Socionics and MBTI

[hjgbujhghg]

I try to get a bit more into socionics theory. I've noticed a lot of people say that the correlation between MBTI and socionics is just theoretical and your MBTI type doesn't have to suggest your socionics type. I have a question... How is it possible? Socionics uses 8 functions to describe the types, MBTI uses 8 cognitive functions, so how is it possible, that when a person is for example an INFJ in MBTI he can be an ENFp in socionics? INFJ in MBTI uses Ni+Fe while ENFp in socionics uses Ne+Fi. How is it possible that a person can use Ne+Fi in one typology and Ni+Fe in the other? Functions are functions no metter what typology it is. Or am I wrong? I just think if someone is an INFJ in MBTI he has to be an INFp in socionics because of the functions (INFJ Ni+Fe, INFp Ni+Fe).

 

[Such Irony]

The J and P mean different things in the two theories. In MBTI, ExxJ types have a dominant judging function (Te or Fe) and ExxP types have a dominant perceiving function (Ne or Se). In introverts though, IxxJ types have a dominant perceiving function (Ni or Si) but their auxiliary function is a judging one (Te or Fe). With IxxP types, they actually have a dominant judging function (Ti or Fi) and their auxiliary function is perceiving (Ne or Se).

Socionics actually clears up this confusion so that all j types will have a dominant function regardless of whether they are introverts or extraverts. Similarly all socionics p types have a dominant perceiving function and it applies to be introverts and extraverts.

So MBTI INTP actually uses the same functions as socionics INTj and MBTI INTJ uses the same functions as socionics INTp.

However, not all MBTI INTPs are socionics INTjs. With MBTI INTPs it seems there are just as many who are socionics INTps and even some who are neither INTj or INTp. Socionics also defines the functions themselves somewhat differently than MBTI so its possible to be different types with different functions in the two systems.

 

[sulfit]

I try to get a bit more into socionics theory. I've noticed a lot of people say that the correlation between MBTI and socionics is just theoretical and your MBTI type doesn't have to suggest your socionics type. I have a question... How is it possible? Socionics uses 8 functions to describe the types, MBTI uses 8 cognitive functions, so how is it possible, that when a person is for example an INFJ in MBTI he can be an ENFp in socionics? INFJ in MBTI uses Ni+Fe while ENFp in socionics uses Ne+Fi. How is it possible that a person can use Ne+Fi in one typology and Ni+Fe in the other? Functions are functions no metter what typology it is. Or am I wrong? I just think if someone is an INFJ in MBTI he has to be an INFp in socionics because of the functions (INFJ Ni+Fe, INFp Ni+Fe).

It's because Socionics definition of information elements differs from that of MBTI. For example Si in MBTI is related to memory and good eye for detail, while Si in Socionics is related to comfort and health. Some people think that these definitions are sufficiently different to warrant saying that these are completely different typologies.

These are socionics elements: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/73-Socionics-Information-Elements-Primer
You can compare them to MBTI.

My personal experience has been that they are very much alike, despite a few differing definitions, and most have either functionally same or closely related type if they have actually studied both well.

 

[Eye of the Potato]

The difference is that the people who devised Socionics had a greater understanding of Jungs work, and drew from Chinese philosophy and the I ching, and other esoteric stuff, just like Jung did. They understood what Jung meant by introverted sensing, that it was energy focused inward, on the inner sensations. Myers brigs didn't understand that. They just took a guess and said "memory and details?" "yeah lets call Si memory and details"
They got the characters right, the Duty Fulfiller still fulfills their duty, the Mechanic still has a cold heart and the Artist still likes to smell the pretty flowers. But they didn't know what mechanisms made their characters tick. They could tell the Mechanic was a Swatch watch, they just didn't know how all the little springs and pieces worked together. The Socionics people were Russian, so would have had a more intuitive understanding of Asian philosophy. They understood it better, and that's why they went a lot deeper in developing the theory. And that's why Si is one thing in mbti and another in Socionics.

 

[lunareclipze]

I don't know. But I'm pretty sure I'm ISFP on the MBTI and a INFp on the socionics. Then again i very well could be an INFP on the mbti (i really dont know which one i am)

 

[Eye of the Potato]

One of the differences between isfp and infp, whether you're talking about mbti or socionics, is that an isfp will focus more on concrete reality, such as the sensations they feel when they smell an orange and they'll try to capture these beautiful sensations in art and music and cooking. Whereas an infp (mbti or socionics) will dwell more in the abstract world of fantasy. Their art will be more concerned with effecting peoples souls rather than their bodily sensations.

Infp's (mbti or socionics) will walk into things more often than an isfp. They walk into things because they are off in dream land most of the time. Isfp's like being in dreamland too, but they are aware of their surroundings.

 

[Azure Flame]

I try to get a bit more into socionics theory. I've noticed a lot of people say that the correlation between MBTI and socionics is just theoretical and your MBTI type doesn't have to suggest your socionics type. I have a question... How is it possible? Socionics uses 8 functions to describe the types, MBTI uses 8 cognitive functions, so how is it possible, that when a person is for example an INFJ in MBTI he can be an ENFp in socionics? INFJ in MBTI uses Ni+Fe while ENFp in socionics uses Ne+Fi. How is it possible that a person can use Ne+Fi in one typology and Ni+Fe in the other? Functions are functions no metter what typology it is. Or am I wrong? I just think if someone is an INFJ in MBTI he has to be an INFp in socionics because of the functions (INFJ Ni+Fe, INFp Ni+Fe).

Its not.

also for some reason I suspect you are an IEI just based on your self type mbti + the format of your questions indicates Ti.

The thing you will learn over time is that mbti function descriptions are garbage. Complete garbage. They overlap, they don't make any sense and there is no consistency between the extroverts and the introverts.

One example being Fe vs Fi. One website, of which I'm too lazy to link, lists Fi as "hard to describe, and likes to connect with others" while Fe is "ethical norms."

This is like saying an apple isn't an orange because its not a vegetable. The relation is ultimately completely pointless.

Socionics, however, makes the distinction and labels the functions as Fe = objective ethics, Fi = subjective ethics. So Fi is subjective because it is created INTERNALLY to the individual. Objective ethics are created externally, because everyone can see them and agree upon them, they are inarguable. This also lends to the fact that Fe doms need verbal affirmation and Fi doms generally assume the emotional state of another person. Both have their plus and minuses. So when you take this information into account, you'll realize there are reasons certain mbti types have stereotypes the way they do. One example being ISTP vs ISTJ. both are mechanically inclined and independant. But because ISTP's have Ti, they tend to solve problems on their own, while ISTJ's prefer to recall experience and knowledge they already had. Likewise, ISTP's have Se, which tends to make them more aggressive and offensive as they very quickly identify objective sensory data and sieze the opportunity, while introverted sensors tend to have a more defensive stance and lash out due to "percieved threats" that may or may not ACTUALLY exist.

Personalitypage.com also lists ISTP's as being stubborn. This is due to having a dominant Ti judging function which basically means, they've usually thought about something way more than everyone else has, so changing their mind will be difficult. This also makes them act more judgy. Though, for some reason people mistakenly believe the P in ISTP has relevance, when it actually has zero relevance. So people think ISTP's are "go with the flow" or they're in the moment.

 

[Azure Flame]

There's also a tendency for socionics personalities to interpret their differing subtype as an MBTI J/P swap. So for example, LSI-Se seth green vs LSI-Ti Celebok (youtube)

Both are TiSe, but it doesn't look that way. Likewise, I am the same personality as the old spice guy, but while he is SLE-Se, i am SLE-Ti. We are both SeTi personalities, but have taken a different position in life. I suspect enneagram plays a large part in the differences as well, as my fear of being harmed or controlled requires me to take a much more calculated and meticulous approach to make sure I am in control of my environment and have influence on everyone around me, while a typical SLE-Se 7 needs to become more meticulous and has lived a lifestyle of unrestricted impulse.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Its not.

also for some reason I suspect you are an IEI just based on your self type mbti + the format of your questions indicates Ti.

The thing you will learn over time is that mbti function descriptions are garbage. Complete garbage. They overlap, they don't make any sense and there is no consistency between the extroverts and the introverts.

One example being Fe vs Fi. One website, of which I'm too lazy to link, lists Fi as "hard to describe, and likes to connect with others" while Fe is "ethical norms."

This is like saying an apple isn't an orange because its not a vegetable. The relation is ultimately completely pointless.

Socionics, however, makes the distinction and labels the functions as Fe = objective ethics, Fi = subjective ethics. So Fi is subjective because it is created INTERNALLY to the individual. Objective ethics are created externally, because everyone can see them and agree upon them, they are inarguable. This also lends to the fact that Fe doms need verbal affirmation and Fi doms generally assume the emotional state of another person. Both have their plus and minuses. So when you take this information into account, you'll realize there are reasons certain mbti types have stereotypes the way they do. One example being ISTP vs ISTJ. both are mechanically inclined and independant. But because ISTP's have Ti, they tend to solve problems on their own, while ISTJ's prefer to recall experience and knowledge they already had. Likewise, ISTP's have Se, which tends to make them more aggressive and offensive as they very quickly identify objective sensory data and sieze the opportunity, while introverted sensors tend to have a more defensive stance and lash out due to "percieved threats" that may or may not ACTUALLY exist.

Personalitypage.com also lists ISTP's as being stubborn. This is due to having a dominant Ti judging function which basically means, they've usually thought about something way more than everyone else has, so changing their mind will be difficult. This also makes them act more judgy. Though, for some reason people mistakenly believe the P in ISTP has relevance, when it actually has zero relevance. So people think ISTP's are "go with the flow" or they're in the moment.

I know the functions pretty well...my question was not how functions work. My question was: Does an INFJ (Ni+Fe) have to be an INFp (Ni+Fe) in socionics? I know how functions work, I read MBTI descriptions, I read socionics. MBTI and socionics are a bit different, but have a common ground. It's doesn't matter if you say "the fruit that taste like orange", or "an orange" so the differecnes in function descriptions are not important if they share the common ground and if they basicly describe the same thing. Fe-ethical norms and Fe- objective ethics are basicly the same things. The person values and share the ethics, that exist externaly, that means objectvily and not subjectivly in his enviroment...You know...subject the person/my own self, internal, vs. object something outstide of myself, something external. The same is with Te vs. Ti. It's natural, that someone with introverted judging function, will be more stubborn, than the person with extroveter judging function... I think socionics and MBTI are like when a granny talks to her granddaughter, they both might talk about the same thing, but granny uses the words, that for young granddaughter sounds old and strange and she doesn't really understand, what granny wanted to say. So the granddaughter will say the same things, with the words, that are close to her personality and to her age, but they might by talking about 100% same thing. So Ni is Ni also in MBTI and aslo in socionics, but maybe said with different words. So Ni+Fe in MBTI has to be Ni+Fe in socionics? Or am I wrong? I know, that we all are Se+Ti to some point as much as we all are Ni+Fe to some point, but the function order makes the difference. When the difference is once set in one typology it can't be different in another one...or can it be? This is just my point...how much are the MBTI and socionics similar? If they are not as similar as I think, then why? How? Bonus question: Why do you see Ti in my questions? I am typed as ENFP, I don't think they use much of a Ti.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

I don't know. But I'm pretty sure I'm ISFP on the MBTI and a INFp on the socionics. Then again i very well could be an INFP on the mbti (i really dont know which one i am)

I think ISFP and INFp make much better sense, than INFP and INFp...Even though INFp in socionics is closest to INFJ in MBTI INFJ and ISFP share common function: Se, Ni. But I don't think one can be a sensor in MBTI and dominant inuitive in socionics.

 

[Azure Flame]

I know the functions pretty well...my question was not how functions work. My question was: Does an INFJ (Ni+Fe) have to be an INFp (Ni+Fe) in socionics? I know how functions work, I read MBTI descriptions, I read socionics. MBTI and socionics are a bit different, but have a common ground. It's doesn't matter if you say "the fruit that taste like orange", or "an orange" so the differecnes in function descriptions are not important if they share the common ground and if they basicly describe the same thing. Fe-ethical norms and Fe- objective ethics are basicly the same things. The person values and share the ethics, that exist externaly, that means objectvily and not subjectivly in his enviroment...You know...subject the person/my own self, internal, vs. object something outstide of myself, something external. The same is with Te vs. Ti. It's natural, that someone with introverted judging function, will be more stubborn, than the person with extroveter judging function... I think socionics and MBTI are like when a granny talks to her granddaughter, they both might talk about the same thing, but granny uses the words, that for young granddaughter sounds old and strange and she doesn't really understand, what granny wanted to say. So the granddaughter will say the same things, with the words, that are close to her personality and to her age, but they might by talking about 100% same thing. So Ni is Ni also in MBTI and aslo in socionics, but maybe said with different words. So Ni+Fe in MBTI has to be Ni+Fe in socionics? Or am I wrong? I know, that we all are Se+Ti to some point as much as we all are Ni+Fe to some point, but the function order makes the difference. When the difference is once set in one typology it can't be different in another one...or can it be? This is just my point...how much are the MBTI and socionics similar? If they are not as similar as I think, then why? How? Bonus question: Why do you see Ti in my questions? I am typed as ENFP, I don't think they use much of a Ti.

the functions are the same across the systems. yes.

however you can be one kiersey type and something completely unrelated in socionics.

 

[chaoticbrain]

What they mean or should mean, is that you shouldn't assume you are correct about your type. And especially if it's based on the four dichotomies.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

What they mean or should mean, is that you shouldn't assume you are correct about your type. And especially if it's based on the four dichotomies.

Why I should not assume I am correct about my type? Oh...I did not get very close to 4 dichotomies. I guess more research would be needed there for me, can you somehow describe me how do they work please?

 

[Eye of the Potato]

I know the functions pretty well...my question was not how functions work. My question was: Does an INFJ (Ni+Fe) have to be an INFp (Ni+Fe) in socionics? I know how functions work, I read MBTI descriptions, I read socionics. MBTI and socionics are a bit different, but have a common ground. It's doesn't matter if you say "the fruit that taste like orange", or "an orange" so the differecnes in function descriptions are not important if they share the common ground and if they basicly describe the same thing. Fe-ethical norms and Fe- objective ethics are basicly the same things. The person values and share the ethics, that exist externaly, that means objectvily and not subjectivly in his enviroment...You know...subject the person/my own self, internal, vs. object something outstide of myself, something external. The same is with Te vs. Ti. It's natural, that someone with introverted judging function, will be more stubborn, than the person with extroveter judging function... I think socionics and MBTI are like when a granny talks to her granddaughter, they both might talk about the same thing, but granny uses the words, that for young granddaughter sounds old and strange and she doesn't really understand, what granny wanted to say. So the granddaughter will say the same things, with the words, that are close to her personality and to her age, but they might by talking about 100% same thing. So Ni is Ni also in MBTI and aslo in socionics, but maybe said with different words. So Ni+Fe in MBTI has to be Ni+Fe in socionics? Or am I wrong? I know, that we all are Se+Ti to some point as much as we all are Ni+Fe to some point, but the function order makes the difference. When the difference is once set in one typology it can't be different in another one...or can it be? This is just my point...how much are the MBTI and socionics similar? If they are not as similar as I think, then why? How? Bonus question: Why do you see Ti in my questions? I am typed as ENFP, I don't think they use much of a Ti.

You're right about the first two functions being the same. And I can understand your confusion.
But look at the weaker functions in both systems. They are different. And that means you can't simply switch the types around.

Lets look at istj and istp.

In Socionics the functions go
Ti, Se, Fi, Ne for istj.

Si, Te, Ni, Fe for istp.

And in mbti the functions go
Si, Te, Fi, Ne for istj.

Ti, Se, Ni, Fe for istp.

Which means in mbti, the istj has Si as his strongest function and Ne as his weakest,
and then in Socionics the istj has Ti as his strongest and Ne as his weakest.

The mbti istp has Ti as his strongest function, and Fe as his weakest.
And in Socionics, he has Si as his strongest function, and Fe as his weakest.

So at least both systems agree on that much. istj is weakest in Ne, and istp is weakest in Fe.
But both types can't exist in nature, so one typology must be wrong. Or they are both wrong.

If an istj was to be moved around a lot in their job, having to adjust to new situations, just when they were starting to get comfortable and familiar in their job, and if they were being moved around a lot, they would not be happy campers. Their weak Ne couldn't handle it.
Too much change, too much uncertainty. An istp could cope though. Same with Fe. Someone breaks into song around an istp, and they will not get anything back. They may even tell you to stop singing. Weak Fe. Do the same with an istj, and they wont flinch the same way an istp would.
What I'm trying to get at, is that the weaker functions shouldn't be overlooked. It's not a simple switch.
Oh and mbti is wrong.
There is no such thing as a human who uses Ti as his leading function and Fe as his weakest.
That person is just a fantasy dreamed up by mbti.
The reason I know such a person could not exist, is that Ti needs Fe to balance it out.
If Ti was your strongest function, and Fe your weakest, inferiorest, most detestable, then Ti would take over and you would be a robot.


Oh and the personal example you gave about the grandmother and the child, to get your point across, suggests enfp to me.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

You're right about the first two functions being the same. And I can understand your confusion.
But look at the weaker functions in both systems. They are different. And that means you can't simply switch the types around.

Lets look at istj and istp.

In Socionics the functions go
Ti, Se, Fi, Ne for istj.

Si, Te, Ni, Fe for istp.

And in mbti the functions go
Si, Te, Fi, Ne for istj.

Ti, Se, Ni, Fe for istp.

Which means in mbti, the istj has Si as his strongest function and Ne as his weakest,
and then in Socionics the istj has Ti as his strongest and Ne as his weakest.

The mbti istp has Ti as his strongest function, and Fe as his weakest.
And in Socionics, he has Si as his strongest function, and Fe as his weakest.

So at least both systems agree on that much. istj is weakest in Ne, and istp is weakest in Fe.
But both types can't exist in nature, so one typology must be wrong. Or they are both wrong.

If an istj was to be moved around a lot in their job, having to adjust to new situations, just when they were starting to get comfortable and familiar in their job, and if they were being moved around a lot, they would not be happy campers. Their weak Ne couldn't handle it.
Too much change, too much uncertainty. An istp could cope though. Same with Fe. Someone breaks into song around an istp, and they will not get anything back. They may even tell you to stop singing. Weak Fe. Do the same with an istj, and they wont flinch the same way an istp would.
What I'm trying to get at, is that the weaker functions shouldn't be overlooked. It's not a simple switch.
Oh and mbti is wrong.
There is no such thing as a human who uses Ti as his leading function and Fe as his weakest.
That person is just a fantasy dreamed up by mbti.
The reason I know such a person could not exist, is that Ti needs Fe to balance it out.
If Ti was your strongest function, and Fe your weakest, inferiorest, most detestable, then Ti would take over and you would be a robot.


Oh and the personal example you gave about the grandmother and the child, to get your point across, suggests enfp to me.

I think you don't understand MBTI functions.... ISTP's aspirational function is Fe, but not it's weakest function. ISTP's weakest function in MBTI is their eight function which is Fi and it's also called the devilish funtcion.(Not Ne, Ne is the weakest for ESTPs) In socionics the weakest (devilish) function is the 4th function, while the 8th function is aspirational and it is Fe for ISTP. So Ti can't go with Fe in either socionics and MBTI. The socionics ordered the functions as ego block, super ego block and super id block, while the MBTI ordered functions as ego block, id block and super ego block... So the 8th function in socionics is the same as 4th function in MBTI.

 

[Eye of the Potato]

I think you don't understand MBTI functions.... ISTP's aspirational function is Fe, but not it's weakest function. ISTP's weakest function in MBTI is their eight function which is Fi and it's also called the devilish funtcion.(Not Ne, Ne is the weakest for ESTPs) In socionics the weakest (devilish) function is the 4th function, while the 8th function is aspirational and it is Fe for ISTP. So Ti can't go with Fe in either socionics and MBTI. The socionics ordered the functions as ego block, super ego block and super id block, while the MBTI ordered functions as ego block, id block and super ego block... So the 8th function in socionics is the same as 4th function in MBTI.

There's nothing in Socionics about Fe being aspirational for istp's. Have you got a link you can back up your claim with?
What you're describing there is far too messy. Nature is simple. It's not as complicated as you have just made it.
And you actually contradicted yourself too. I don't think you understand it very well. If you did, you'd be able to explain it simply. Like I did.

 

[chaoticbrain]

Why I should not assume I am correct about my type? Oh...I did not get very close to 4 dichotomies. I guess more research would be needed there for me, can you somehow describe me how do they work please?

Well you could read Jung ?

But these are descriptions I like.

Perception.

Psychology of Ne/Si

Ne/Si is a function pair characterized by incomplete data and patchwork into missing data. The way Si/Ne flows through life is by setting "anchor-points" at certain locations, and then exploring a bit further and setting another anchor point. For this reason, when Si/Ne users talk they'll hop from one anchor to another to explain their perspective using specific instances that demonstrate the reality they wish to communicate.

When external reality is observed and it registers a recall of Si's memory, that anchor point is highlighted. The surrounding anchors then become visible tangents. If the individual has Ne above Si, there will be more tendency to start from that anchor-point and explore forward into unknown territory and chart a little bit more, then set another anchor via Si registering the sensation brought upon by that item. The direction Ne decides to explore doesn't have to have any rationality to it, and as such an Si map can be filled with trivia that is connected to each other, but which may not serve any practical purpose.

If Si is above Ne, the tendency will be to glide from one anchor-point to a nearby anchor-point. This is why Si-leads have a tendency to ramble on about their experiences. Once their mind goes on a certain trail, it will explain all the aspects of truth it knows about one anchor, then move on to the next and explain that one. This can potentially go on for ages until they've explained their entire worldview one impression at a time.

The map of Si is never complete, and unlike the Ni map which compensates for its incompletion by using an algorithm to project a pattern further into the unknown, Si is genuinely clueless about what it's never encountered. Ne/Si is a pair that toggles between being very optimistic and very paranoid. Si can be prone to paranoia of what is unknown because the map has nothing in that terrain, and so Si is left only to speculate based on the past. If the experiences of the past were unpalatable, Ne may generate a dozen negative scenarios which it may or may not be reasonable. This is why Si may be paranoid about change. The optimism is more common when Ne is above Si, and is due to the very same tendency. In the event of an unknown, Ne can generate dozens of positive outcomes where the tactile data may not indicate any justification for such an assumption. The possibilities themselves hold a level of reality in their mind, until data indicates otherwise, or rationalization proves it impossible.

When confronted with an unknown situation, the Ne/Si pairing has no choice but to resort to Ne. But Ne's speculations are based almost entirely on things being related to one another in the abstract - and not on the causality of reality. In such a case, the omission of a possibility is generally done via Ti/Fi instead of Si, since Si has no data to counter an Ne possibility. This means that in general Ne/Si users have poor predictive abilities, but strong creative abilities because their imagination is not limited by a particular direction of looking at things.

Psychology of Ni/Se


The psychology of Ni/Se is less compartmentalized. Aspects within the Ni map will generally have a link to most any other aspect in the map, in some form or another. The points of literal data which Se brings into the map alter the tapestry of the map and bend/curve it into new shapes, giving rise to concepts that it had no direct exposure to but which emerged naturally from the causal direction the map was heading.

When Se is above Ni, the craving for sensory stimulation is great. Unlike Ne which fails to capture the complete richness of a tactile object, Se experiences the fine crevices, dips, edges, sparkles and nuances which are the very thing that they find fascinating. (Ne's fascination with an object revolves around how it can be manipulated and combined with other concepts.) The attention-span of Se can be strong if the object has a lot of richness to absorb, or very short if it doesn't.

For both Ne and Se, the interest in exploring something will persist so long as it has something unexplored. But for Ne, what is unexplored is the implications of how an object can be manipulated - and so long as it can think up novel ways to use the same basic object (uninteresting as it may be to Se) it will remain engaged. For Se, it's engagement will not be based on "how many things can you think up from this" but on the quality of the object itself. It will seek out richer environments and bask in the overwhelm of stimuli it gets naturally from the objects around it - as opposed to it's head's fabrications.

All the while, Ni stores these sensations and creates a map of associations they have both in time & placement. These associations have long-reaching effects, as the formulas that Ni extracts from those events are generalized and apply somewhat to all other aspects. Ni does not have many specific anchor-points nor does it speak referencing those particulars but instead explains things within the context of their whole paradigm and how it all relates to the rest.

Although there is a benefit in Ni/Se's map intuiting and compensating for missing data, the formulas it builds, when too general, create erroneous perspectives formed from connecting elements in certain ways that have no justification other than the direction their map bent to form them. While Ne/Si can be prone to irrational optimism and paranoia, Ni/Se can be prone to irrational superstitions. It may seems as though a certain event lead, causally, to another, when no tactile trace exists for the connection. When taken more extremely, it may also generate answers to realms where everything is unknown using nothing but patterns and symmetries.

This is the origin of the majority of esoteric & mythical constructs throughout history, when Ni is applied to the unknown realm of meta-physics. Concepts of symmetry, reciprocity natural-law and alignments are basic patterns which Ni sees and fills the unknowns with. For this reason strong Ni users can have a "mystical" sense about them and "knowing" aura of certainty about the questions that baffle the rest of us. It may not mean that they have any more knowledge of a realm than we do, but by the nature of their psychic process they formulate an answer to it where many others remain clueless or adapt a hypothesis of this sort.

Judgement

http://cognitivetype.boards.net/thread/78/fe-ti-notes-on-psychology