- Mar 26, 2017
- MBTI Type
[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION] , dude, welcome back! Itâ€™s a pleasure to hear from you again.
I know, the OP is far gone after almost 40 posts, and some stuff is a bit OT. Nonetheless, as the â€œNi vs Neâ€ debate is at the heart of my typing doubts, I thought it was important to share it here.
I am not a cognitive function believer, so take all that I say regarding to that approach with a grain of salt. That being said, the comparison I made referred to Ne and Ni as dominant functions (the part of the neo-Jungian typology Iâ€™m less in disagreement with).
With that in mind, an Ni-dom is on the Ni-Se axis with Se inferior, that supports my view of the outside-to-inside movement, inwardly. On the other hand, an Ne-dom is on the Ne-Si axis with Si inferior, which implies the inside-to-outside movement, outwardly. That is in line with the common view of INxJ as bookworms, know-it-all, life-long learners: they gather patterns as they see them in the world, and store in their N memory. In contrast, ENxP look for patterns that they actively create, so that they are more experimenters, adventurers, button-pushers. It all fits nicely.
When you start considering N in other function roles (e.g. auxiliary) it starts to get messier, and dichotomies and functions models start to diverge, but for the scope of this thread (that is, typing myself!) I assume that we can skip that mess.
In my personal case, I could also add that Iâ€™ve been pondering on all this for quite a time, and eventually I came to the realization that this outward-to-inward movement is what I do naturally, effortlessly, all the time.
[MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION] , you know I bought into your insight about me being either I+J or E+P quite a while ago. Since you told me, I examined my daily activities and came to realize that I am J, maybe just mildly but I have that urge for things being settled, that need for closure, especially in the world of concepts and ideas.
All this is because my strong N is what dominates my type so, for example, J-ness has to be examined in the N world, not in the usual â€œorder vs messâ€ thing. Iâ€™ve read something that made me think: N has a â€œpullâ€ towards P and T, because it can look like logic/analysis (resembling T) and scattered/not in the moment/not dealing with â€œthingsâ€ (resembling P); therefore, a strong N can mask your natural F and J preferences. I believe itâ€™s my case!
In dichotomies speak, my view now is that being I and N and J is a strange combo: looking for patterns to come to closure. The pattern is â€œtheâ€ pattern in the sense that you have it inside (introverted), detached from the object, but comes from outside. Then you use your inner symbol and forget about the real thing (inferior S). This is understanding the deeper meaning, I guess.
On the other hand, if you change that to E + N + P, you get that active exploration of the world, generating possibilities and following them wherever they may lead. I donâ€™t see that as an introverted activity, on the contrary, it looks pretty extroverted, from inside to outside. As I said, discovering by pushing, pulling, twisting, metaphorically â€“ Iâ€™m talking about patterns and abstracts. The pattern ends up being there in the world because you put it there, a quintessential E behavior.
(I am not looking into the other two combos, ENJ and INP, as they donâ€™t fit in my case, and Iâ€™m not knowledgeable enough to go any further!)
N/S interfering in J/P is a funny thing, the MBTI dichotomies are all independent, at least when you are not using cognitive functions.
However, in terms of world population, there are more NPs than NJs and more SJs than SPs, creating somewhat a connection between N & P and S & J. However, the same is no way at all for F/T, it is pretty indepedent. I dont really think that N disconnects feeling, at least not in general.