I want no bias here...

[existence]

Everyone sees it, lol. You struggle and struggle for meaning.

I asked you earlier but you may have missed it - what do you mean by "meaning"? Please elaborate as I'm not following you at all.

As our ISTPs have pointed out, they just get to work.

I don't accept anyone's thoughts unconditionally without first processing it for myself so I'm sorry this is not an argument here. EDIT: nvm, I misread, I'm tired. So, I guess you meant that the ISTPs just go and work with what they have. Or?

Fe is about the search for meaning in everything. Ti is about true/false. You want understanding and meaning, you want closure, you want structure.

[MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] has just told me Ti is not about true/false. I definitely do not agree on that with Poki.

Yes I'm naturally into structure and closure.

How does Fe search for meaning? What is this meaning? Give me examples.

As to the age, the tert function starts coming more on line as we age. And we often have a battle between our dom and inf in young adulthood.

Yeah, I've noted developments in my Ni recently.

At 25, I tested on the official MBTI as a ISTP. I had so tried to reject Fe that I pushed out into my shadow, even as I lived as a ENFJ. I couldn't recognize myself. I thought I was just a superior coldly rational and logical thinker. But I used Fe constantly, just not consciously. It took me 20 more years to accept the truth.

Accepting who you are is a huge step......

I recall you posted somewhere that you didn't see Fe in yourself even though you are a real people person, doing social events etc. I cannot relate to that description of yourself. I'm like your opposite, heh.

I don't experience myself as cold, I'm more neutral most of the time than cold. The Fe-doms and Fe-aux types I know tell me they feel cold when they get into logic, I don't get that, to me it's neutral.

 

[Poki]

I asked you earlier but you may have missed it - what do you mean by "meaning"? Please elaborate as I'm not following you at all.




I don't accept anyone's thoughts unconditionally without first processing it for myself so I'm sorry this is not an argument here.




[MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] has just told me Ti is not about true/false. I definitely do not agree on that with Poki.

Yes I'm naturally into structure and closure.

How does Fe search for meaning? What is this meaning? Give me examples.




Yeah, I've noted developments in my Ni recently.




I recall you posted somewhere that you didn't see Fe in yourself even though you are a real people person, doing social events etc. I cannot relate to that description of yourself. I'm like your opposite, heh.

I don't experience myself as cold, I'm more neutral most of the time than cold. The Fe-doms and Fe-aux types I know tell me they feel cold when they get into logic, I don't get that, to me it's neutral.

When you build a logicall framework out of life you can't really have set true or false anywhere. You have to understand the relationships of everything. ENFJ is a very simplistic logical framework. It doesn't have much relationship analysis of everything. It is much more black and white..hence the more "social" structure as opposed to an internal dissection and analysis of everything and anything. I don't have a true and false based framework, that would be way to closed off and limited to further analysis and require WAY to much damn work to reorganize and restructure it all upon new data. It is a very complicated relationship mapping that will utilize logic, but for it to actually be a simplistic logical mapping does not lead to constant analyzing and learning like we do. What happens if one of your axioms are found to be wrong, what if you could have a solid logistical framework without axioms that bends and adapts based on different axioms.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I asked you earlier but you may have missed it - what do you mean by "meaning"? Please elaborate as I'm not following you at all.

Yes I'm naturally into structure and closure.

How does Fe search for meaning? What is this meaning? Give me examples.

I recall you posted somewhere that you didn't see Fe in yourself even though you are a real people person, doing social events etc. I cannot relate to that description of yourself. I'm like your opposite, heh.

I don't experience myself as cold, I'm more neutral most of the time than cold. The Fe-doms and Fe-aux types I know tell me they feel cold when they get into logic, I don't get that, to me it's neutral.

You seem to want understanding, to see the structure behind things, to understand the interrelationships of things and how it all fits. That is looking for meaning. You want that, want a clear look at bigger picture.

I look at events and immediately slide them into my vast framework of understanding. Major new things might cause some changes, but it is all about the understanding.

I can't just stay on the immediate what. I need the why and a deep why, not a surface why.

One source of anxiety for me is not having deep understanding of some things. My surface acceptance is not enough. It is an insatiable for more complex understanding.

I don't care as much about practical applications, though I do care, somewhat. It is the vast framework I need to build and expand.

 

[existence]

You seem to want understanding, to see the structure behind things, to understand the interrelationships of things and how it all fits. That is looking for meaning. You want that, want a clear look at bigger picture.

I see the structure in concrete things by default.

"Interrelationships" is a general term, it has a Ni version of it, that's the one I do look for sometimes somewhere else.

Bigger picture is Intuition in general.

So you've just showed that I'm an S type looking for N.

But I was asking about where you see Fe in me. Do you have an answer to that or do you not have an answer to it? Either is fine, btw. I'm just curious.

I look at events and immediately slide them into my vast framework of understanding. Major new things might cause some changes, but it is all about the understanding.

I can't just stay on the immediate what. I need the why and a deep why, not a surface why.

One source of anxiety for me is not having deep understanding of some things. My surface acceptance is not enough. It is an insatiable for more complex understanding.

Gotcha, sounds like Ni + Ti. I have a brand of this myself

I'm not anxious about it though. I enjoy looking at the why's.

I don't care as much about practical applications, though I do care, somewhat. It is the vast framework I need to build and expand.

I care about practical application first and foremost.

 

[existence]

When you build a logicall framework out of life you can't really have set true or false anywhere. You have to understand the relationships of everything. ENFJ is a very simplistic logical framework. It doesn't have much relationship analysis of everything. It is much more black and white..hence the more "social" structure as opposed to an internal dissection and analysis of everything and anything. I don't have a true and false based framework, that would be way to closed off and limited to further analysis and require WAY to much damn work to reorganize and restructure it all upon new data. It is a very complicated relationship mapping that will utilize logic, but for it to actually be a simplistic logical mapping does not lead to constant analyzing and learning like we do. What happens if one of your axioms are found to be wrong, what if you could have a solid logistical framework without axioms that bends and adapts based on different axioms.

Ti as a Rational function does look at what's true and what's false in a logical sense.

Yes, ENFJ's Ti is applied in a social structure mostly.

Where your assumption is wrong - the fact that one looks at what's true and false does not mean it limits things from further analysis. Ti can always perform further analysis, that ability has nothing to do with it being a Rational function. Yes it will reject certain data more than an Irrational function would but that's all the difference. You are clearly sticking to a jungian Irrational function here that you favour over jungian Rational functions.

Yes, it does require work to restructure things if some new data is such that it needs that; but I don't mind that. A paradigm shift isn't a bad thing if it leads to a better understanding. Not all new data will require such a shift, obviously. Depending on how good the existing logical framework of everything is.

But, because I do look at new data, it does lead to constantly analyzing and learning, I do that a lot.

My axioms, heh, I really have to go now but I will respond to your earlier posts (and any other post I may have missed) about the axioms stuff and this question as well but let me just say quickly that this is a non issue. For one, the axioms are solid. For the other part, see above.

 

[Poki]

You seem to want understanding, to see the structure behind things, to understand the interrelationships of things and how it all fits. That is looking for meaning. You want that, want a clear look at bigger picture.

I look at events and immediately slide them into my vast framework of understanding. Major new things might cause some changes, but it is all about the understanding.

I can't just stay on the immediate what. I need the why and a deep why, not a surface why.

One source of anxiety for me is not having deep understanding of some things. My surface acceptance is not enough. It is an insatiable for more complex understanding.

I don't care as much about practical applications, though I do care, somewhat. It is the vast framework I need to build and expand.

I don't care as much about "why" I want to know "how". Biggest difference between IP and EJ due to goals...meant in general terms, not as in J vs P and goals.

It's actually why I get along very well with EJs in general..the how actually allows me to answer the why alot of the time. Even when it doesn't allow me to answer whyour it allows me to narrow down to likely possibilities to determine and figure out exactly why.

 

[Poki]

Ti as a Rational function does look at what's true and what's false in a logical sense.

Yes, ENFJ's Ti is applied in a social structure mostly.

Where your assumption is wrong - the fact that one looks at what's true and false does not mean it limits things from further analysis. Ti can always perform further analysis, that ability has nothing to do with it being a Rational function. Yes it will reject certain data more than an Irrational function would but that's all the difference. You are clearly sticking to a jungian Irrational function here that you favour over jungian Rational functions.

Yes, it does require work to restructure things if some new data is such that it needs that; but I don't mind that. A paradigm shift isn't a bad thing if it leads to a better understanding. Not all new data will require such a shift, obviously. Depending on how good the existing logical framework of everything is.

But, because I do look at new data, it does lead to constantly analyzing and learning, I do that a lot.

My axioms, heh, I really have to go now but I will respond to your earlier posts (and any other post I may have missed) about the axioms stuff and this question as well but let me just say quickly that this is a non issue. For one, the axioms are solid. For the other part, see above.

Honestly, I have not read that stuff in years. I am speaking about myself. Apparently it aligns pretty good with Jung

 

[Poki]

Ti as a Rational function does look at what's true and what's false in a logical sense.

Yes, ENFJ's Ti is applied in a social structure mostly.

Where your assumption is wrong - the fact that one looks at what's true and false does not mean it limits things from further analysis. Ti can always perform further analysis, that ability has nothing to do with it being a Rational function. Yes it will reject certain data more than an Irrational function would but that's all the difference. You are clearly sticking to a jungian Irrational function here that you favour over jungian Rational functions.

Yes, it does require work to restructure things if some new data is such that it needs that; but I don't mind that. A paradigm shift isn't a bad thing if it leads to a better understanding. Not all new data will require such a shift, obviously. Depending on how good the existing logical framework of everything is.

But, because I do look at new data, it does lead to constantly analyzing and learning, I do that a lot.

My axioms, heh, I really have to go now but I will respond to your earlier posts (and any other post I may have missed) about the axioms stuff and this question as well but let me just say quickly that this is a non issue. For one, the axioms are solid. For the other part, see above.

But the people I deal with that are like this can be like beating your head against a wall until that "ahhh-ha" moment and then they have to shift everything over. It's a very static way of thinking and not dynamic at all. It's actually one of the reasons I dislike dealing with certain people when it comes to hierarchy and group structure. Because the structure put in place it's like my hands are tied. Outside of predefined structure I generally don't mind as much as I just do it myself and use reality itself as proof to get them past the paradigm. Only people with major denial issues don't accept reality as proof. Now they may not understand, but they are forced to accept reality as proof which forces a paradigm shift...damn stubborn people...lol. I actually support this method freely..it's why me and my GF get along so well. I simply say...I don't think so...but you know what...prove me wrong By ACTUAL Doing it, NOT logically, OR ANYTHING Like that. Don't know why my phone capitalized those words. Even recapitalizes if I fix it. Stupid smart phones...lol

She trusts me with being unbiased because if she gets it close enough I fill in the gaps. Or else she sometimes fails not because what she was proving, but another reason which doesn't necessarily negate what she was proving. It's a mute point.

 

[violet_crown]

Let's not mix enneagram into my typing. I do have a 5 fixation which I'm into right now, yup. But ignore that.

Oh it was more for me than you, kitten.

Swapping my vote to INFJ.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Where your assumption is wrong - the fact that one looks at what's true and false does not mean it limits things from further analysis. Ti can always perform further analysis, that ability has nothing to do with it being a Rational function. Yes it will reject certain data more than an Irrational function would but that's all the difference. You are clearly sticking to a jungian Irrational function here that you favour over jungian Rational functions.

Yes, it does require work to restructure things if some new data is such that it needs that; but I don't mind that. A paradigm shift isn't a bad thing if it leads to a better understanding. Not all new data will require such a shift, obviously. Depending on how good the existing logical framework of everything is.

But, because I do look at new data, it does lead to constantly analyzing and learning, I do that a lot.

My axioms, heh, I really have to go now but I will respond to your earlier posts (and any other post I may have missed) about the axioms stuff and this question as well but let me just say quickly that this is a non issue. For one, the axioms are solid. For the other part, see above.

YOUR Ti works like this. Ti doms Ti does not. It's not an assumption, it is [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION]'s truth. It is how he sees it. The fact you are saying that is wrong is because you're basing it off YOUR Ti.

Do you see this?

It is your definition of what Ti means to you. It is how Ti is expressed in you. You keep trying to fit Ti dom Ti into your view of it. It's a square peg/round hole situation.

 

[Tilt]

Ni for the win.... The is a prime example of the Ni-dom rabbit hole. Pages and pages of walls of text and explanations... In the most simplistic way, Se is very action-oriented.... and this is not.

 

[Poki]

YOUR Ti works like this. Ti doms Ti does not. It's not an assumption, it is [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION]'s truth. It is how he sees it. The fact you are saying that is wrong is because you're basing it off YOUR Ti.

Do you see this?

It is your definition of what Ti means to you. It is how Ti is expressed in you. You keep trying to fit Ti dom Ti into your view of it. It's a square peg/round hole situation.

Yes, i would simply try to understand where you are coming from which may require shifting axioms and not dismissing anything. It allows my to use my Ti to understand you and where you are coming from. This is what I do to understand Fi as well. It's shifts where I do have to take what's not true as true and apply it to things and shift hints around.

[MENTION=26684]existence[/MENTION] you seem to be very black and white when it comes to this. How well can you understand things that are not logical and build a logical framework that fits what's not logical to understand the world even with an incomplete set of data? Does that make sense? My Ti encompasses all of this, I can't deem things as true or false, because that would limit it to what I see as logical. I can play with other people's logic and there "truths" like crazy as in learning them. Because I do not dismiss I do not have things defined as true and false. I don't know how to explain how I organize it all. But I can even adapt to the truths of someone that is highly illogical and conspiracy theory.

It falls back to the saying, you first have to understand to be understood.

 

[cascadeco]

Ni for the win.... The is a prime example of the Ni-dom rabbit hole. Pages and pages of walls of text and explanations... In the most simplistic way, Se is very action-oriented.... and this is not.

I completely agree

 

[Poki]

Ni for the win.... The is a prime example of the Ni-dom rabbit hole. Pages and pages of walls of text and explanations... In the most simplistic way, Se is very action-oriented.... and this is not.

Yeah, I feel Ni in some of my explanations. Like there is this zen like quality to some things I write. A beauty...damn...I swear I feel INJ on here at times. Damn Ni hitting my passion side. People have told me that before as well..like my writing is poetic or something sometimes and it's just a letter.

 

[Tilt]

Yeah, I feel Ni in some of my explanations. Like there is this zen like quality to some things I write. A beauty...damn...I swear I feel INJ on here at times. Damn Ni hitting my passion side. People have told me that before as well..like my writing is poetic or something sometimes and it's just a letter.

ahhh... I could totally see that. Ti = the most precise word choice. Se = descriptive imagery Ni= pulling in symbolism and meaning/tying in overarching themes Fe = hints of emotional expression subtly weaved into it. My ISFP friend is similar but she likes to pick "bold and colorful words" to accurately depict her inner world (Fi+Se?)

 

[existence]

Honestly, I have not read that stuff in years. I am speaking about myself. Apparently it aligns pretty good with Jung

No, what I said is what Jung says about Rational and Irrational functions. Jungian Ti judges data as it is a Rational function. Read up on it. There's a few places online that have that part of Jung's Psychological Types book posted.

But the people I deal with that are like this can be like beating your head against a wall until that "ahhh-ha" moment and then they have to shift everything over. It's a very static way of thinking and not dynamic at all. It's actually one of the reasons I dislike dealing with certain people when it comes to hierarchy and group structure. Because the structure put in place it's like my hands are tied. Outside of predefined structure I generally don't mind as much as I just do it myself and use reality itself as proof to get them past the paradigm. Only people with major denial issues don't accept reality as proof. Now they may not understand, but they are forced to accept reality as proof which forces a paradigm shift...damn stubborn people...lol. I actually support this method freely..it's why me and my GF get along so well. I simply say...I don't think so...but you know what...prove me wrong By ACTUAL Doing it, NOT logically, OR ANYTHING Like that. Don't know why my phone capitalized those words. Even recapitalizes if I fix it. Stupid smart phones...lol

She trusts me with being unbiased because if she gets it close enough I fill in the gaps. Or else she sometimes fails not because what she was proving, but another reason which doesn't necessarily negate what she was proving. It's a mute point.

We may be having a similar issue going on here then, you and me and the ISTPs in general. I don't mean the part about accepting or not accepting reality, I mean the part that you are exactly not on the same page as people who are judging in that way. Btw, where you say the other person with the static thinking has to shift everything over - that would only happen if you happen to be more right.

YOUR Ti works like this. Ti doms Ti does not. It's not an assumption, it is [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION]'s truth. It is how he sees it. The fact you are saying that is wrong is because you're basing it off YOUR Ti.

Do you see this?

It is your definition of what Ti means to you. It is how Ti is expressed in you. You keep trying to fit Ti dom Ti into your view of it. It's a square peg/round hole situation.

No, it's not just my definition, it's Jung's original definition. Not exactly to do with the square peg/round hole type of issue. Check it out in Psychological Types if you want.

What exactly do you define as Ti dom then if it's not to do with logical truth. I am half rhetorical here, but also curious about your thoughts. I don't see how it would make Ti the dominant function if it rejects true/false judgments.

I hope you read my earlier posts too. Whenever you get the time, do post your thoughts on that.

Yes, i would simply try to understand where you are coming from which may require shifting axioms and not dismissing anything. It allows my to use my Ti to understand you and where you are coming from. This is what I do to understand Fi as well. It's shifts where I do have to take what's not true as true and apply it to things and shift hints around.

[MENTION=26684]existence[/MENTION] you seem to be very black and white when it comes to this. How well can you understand things that are not logical and build a logical framework that fits what's not logical to understand the world even with an incomplete set of data? Does that make sense? My Ti encompasses all of this, I can't deem things as true or false, because that would limit it to what I see as logical. I can play with other people's logic and there "truths" like crazy as in learning them. Because I do not dismiss I do not have things defined as true and false. I don't know how to explain how I organize it all. But I can even adapt to the truths of someone that is highly illogical and conspiracy theory.

It falls back to the saying, you first have to understand to be understood.

I also try to understand where you all are coming from. I don't have to shift axioms when I do that. It all depends on the situation as to what I need to do to see where you are coming from.

Not logical things... like what this universe is actually. That's not something anyone understands. Save for that, I build logical frameworks to understand things and apply all that in practice. I gave that sports example earlier about how I do this when MDP2525 asked me to give an example. I don't know if you saw that.

I agree with your last sentence.

 

[existence]

So scientific conspiracy theories...got it. You can't just not dot the T and cross the I. If you do you may screw something up.

No, a conspiracy theory by definition is never scientific as it does not go by the scientific way of thinking.

I have been going down a rabbit hole of Ti these last few pages and it is only by putting hers against mine can I see things more clearly to a point of solidity. Measure twice (or many times in this thread!); cut once. I'm ready to cut.

And I've already cut.

It is easy to feel the group (NFJ /STP) but the endless search for understanding is such a NFJ thing to do, unfortunately..... And we even think we are really logical when we do it.....

I've already finished my search here. But if you are willing to say where you see my Fe, I'm all ears.

Also, remember where you said Ti is about true/false. Did you note the ISTPs don't agree with that. I do agree with it myself, tho'.

@existence remember when I said Ti was neutral? This is saying the same thing. Poki is saying the same thing I was. This is key to being Ti dom and and I'll come back to it in more detail later but it is why I don't see you as Ti dom at all. This is a sticking point that you cannot get around.

We are speaking the same language but we are mirroring each other's Ti/Ni in this thread. Hence, the different dialect. Which is causing that sense of something ain't right for me and causing your continued and rigorous examination. You aren't in a Ti-Ni loop. You are in an Ni-Ti loop.

When I spoke about Ni - you countered me in a way that I didn't understand. You said it was natural for you. Yes! Same how I was talking about Ti. It is your dom function - effortless.

I notice my Ni. You don't. You notice your Ti. I don't notice mine.

Ack. I'll be able to quote you where I am pulling this from but like I said, that will take time i dont have now.

So I see you posted more. The sticking point here is that we both have equally strong Ti in Socionics. But in a different function position. You already agreed to having Demonstrative Ti. I agree you have that. To go with your word usage, we are mirroring each other's Ti, your Ti demonstrative vs my Ti leading.

Now, back to MBTI.

I need to correct you - I notice both my Ni and my Ti. I already showed you by bolding those Ni descriptions where I see my Ni.

Anyway, just tell me where you see my Fe if you think I'm INFJ.

I don't care as much about "why" I want to know "how". Biggest difference between IP and EJ due to goals...meant in general terms, not as in J vs P and goals.

It's actually why I get along very well with EJs in general..the how actually allows me to answer the why alot of the time. Even when it doesn't allow me to answer whyour it allows me to narrow down to likely possibilities to determine and figure out exactly why.

The "why" is actually Ti.

You get along better with ENFP yeah? That's what you said.

Oh it was more for me than you, kitten.

Swapping my vote to INFJ.

Thanks for the vote but to prove it you'll need to show where the Fe is in me and where the Ni symbolism is.

Ni for the win.... The is a prime example of the Ni-dom rabbit hole. Pages and pages of walls of text and explanations... In the most simplistic way, Se is very action-oriented.... and this is not.

No, not a rabbit hole as I've already drawn my conclusions. Though I'm open to hearing more on Fe.

Your last sentence must be a joke; you have not seen me outside this forum. You don't have the means to tell how Se I am outside the forum so don't assume. The ISTPs also engaged in it while they are all Se supposedly.

Thanks though for the input.

I completely agree

Same answer to you as to Protege. & Thanks.

ahhh... I could totally see that. Ti = the most precise word choice. Se = descriptive imagery Ni= pulling in symbolism and meaning/tying in overarching themes Fe = hints of emotional expression subtly weaved into it. My ISFP friend is similar but she likes to pick "bold and colorful words" to accurately depict her inner world (Fi+Se?)

To compare Ti and Ni specifically, I relate to precise word choice and a bit of overarching themes. I'm not good at symbolism tho'. I don't think you've seen any symbolism from me here either.

 

[existence]

Here's Jung's Psychological Types Chapter X to anyone who wants to get educated further on what it means for Ti to be a Rational function. Though [MENTION=25377]SearchingforPeace[/MENTION] seems to understand what Ti is alright.

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I'm saying in MBTI, you are an INFJ.

If you are using both MBTI and socionics interchangeablely - you will confuse yourself. They are separate.

You are in a Ni-Ti loop. You have Fe but are bypassing it as much as you can in favor of Ti.

I'll explain more later.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I'm saying in MBTI, you are an INFJ.

If you are using both MBTI and socionics interchangeablely - you will confuse yourself. They are separate.

You are in a Ni-Ti loop. You have Fe but are bypassing it as much as you can in favor of Ti.

I'll explain more later.

I lived in a Ni-Ti loop for decades..... it is very hard to break out of it, because is so personal and feels correct in its truth, being Ji. But for NFJs, Ti isn't strong as it thinks it is and is blind to its weaknesses.

I don't know how to break out, as I needed life shattering Ni insights to shake my Fe back into my consciousness.... And that isn't available on demand.