions.

I'm going to guess that what makes INTPs concerned/angry in your presence is that they fear/resent being bludgeoned over the head with Te. This isn't a manifestation of Fe. Fe is not the alpha and omega of emotional response.

Obviously. The point is not that inf Fe is at the root of all conflict between INTPs and other types, or all maladjusted INTP behavior. It is rather to examine what inf Fe looks like in the subset of such behavior where it does come into play.

 

[Kalach]

Why else does anyone care about politics?
What is politics (in the sense we have been using) other than pursuit of power for personal gain? The fact that you only care for selfish reasons, is a given.
Machiavelli was INTJ.

No. It manifests as a fear of being engulfed by other people's (read our own) emotions and defensive maneuvres to avoid that.

Same difference? Perhaps I project. I find my own self preservation instinct to be somehow about the malleability of my own thoughts. And it's bizarre to actually write this but it seems to me I worry about being misled. Like, if the path of possibilities gets turned down a dead end by some.... I don't know, an id monster perhaps... then my mind will begin to fail. Do INTPs regard their thinking as--"fragile like that" is the wrong phrase. How about "innocent like that"? MY WORLD IS AS A CHILD'S! I wonder now if INTP thoughts are not more crystalized.

The observations about inferior Se are interesting. Care to expand on those?

I was referring to such things as you mentioned before, the notion of other people as coarse or gross and threatening. It's an automatic feeling even in as simple a task as walking down the street. (And it goes away if one possesses a proveable authority or power that other people are affected by or must in some other way acknowledge).

I am going to start using a new notation - iFe (borrowed from imaginary numbers) to make explicit the difference between regular and inferior Fe.

Apple lawyers are teleporting in as we type.

You are being disingenuous. You didn't really think you'd get away with equating Fe with "giving a shit", did you?

Well, I am imagining that Fe and Te share a focus on mechanism, though where Te is impersonal mechanism (or mechanism with personal dimensions ignored), Fe is personalized mechanism. Like, how to create not just a mood but the right mood, moving this set of feeling displays into that set, etc. And I'm assuming that where Fe designs are thwarted, the person suffers some affect--feels something, finds themselves giving a shit. They are affected by the failure, which is different from being able to regard the failure as unimportant.

It's not all that surprising: you haven't come up with a valid example.
It has been frequently observed that we are the type MOST resistant to "social winds". Take, for example, the relatively common experience of gender ambiguity across the type.

let us jump them to discussion of the interpersonal...

At last! He gets it.
The touchiest freaks are arguably Fi-doms, so this doesn't support the case for INTP Fe.

I'm going to guess that what makes INTPs concerned/angry in your presence is that they fear/resent being bludgeoned over the head with Te. This isn't a manifestation of Fe. Fe is not the alpha and omega of emotional response. We are a pretty angsty bunch even without the additional burden of a dogmatic individual. (Note that we are even more concerned/angry when we are bludgeoned over the head, or emotionally blackmailed, by Fe, since we are less equipped to deal with it and see it as having even less validity: it does not respond to reason.)

The "negative display" when you end the discussion and state your plan, is related to the above. It is also a manifestation of the anxiety Ps feel about premature closure. (And almost all closure feels premature to us. It's a MASSIVE source of anxiety for me to be rushed into making a decision, and the main reason we are such terrible procrastinators).

A theory-based impasse has been reached. Along with the above quote paragraphs I note you've also said the following:

If, as we have agreed, INTPs' inferior / least-developed function is Fe, our conscious feeling judgements will in all probablity, be Fi-based. How could it be otherwise? This is certainly the case in my experience and I reckon I'm a better judge of my facility with Fi than you are. And in fact, empirically, INTP Fi scores are almost universally higher than their Fe scores. Which is completely to be expected. It all follows logically from being Ti-Dom.

thus, omg

*if* Fi could be present as a cognitive function for INTPs, then I, and presumably everyone else, would likely have no basis for talking further about seeing or believing I saw Fe in INTP behavior. There'd actually be no way to tell objectively what kind of feeling was involved. We'd have to accept individual report.

However, were someone--say, me--to insist that, for instance, judgment functions do not exist independently, that it is impossible to have free-floating cognitive functions, and that Fi as a cognitive function does not exist in INTPs, then I could get on with saying what I was saying. I'd say something like, the appearance of Fi in INTPs is in fact puerile Fe guarding and being guarded by Ti. The appearance of introverted feeling judgment arises from the superior involvement of introverted thinking judgment in setting up and justifying conditions for extroverted feeling. Ti, I'd say, cannot give rise to Fi.

 

[Coriolis]

However, were someone--say, me--to insist that, for instance, judgment functions do not exist independently, that it is impossible to have free-floating cognitive functions, and that Fi as a cognitive function does not exist in INTPs, then I could get on with saying what I was saying. I'd say something like, the appearance of Fi in INTPs is in fact puerile Fe guarding and being guarded by Ti. The appearance of introverted feeling judgment arises from the superior involvement of introverted thinking judgment in setting up and justifying conditions for extroverted feeling. Ti, I'd say, cannot give rise to Fi.

This is exactly the sort of substitute functional convolution I had in mind in my last post. Similarly, what I called "ersatz Fe" in INTJs is just Te in the service of the Vision, fed by some Fi internal values for credibility and Se observations for guidance.

 

[Salomé]

Same difference? Perhaps I project. I find my own self preservation instinct to be somehow about the malleability of my own thoughts. And it's bizarre to actually write this but it seems to me I worry about being misled. Like, if the path of possibilities gets turned down a dead end by some.... I don't know, an id monster perhaps... then my mind will begin to fail. Do INTPs regard their thinking as--"fragile like that" is the wrong phrase. How about "innocent like that"?

That's interesting. No, we don't and we seldom are. Ti, FTW!

MY WORLD IS AS A CHILD'S! I wonder now if INTP thoughts are not more crystalized.

I think of crystals as rigid yet fragile, funnily enough, easily shattered - so more like Te.

Ti rejects pretty much everything that cannot be established from first principles. It pares everything back to the bone, and builds from there. There is a constant drive for economy and leanness. Because once the bones are in view, the structural integrity (or lack thereof) becomes readily apparent.
We are not afraid of being led astray by others, because we do not rely on others to make our judgements for us (Te / Fe). We fear being overwhelmed or powerless or incapacitated in some way by the demands or irrationality of others.

I was referring to such things as you mentioned before, the notion of other people as coarse or gross and threatening. It's an automatic feeling even in as simple a task as walking down the street. (And it goes away if one possesses a proveable authority or power that other people are affected by or must in some other way acknowledge).

I understand the revulsion, but not the response. I prefer to take evasive action; to become invisible. What merit can there be in authority over people who disgust you? I regard authority as synonymous with responsibility / accountability - i.e something to be avoided whenever possible.

Apple lawyers are teleporting in as we type.

Lol

Well, I am imagining that Fe and Te share a focus on mechanism, though where Te is impersonal mechanism (or mechanism with personal dimensions ignored), Fe is personalized mechanism. Like, how to create not just a mood but the right mood, moving this set of feeling displays into that set, etc. And I'm assuming that where Fe designs are thwarted, the person suffers some affect--feels something, finds themselves giving a shit. .

I don't think that's how Fe works. You are describing a process that attempts to inflict itself upon its environment, as opposed to one which absorbs and reflects it - which is how I see Fe.

A theory-based impasse has been reached.

It's not an impasse, *if* you can show error in my reasoning. If you can't, I'm going to go on believing I'm right and you guys are wrong.

*if* Fi could be present as a cognitive function for INTPs, then I, and presumably everyone else, would likely have no basis for talking further about seeing or believing I saw Fe in INTP behavior. There'd actually be no way to tell objectively what kind of feeling was involved. We'd have to accept individual report.

Of course it's present - all cognitive functions are present in every personality, just in variously differentiated forms. The least differentiated / available function is the inferior function (ie the 8th). Did you actually think we only have 4 functions and not all 8? Ha! Then your error is obvious and this is easy. /end thread

 

[Salomé]

Some people seem to get an emotional thrill out of the one-upsmanship aspect of it, out of playing the game for its own sake, out of controlling others just because they can rather than because it gets them something they cannot get another way. These are the hardest people to reason with, because they are often not acting from reason.

I guess I assumed we weren't talking about people with personality disorders.

This is simplistic.

Of course it was, it's an illustration, that's how illustrations work - by simplifying a point.

You cannot tell what function someone is using just by observing their behavior; you need to understand why they are doing it.

Exactly. Which was my point. You can't pretend to know what motivates your colleagues any better than I can. Your assumptions are just that. And coming from a type with an incompatible way of viewing the world, more likely to be wrong.

Why? Because yours are? You may have a perfect theory to explain how you work, but that is not the same as generalizing it to the type as a whole.

Damn, this is hard work. No. Read it again.

I am not reframing someone's actions to fit the function I think they are using. I am using their stated motivations to identify the function they seem to be using. My reasoning is: INTP is justifying his position by referencing external values or protocols designed to maintain harmony in a group. Perhaps he doesn't really believe that and just thinks it will make an effective argument, but not being able to see into his mind, I will accept his reasoning at face value.

Fair enough.

Based on this assumption, it looks like (inf) Fe.

No it doesn't. you just scuppered your own argument. Explain how an ESFJ would do this differently and you might see how.

I have long understood that everyone is capable of using every function. Type preferences are just that - preferences, not incapacities. I know for a fact that however rudimentary my Fi use may be, my Fe use is much worse, and many NTJs share this (im)balance.

So do INTPs, theoretically speaking. In practice, life may teach us to develop greater facility with functions which are not natural strengths. In my own case, Fi. YMMV. Chances are it's never going to be your inferior function that develops ahead of schedule though (since to do so would compromise development of your dominant function - and it's just not going to allow that to happen).

In fact, this is the only way to make sense of an INXP. (Someone who expresses both Ti and Fi well).
In the 4 function scheme this person effectively cannot exist. They would likely be labelled an INFJ by those who insist that Ti "goes with" Fe. Which is stupid. You fit theories about personalities to actual personalities, not the other way round.

Many NTJs do things that look like Fe, but are very much not, once you understand why and sometimes even how they are doing it.

I'm hoping it's not impossible for you to extend that consideration to others.

The function theory that states one's preferences as dom, aux, tert, inf makes about as much sense to me as any other.

And yet you accept that we have all 8 functions. So... Where do you slot the missing 4 in your model?

Lenore Thomson has some discussion along the lines of what you describe, namely that an INTPs Ti dom is related to some facility with Fi, and that in some cases, this is the function the INTP reaches for when dom/aux do not work.

I agree with her up to a point. I don't think it's possible to impose rigid ordering schemes of functions. In fact, beyond dom and aux (and by implication inf) it's all up for grabs. And why wouldn't it be?

 

[Kalach]

That's interesting. No, we don't and we seldom are. Ti, FTW!

I think of crystals as rigid yet fragile, funnily enough, easily shattered - so more like Te.

Ti rejects pretty much everything that cannot be established from first principles. It pares everything back to the bone, and builds from there. There is a constant drive for economy and leanness. Because once the bones are in view, the structural integrity (or lack thereof) becomes readily apparent.
We are not afraid of being led astray by others, because we do not rely on others to make our judgements for us (Te / Fe). We fear being overwhelmed or powerless or incapacitated in some way by the demands or irrationality of others.

I find dominant perceiving to be somewhat akin to walking a tightrope. Or perhaps to the kind of flying one does in dreams. One has a lofty vantage point, but the ease of that sustained flight depends on attention to the right mysteries. More literally, one is always seeking to see further, but sight is dependent on maintaining the right balance between seeing and making. Too much making is boring, but it's needed in communication with others. And if making becomes backtracking, like when you have to rule out some kind of nonsense put up by other people to test or counter your sight, sight can begin to fade.

It's not fragile, really. Vision over time is (cross fingers) quite robust. But at the leading edge it can feeeeeel insecure in the presence of outside elements.

I understand the revulsion, but not the response. I prefer to take evasive action; to become invisible. What merit can there be in authority over people who disgust you? I regard authority as synonymous with responsibility / accountability - i.e something to be avoided whenever possible.

Authority is also work you don't have to do. You don't have to create the relationship that causes people to move aside or to cooperate in your plan. The authority means you already have that.

This is of course the worst kind of authority to actually use.

I don't think that's how Fe works. You are describing a process that attempts to inflict itself upon its environment, as opposed to one which absorbs and reflects it - which is how I see Fe.

Ne/Fe, maybe. But if ENFJs are leaders in some similar way to the ENTJs, then it isn't Se that makes either of them push people around. It's Je/Se. The perception captures signs from the environment and the judgment dictates what corrections are in order. (And their inner voices may contribute some angst later.)

It's not an impasse, *if* you can show error in my reasoning. If you can't, I'm going to go on believing I'm right and you guys are wrong.

Of course it's present - all cognitive functions are present in every personality, just in variously differentiated forms. The least differentiated / available function is the inferior function (ie the 8th). Did you actually think we only have 4 functions and not all 8? Ha! Then your error is obvious and this is easy. /end thread

The cognitive functions as we know them are cognition as it tends toward consciousness. But cognition itself exists only where there is a dynamic opposition between attention to the inner and attention to the outer. A fully and completely extroverted person is not a person but merely a mirroring machine. Likewise, a fully and completely introverted person is not a person but a mere instance of null. Cognition is what happens when a drive to attend to the outer world is checked by a drive to attend to the inner world, and vice versa. Consciousness is the third position, neither inner nor outer, but balanced unequally between the two. There are doubtless any number of conceptual details to be more accurate about here, but assuming some such mechanism is genuinely required before consciousness can exist, then--via a few more steps and some handwaving--if cognitive functions exist, they exist as Je/Ji and Pe/Pi pairs.

Also, while I'm here, I'll claim that there's a reason one side of any function pair appears dominant to the point of appearing to exist alone. This kind of imbalance in what's available easily to consciousness is a product of a crucial imbalance that must exist for cognition to exist at all. One of the drives, either toward the inner or toward the outer, must be stronger than the other. If it were not so, if there were some genuine balance between attentions, the person would stall out. They'd stop cogitating.

In short, the engine of cognition is unbalanced dynamic opposition that drives exclusive kinds of attention.

There are of course some pieces missing from this theory.

 

[Salomé]

I find dominant perceiving to be somewhat akin to walking a tightrope. Or perhaps to the kind of flying one does in dreams. One has a lofty vantage point, but the ease of that sustained flight depends on attention to the right mysteries. More literally, one is always seeking to see further, but sight is dependent on maintaining the right balance between seeing and making. Too much making is boring, but it's needed in communication with others. And if making becomes backtracking, like when you have to rule out some kind of nonsense put up by other people to test or counter your sight, sight can begin to fade.

It's not fragile, really. Vision over time is (cross fingers) quite robust. But at the leading edge it can feeeeeel insecure in the presence of outside elements.

I like this description.
It's specifically Pi though, I'd have said.
The anxiety/ insecurity derives from your desire to converge your focus onto the "right" thing.
Pe suffers no such narrowing of vision, it is always scanning beyond the next horizon. There are no right or wrong mysteries for Pe.

This is of course the worst kind of authority to actually use.

This is a Fi judgement. And I'd agree. (As, I think, would many INxPs). Te pragmatism permits this to be overruled though (which is why INTJs will use/pursue it whereas INTPs will tend not to. )

Ne/Fe, maybe. But if ENFJs are leaders in some similar way to the ENTJs, then it isn't Se that makes either of them push people around. It's Je/Se. The perception captures signs from the environment and the judgment dictates what corrections are in order. (And their inner voices may contribute some angst later.)

Or perhaps it's Ni, with its convergent focus on the "right" thing, that makes them so sure their vision is absolute? With Je serving as the enforcer.
After all, with ESFJs it is Si that gives them their sense of "authority" or certitude. And certitude is the real engine that drives dictators. Je simply offers the means to impose that vision upon others.

The cognitive functions as we know them are cognition as it tends toward consciousness. But cognition itself exists only where there is a dynamic opposition between attention to the inner and attention to the outer. A fully and completely extroverted person is not a person but merely a mirroring machine. Likewise, a fully and completely introverted person is not a person but a mere instance of null. Cognition is what happens when a drive to attend to the outer world is checked by a drive to attend to the inner world, and vice versa. Consciousness is the third position, neither inner nor outer, but balanced unequally between the two. There are doubtless any number of conceptual details to be more accurate about here, but assuming some such mechanism is genuinely required before consciousness can exist, then--via a few more steps and some handwaving--if cognitive functions exist, they exist as Je/Ji and Pe/Pi pairs.

I am unconvinced by your handwaving steps / step-waving hands.

Abracadont.

Also, while I'm here, I'll claim that there's a reason one side of any function pair appears dominant to the point of appearing to exist alone. This kind of imbalance in what's available easily to consciousness is a product of a crucial imbalance that must exist for cognition to exist at all. One of the drives, either toward the inner or toward the outer, must be stronger than the other. If it were not so, if there were some genuine balance between attentions, the person would stall out. They'd stop cogitating.

In short, the engine of cognition is unbalanced dynamic opposition that drives exclusive kinds of attention..

Yes. This is pure Jung. But it doesn't support your assertion. It supports mine...

 

[Kalach]

I like this description.
It's specifically Pi though, I'd have said.

Yup.

The anxiety/ insecurity derives from your desire to converge your focus onto the "right" thing.

Yeah, but there's an interesting bit of psychology going on there. "Right" and feeling right, is, I assert, Fi, the first a judgment and the second the affect. There's some kind of set up collection of conditions under which the use of dominant intuition feels right. There will of course be some idealistic representation of extroverted thinking standards in among these conditions (which I suspect, by the bye, is more pronounced the more the INTJ has "6" in their enneagram), meaning it'll feel wrong to ignore external impersonal conditions for too long. But there's some other thing as well. The conditions for seeing.

Inside introverted intuition, and probably introverted sensing too, there's a role of maker. It is, I'll assert, a representation of extroverted judgment. You create coherent sets of images that are meant one day to map to external conditions. This prepares the ground for the seer role. The position of seer is subject to its own unprovability. You expect, even insist, that eventually there will be proof (a match with external conditions), but meanwhile you can't be constrained by that. You must speculate beyond.

That speculation, I speculate, is "right" when it follows certain demands on content. It feels right if you find yourself seeking for "deeper" connections. A measure of concordance with external conditions also promotes a sense of seeking well. But the real rightness lies in.... lol, I don't know, I want to say "in demystifying the reasonless". The world as extroverted sensing is reasonless, it just happens. It needs there to be something behind it for it to have coherence. Thus, one is seeking to discover the deeper coherences.

Pffft, I was looking for some better expression than that. The paragraph above sounds too much like loving the extroverted thinking, when in fact the content demands that drive Ni quality control are... something else. (INTJs with more "4" in their enneagram might agree.)

I am unconvinced by your handwaving steps / step-waving hands.

Onemoretime did one other time describe it most elegantly.

But there is still the question of just how exclusive the pairings are. I tend to think there are basic mechanisms underpinning the construction of the psyche that are just too far below human intervention to admit such conceits as cognitive developments that one can impose upon oneself, so I tend toward the view that psyches align themselves. Where, say, feeling sometimes tends to be determined in the outer realm, it tends always to be determined in the outer realm, just because a drive toward the outer cannot exist alongside a similarly focused drive toward the inner. But as to why.... well, so far I have it only as a conceptual argument. If the machine seeks in both worlds for the same thing, it is no longer a conscious device. Since for the machine there is no qualitative difference between inner and outer realms, there there is no tension to straddle. The third position, the conscious person, fails to exist.

 

[Evo]

I agree with her up to a point. I don't think it's possible to impose rigid ordering schemes of functions. In fact, beyond dom and aux (and by implication inf) it's all up for grabs. And why wouldn't it be?

Agreed. I probably cling more to her theory and structure than you do because it's what I need. I also like the ideas she has of the areas of the brain and where cognitive functions physically appear.

But I do find INTP's using way more Fi than Fe. True dat! Although I still see the attacking that Fe does <--similar to an INFJ or something. Quick. Sharp. Thurough. Probably a mix of some kind of value...Ti or Fi...I dunno. But it's being defended by Fe it seems. Not in the way that Fe wants to be friends...but that it's "what's right" or something. It executes. Unless I am mis reading an INFJ's Fe.

Also I have not seen the desire or need for things to be left open, etc in that many P's.(not in the same plaguing way that you were mentioning earlier) I mostly get this from just INTP's, this...extreme. It also plays into how they don't want others to ask things of them and they don't ask of others. Cause they can't have anything or anyone in the situation controlled.

 

[highlander]

Nah. What pisses me off about NTJs is when they are condescending, insulting, domineering and relentlessly petty. They lose sight of the big picture and get bogged down in irrelevant details and stupid, boring pissing contests which are wholly non-constructive. Part of the reason for that may be because they are closed off to new ideas, but it's difficult to know which is chicken and which is egg. It's not difficult to know which is tiresome though. (Goes without saying this only applies to immature NTJs ).

I just saw this.

 

[Salomé]

Are you laughing because you recognise yourself?

 

[Salomé]

Agreed. I probably cling more to her theory and structure than you do because it's what I need. I also like the ideas she has of the areas of the brain and where cognitive functions physically appear.

I like those too, but there is scant support for them.

But I do find INTP's using way more Fi than Fe. True dat! Although I still see the attacking that Fe does <--similar to an INFJ or something. Quick. Sharp. Thurough. Probably a mix of some kind of value...Ti or Fi...I dunno. But it's being defended by Fe it seems. Not in the way that Fe wants to be friends...but that it's "what's right" or something. It executes. Unless I am mis reading an INFJ's Fe.

It's more likely that you are misreading the INTP's.

Also I have not seen the desire or need for things to be left open, etc in that many P's.(not in the same plaguing way that you were mentioning earlier) I mostly get this from just INTP's, this...extreme. It also plays into how they don't want others to ask things of them and they don't ask of others. Cause they can't have anything or anyone in the situation controlled.

Yes. We do tend to take it to unhealthy extremes. Part of the reason is because our feeling function is so weak, we often do not feel we have a basis for making a decision (most decisions have an emotional component to them). It's very hard for us to know what we want/feel, but much easier to recognise what we don't want. (Because the negative character of iFe asserts itself.)

But the real rightness lies in.... lol, I don't know, I want to say "in demystifying the reasonless". The world as extroverted sensing is reasonless, it just happens. It needs there to be something behind it for it to have coherence. Thus, one is seeking to discover the deeper coherences.

"It" needs, or you need?
I find reasonlessness comforting.

. If the machine seeks in both worlds for the same thing, it is no longer a conscious device. Since for the machine there is no qualitative difference between inner and outer realms, there there is no tension to straddle. The third position, the conscious person, fails to exist.

Of course there is still tension, why would the tension not increase (along with consciousness)? In fact, this is how consciousness evolves (by integrating more and more perspectives).

 

[Kalach]

"It" needs, or you need?

Zing!

But... and here we have an interesting problem... how did I come to need it? I think such "needs" are and must be logically prior to the person. A logically arbitrary and necessarily rigid division of attention must exist before any position that chooses focus can exist--before any person can come into being.

If for example it were possible to seek in the inner realm and the outer realm for direct affect, the distinction between inner and outer must collapse and the person dissolve.

I don't know why.

But how else does any kind of cognitive distinction exist? If it's not wired in at a level well below choice, then what other device is doing the directing of libidinous energies? From what other irritant could consciousness arise? If there isn't distinct preference, then we should be investigating whatever that other ghost in the machine may be.

 

[Evo]

I like those too, but there is scant support for them.

It's more likely that you are misreading the INTP's.

Yes. We do tend to take it to unhealthy extremes. Part of the reason is because our feeling function is so weak, we often do not feel we have a basis for making a decision (most decisions have an emotional component to them). It's very hard for us to know what we want/feel, but much easier to recognise what we don't want. (Because the negative character of iFe asserts itself.)

Yea I know, it's some kinda inner attraction though(I love Biology)...even if the support or evidence is wrong/weak I like looking at what people make of the brain.



Yea I'm not sure if I'm misreading or not...it's pretty difficult to decifer what's what though. I can never really interpret who the core being INTP's are. I have only gotten 1/4 of the way of getting to know only one that way. Little is ever revealed by them, very guarded. Feels like it would take a long time and I get tired of not getting thrown a bone once in a while lol. They're obviously not shallow though, just guarded.

Are you saying that they don't defend themselves, or their values ? Or stand up for things easily? Or are you saying that it's not an attack. If it's not an attack what its it? I think that the saying" the best defense is an offense" is true to them.

 

[Hetha]

My biggest issue is having nothing in comon with 90% of the people I meet. I'm fine to communicate, socialise and keep my arrogance in check. But when it comes down to shared interests I'm at an absolute loss because I'm into a lot of interests that other people find socially reprehensible. Namely crafting....making stuff. It's what really old retired people do....apparently. i should probably channel this into some high-brow intellectual interest like architecture, fine art or antique collecting but the simple fact is I love making mundane and obscure stuff with my hands. Admitting that you're a crafter is a bit like saying you've got herpes or leprosy. No-one wants to know.

The other big problem I have is my general lack of connection with the outside world. Most of the time I'm oblivious to what or who is around me. My failure to pay attention to someone when they think I should be trips me up a lot. I am iften quite shocked when someone around spits the dummy. I'm like....wtf was that about?

I can somewhat relate to this. At work, I'm surrounded by people who either talk a lot to each other about football, small talk gossip, celebrities, and how screwed up their own lives and other people's lives are, and workplace politics. I'm polite, civil, go about my business, keep working, and only converse with a few individuals who engage me in conversations that are a bit more interesting and cerebral, (at least to me). I've developed just enough sense to simply not engage my co-workers when those topics that are of less interest to me are being discussed. At the same time, I don't let on to others my abhorrence of those topics, I've categorized them into the,"they're simply different than me," category and left it there. The truth is I love the job I do, and I enjoy the work I do, so my focus is with the challenge of my work and I stay focused on it, until the tasks are completed. Never mind that people view me as "hard-to-read," I try my best within my limits to allow them to talk to me in some resemblance of a social context, without being a pushover either. But yes, the lack of connection can be a pain.

I will admit, I avoid people that discuss those topics, and dismiss the discussions as irrelevant to my goals. I'm there to find more efficient and organized ways of doing those tasks, and frankly, I know that I'm on a career path that will yield a far better reward, than the temporary "resume builder for experience" position I am currently in.

I'm still reading and absorbing the contents of Amargith's post, among others.

 

[Coriolis]

The truth is I love the job I do, and I enjoy the work I do, so my focus is with the challenge of my work and I stay focused on it, until the tasks are completed. Never mind that people view me as "hard-to-read," I try my best within my limits to allow them to talk to me in some resemblance of a social context, without being a pushover either. But yes, the lack of connection can be a pain.

In what sense? I have always found lack of connection preferable to bad connections.

 

[Hetha]

In what sense? I have always found lack of connection preferable to bad connections.

They become a pain to me, when they interfere with raises, promotions. I also find lack of connection preferable to bad connections, however when they use "like-ability" over competence, when considering a raise or a promotion, it defies the logic of whether or not someone is doing a good job with their work. I prefer competence and capability. I think their favoritism and office politics should not be a part of that environment, but unfortunately a lot of jobs have this.

Now, I've receive many raises, since I started the job more than two years ago, I'm not seeking a promotion within this company, because they know that I will be leaving the company after I finish my classes at the local college and save up some money to move out-of-town at the end of this year. I have plans to move to a place where I can attend the university of my choice, and continue my studies into this field to land me a much better and higher position elsewhere. So leaving this job is ( I hope) on good terms for resume building, since I'm pursuant to making a career within the field I'm in.
That said, I observe from an objective perspective outside of all the gossip, backbiting, social minefield they've created for themselves, and look for solutions to improve the efficiency, structure, and work flow. I do this for future referencing and long-range goal setting. I want to make extra sure, that when I land the position I'm working diligently for within my field, that I am a benefit to the company I will end up working for. That I've taken all things and details into consideration, and that I'm thoroughly aware of what works and what doesn't work, and the how and why behind it.

 

[Scheherezade]

i totally share your thoughts, and most of your situation,
i am not so well adapted as you and i find this to be somewhat difficult at my job, not the interacting part, but more the "i am exposed to their stupid conversations" part and find it difficult sometimes not to mentally roll my eyes at something people say.