INDEX
ABOUT
FAQ
GLOSSARY
MBTI TYPINGS
MBTI RELATIONS
DISCORD
PHOTOGRAPHY
GENERAL
DIFFERENCES
TYPING
FUNCTIONS
TABLES
LISTS
WORKS
VARIOUS
NAMES
MEMES
MORE
Types #10X ← ✸ → Types #12X
Anonymous said: Can you please explain more what you mean by saying Ni works with internal impressions? How do these impressions appear and what are they like? I don’t seem to understand this function.
Take a look at this post.
I use the term impression as something that you can’t describe like you do with images, sounds, emotions, sensations, memories, concepts, etc. Intuition is about invisible (untraceable) connections, so Ni is about understanding something without having or going through rational/logical steps/details, without fixed/recognizable points of reference, without an understandable reasoning, without any attachment or correspondence to language, etc, and, being introverted, its essence is not about the manifestations of a particular case, but the universal archetype that encompasses that kind of ocurrences.
Ni impressions point to an ultimate meaning, something you can’t reach by any path, theory or model. You can’t really write about it, you can only refer to it through symbols and metaphors (including parables), non-verbal and non-conceptual things, etc. When you get something through Ni you can’t describe it, you can’t really see where it came from, you just know. And if you try to explain it people usually give strange looks because you can’t offer them a proper replay, or a method, or some sort of apparent consistency, and it doesn’t seem to come from your direct experience, either (it doesn’t), so they don’t have anything to anchor it to. In fact, many people (especially SJs) get frustrated or annoyed (and dismiss it) because it merely seems a random selection (or maybe “just guessing”).
If you want to understand Ni you have to be able to distinguish between the perception and the explanation. This is very important, and not at all easy, like many people seem to think. The explanation is not the perception. There are several things between them (interpretation, translation), and one doesn’t imply the other, that is: just because someone says something weird (or presents it as such), doesn’t mean [s]he has Ni (I shouldn’t even need to point this out, but for many people “weirdness” seems enough “proof”).
One of the problems here is that Ni-understanding or knowing gets mistaken many times with things related to time: the past or the future, knowing “what happened” or “what will happen”. That’s not Ni. When people talk like that they are usually referring to N2 (=NJ), which can be Ne2 or Ni2. That’s where all those “predictions” are made. Other times it gets mistaken with “visions” or “daydreams”, but that’s [g]Si (check point 19 here).
When Jung (who was Ni2 himself) talks about Ni and says “it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as events which later actually do happen” or “prophetic foresight”, he’s talking about how I encompasses all E aspects, in this case Ni encompassing all Ne-possibilities. He also says “understanding what is going on in the world”, “all experienceable things” (all, not just “future”), and “In these archetypes, therefore, all experiences are represented which have happened on this planet since primeval times”. This misunderstanding has been around since the beginning, even among authors who were close to Jung. (Also, there isn’t any problem or contradiction with writing “Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel”, because the Hebrew definition of “prophet” differs from modern views that a prophet only predicts and prognosticates).
Ni is not “fill in the gaps” of information, either, and it’s not any kind of “intricacy”, “complexity”, “disorder” or “mess”. That sort of idea implies a variety of elements, divisions, points, parts, segments, [possible] organization, etc. And it’s probably referring to thinking and/or sensation. You can’t “build with/upon” Ni like you can with other functions, for example Ti. Assuming the same level of skill between the participants, Ti-elements can be communicated, contrasted and discussed much easier.
There are probably many more, but as a final misconception, Ni is not any kind of “intention” or “plan”. Ni is a perceiving function, not a future-oriented composite of judging+perceiving. Most people don’t understand this because their definition of Ni is actually about NJ (or is mixed with it).
MISTYPED “INs”
You know that thing that hipsters do, about presenting themselves as poor when in fact they are rich or at least wealthier than the average person? Well, Ni is the same. Having conscious Ni, just like being an actual introvert, is also basically like being poor: it’s the function that everybody wants to use to promote themselves, even (especially) if they don’t have it, but when you’re actually conscious of it (especially as your dominant), then nobody wants to hear what you say.
I’ve been watching MBTI youtubers for a while now, and it’s probably more, but I’d say at least 90% of them are mistyped (everybody has the functions wrong, of course, even if the letters are correct), with those who try to pose as “Ni-doms” being around 60% (the other 30% still including many extraverts identifying as “introverts”). The probability of mistype goes up as you go up the subscribers ranking, and the favorite fake type is, of course, “INFJ”, followed by “INTJ” (lots of typology-hipsters out there).
If you add the huge amount of famous people that the masses mistype as “INs”, you get something very interesting that can be derived from all this, and it’s that many people have a conception of Ni that comes only from observing or listening to ghostly or unconscious Ni. They don’t know or haven’t met or acknowledge or understand anyone that’s actually an introverted intuitive (this also happens, in decreasing degree, with Si, Fi and Ti).
So don’t worry about not understanding Ni. It’s the most mysterious function, and you are definitely not alone. In fact, the more someone seems sure about their understanding of it (especially in public contexts like YouTube or Tumblr), the more you can bet they are mistaken [and mistyped]. I’m not saying that they can’t, but your curiosity puts you in a better position than their certainty.
Anonymous said: Hi, Akhromant. Is it possible that in some people with the same cognitive functions, introversion will be more intense than in other individuals? For example, Fi1 person that has a weakER (comp. to other Fi1s) contact with external structure, systems and schedules, little motivation to act with important (necessary) practical tasks (such as making food for yourself, completing important homework) and is fully devoted to intangible inner ideals eventually being practically seen as not driven…
… but the person itself in not unhealthy (neurotic), it’s just more removed from tangible or practical “reality” than other Fi1s. It could go with Ti1s that aren’t interested in control or following some rules and are preoccupied with concepts, theories or whatever more that other Ti1. If in some situations a person with the same type is more “extreme”, how do you explain such manifestation?
Hi, Anonymous :)
Extreme types are what I call marked types. It’s a rather broad term, but I don’t make further conceptual distinctions between people of the same type and, even though I can make a passing reference from time to time, I don’t use “academic” vocabulary like “neurotic”, either. The more specific labels you use the more you risk categorizing certain individuals as “bad” (or giving the opportunity for others to do so). I talked about this in post #24. Anyway, the thing is: both normal and “extreme” people can do good and bad things, and that’s it. You have to look at each particular individual and case, and do it very carefully, in order to have an idea of whether there is even a problem or not, and whether the source/cause of that problem is in the person or the environment (because, like I said several times before: the canary is perfectly healthy).
Some introverts (and extraverts) are more “intense” without being “neurotic” (or any other of those classifications) because a strong separation of functions doesn’t imply identification with the conscious or the unconscious ones, or an inability to be careful and listen/attend to the unconscious, or recognize the ghost functions [for what they are], or being obsessed with one of them, etc. That is: those are all different things. Negative effects might appear if the person doesn’t realize that there is a whole that [s]he has to look after, if [s]he thinks [s]he has to “choose a side”, if [s]he is unaware of them or gets too fixated on [the connection with] a ghost function, etc.
There’s an enormous variety inside each type. The idea is that knowing yours (the true one, with the true letters and the true functions, not what everybody is doing) can be helpful, regardless of your individual level of “markedness”. So, as usual, the most important thing is not being mistyped.
Anonymous said: Hi! Which types trust their gut the most? Se1 types or Ni1?
Hi :) What is “gut”? Is it the opposite of occupying oneself with systematic research and data collection, scrupulous attention to detail, and careful planning before making decisions? Ok, let’s say it’s something like that :)
I guess you could say “gut” is included in intuition, but if you need to “trust it” it seems you are referring to something unconscious (probably X4), so in that case SPs (Se1s and Si1s) would be the ones who “trust their gut” the most (they have N4). They don’t necessarily do it every time, of course, but the phrase fits them, as a kind of “wish” that they have [for themselves], like invoking motivation before a certain “leap of faith”.
With NPs (Ne1s and Ni1s) it’s not actually a question of “trust”. This might seem something trivial, but it’s not, it’s actually kind of the whole point here. I think that kind of sentences come from and/or apply more to people who are not N(P)s. If you are conscious of your intuition you see it, you know it, you know how it works, you can navigate it, and you can even guide others with/through it, so it’s not a position where you need to “trust”. Ss are the ones that trust, or “believe in”, or even “fear”, immaterial things, like “luck” or “god”, where they just can’t see the details.
It’s a bit like the difference between a mechanic and someone who doesn’t have the slightest idea about cars, for example (here we are basically reversing S↔N). The mechanic doesn’t need to “trust” the machine, but for many others the fact that the car moves is basically magic.
Anonymous said: If I’m experiencing identity crisis all the time because I never sure about myself, is that an indication of Ne (“many other possible options”) or Ti4?
In what sense are you “never sure” about yourself? This is a complex thing. It can be about a lot of different aspects. Just like “identity”. Is it about your opinions, your “[life]style”, your preferences, what you’re going to do in the future?
It could be Ti4 (taken in this context as “all identities together”) if it’s a recurring concern about distinguishing yourself from your social environment, a kind of desire to “stand out”, “be unique” or “be yourself” that keeps resurfacing because you tend to favor the opposite side, the side of what’s expected from you (Fe1). But it can also be Ti3, although that would be more about experimenting and trying (kind of what many EFP performers do), or it can be (excluding ETJs) that you only have Ti as a ghost function, so you keep “forgetting” your “identity”.
If the source of insecurity is related to internal sensations, like your sexuality, for example, then it might be that you have Si4 (=Ne1). For some ENPs the subjective experience of being a man or a woman, and/or attracted to men or women, is in a kind of primordial state, undefined or underdeveloped (=X4), so in a sense it’s like they feel they are “still able” to be one or the other, or move between them, even though their physical reality is already determined (some feel unrelated to it because for them Se is only a ghost). Apart from Si4, there are other things that can help explain or have an effect on sexual identity and its expression, of course. In this context, I think there’s probably a significant number of TJ-women and FJ-men that don’t fit the traditional roles, and maybe some of them have similar “crises”.
What else… Oh, if you’re never sure about your decisions and plans for the future then you are just being human :) and perhaps P>J, right? As I wrote here, seeing lots of options (especially as directions to go) but not being able to choose [a different] one could be a Si1//Ne4 thing (ISP).
Anyway, this might not apply to your case, but remember that “being sure” is not necessarily a good thing. Criminals are very sure about themselves, for example. Many of those who keep repeating the eiei/ieie nonsense are also sure. Certain types of abusers and victims think their identity is defined by their “mistreatment role”. Etc, etc. You don’t have the obligation to stick to any way of thinking, or to be predictable. You can change your mind. But you have to remember that many people prefer/expect that kind of assurance or security, in personal and/or professional relationships (you do it, too, in some way), so don’t do it intentionally, seeking disruption or destruction for the sake of it. In fact, don’t do it, but if you feel that your mind has changed, then maybe it has. That can be one of the most beautiful things.
Anonymous said: Which types are most likely to attract mysterious, strange or otherworldly experiences?
Do people “attract” experiences? What does that mean? Do you mean which ones are more prone to live a certain kind of experiences, like having visions, hearing voices, feeling presences and so on?
This is very difficult to answer. Many perceptions are a completely private thing that never leaves the individual, so no one else knows about them, and even if they do, sometimes the person doesn’t report what truly happened (they can be simply lies). Also, the whole issue depends on what you and the subject consider “otherworldly”. In fact, if we could “be” another person or type for a while, everything would seem extremely otherworldly to us. That’s what the types and people are: different worlds.
If we make a preliminary scan at the speculative level, the basic idea is that the SiNe dimension works by imagining things that aren’t really there, so the main starting point would be the ISs and then the ENs. All else being equal, those types are more likely to experience, invent, build and sometimes live [in] imaginary or mythological moments and worlds (which can be beautiful, frightening, etc). In fact, I’d put people like Lovecraft (ISTJ) very high on the list.
Some ESs and INJs can also have visions and other strange sensations. For the ESs this comes from unconscious intuition, and for INJs it’s mainly a ghostly Si that’s very close to their proper Se, so it might produce strange effects.
Anonymous said: Which function do you associate with healing and spiritual magnetism?
Healing is of course something that the body does by itself. Other living beings heal, too, so I don’t see how any cognitive function could relate to that. I mean, everything about conditions and presences comes through sensation, but healing is a physical quality/process. Does your state of mind affect that? Probably, but that’s a different thing, more general.
I don’t know what “spiritual magnetism” is. Do you mean how some individuals might attract others because they are perceived as being particularly “spiritual”, in the sense of “connected to something greater”, “the other side”, or some “divinity”, perhaps? In that case many people from different types could fit the description, because it depends on how others see them, or what they see in them. This is like any kind of “leadership”: it doesn’t flow from the “important” person to his/her “followers”, but in the other direction. It’s the (imagined) need that people have for a “guide”, a “teacher”, a “guru” or a “saviour” that makes them follow someone else, and that someone doesn’t need to be special at all, [s]he just needs to be willing to play the part, and famous enough. Sometimes playing the part is not even necessary, and sometimes the supposed followers do the opposite of what the person says. The connection is, as usual, a subjective matter, and prone to all kinds of illusions, projections and misinterpretations. In the end, there is no “leadership”, only obedience, submission, self-justification or self-delusion. In fact, many people know this, and can orchestrate something from the shadows, like puppeteers, to manipulate others.
Ok, back to your question. The main standpoint would be to say that Ni is very often related to spiritual things, of course, but a lot of times SiNe is also interpreted like that, for many many people, and in any case, whichever function you’re considering, you have to know in what location it is (conscious/unconscious, etc), because the [supposed] “spiritual” element varies a lot from one to another.
If you want, you can think about people like Charles Manson or David Koresh, for example. I’m sure plenty of their followers would claim they had some kind of “spiritual magnetism”, right? Well, those are two ESTPs (Se-Te-Fi-Ni). The figure of Jesus described in the Bible, if taken as a person (instead of a symbol of the Self), would also fit this type (there’s a variant of ESTP that basically sees himself as God incarnated). Many famous “spiritual gurus” are actually ENFPs (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si), like for example Tolstoy or George Gurdjieff. Those similar to Osho are INFJs (Fi-Ni-Se-Te), Ralph Waldo Emerson was an ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti), and Jiddu Krishnamurti was an INFP (Ni-Fi-Te-Se).
Many people interested in some organized form of spirituality or religion are ESJs: they have Se2←Ni3, so their internal engine works from that Ni3 “spiritual” source. This often leads them to try and experiment with different types of traditions, beliefs, rituals, techniques and so on, and be quite public about all that. Those beliefs don’t need to be necessarily old: they can take the form of current shared values, political movements, celebrities, etc (they are filtered through and contained inside the dominant-inferior dimension). Other types might be interested in those things, of course, this is just an example, not an exclusive trait, and it only applies to some ESJs.
Anonymous said: Are ENFJs less dependent on tangible world and external values than ESFJs? I’ve noticed they are more independent people.
Yes, they are. Being Ns they are usually more original, and they are also primarily choleric instead of sanguine, so they have an internal drive that can set them apart. The tangible world gets filtered through their Si, and ultimately it’s not that important for them: their focus stays mainly on possibilities. All this tends to make them more dangerous, not only to others but to themselves. As SJs, ESFJs are more about [seeking or establishing] correction and belonging than the more idealistic and sometimes almost purely romantic ENFJs.
This is of course a very general perspective, and it only applies in the context of the EFJs (Fe1). If we bring other types to the comparison then both EFJs start moving (very quickly) to the “dependent” side.
Anonymous said: Can you please explain more how Te4 manifests in Fi1s? And how does it behave if unbalanced (neurotic?) I didn’t fully understand it after reading Jung.
I recommend reading this post. The unconscious can manifest in many different ways. I’ll try to give a few examples. You can look at the inferior function as something that’s separated from the person, something that the subject can’t/won’t touch, and/or something that’s all mixed together for him/her. If Te is action/fact then a possible manifestation of Te4 could be someone who doesn’t have the energy to do anything (even if [s]he wants to), or someone who keeps many secrets and/or tries very hard not to leave a trace (like a thief), or someone who doesn’t remember the facts [correctly], or someone who’s just not very good with hard technical matters (like plumbing or computer hardware), even if [s]he’s interested in them.
You have an example of the first idea in Danielle Steel (INFJ) when she was young: she couldn’t or didn’t want to do anything by herself, and asked for favors for the most trivial things. This manifestation is also related to feelings of exhaustion, anemia, etc. For the second point we have maybe someone like Princess Diana (ISFJ) or Mata Hari (INFJ). Those IFJs who suddenly start revealing all that they had inside (including perhaps hatred or admiration) fit perfectly with this (and with Jung’s description of Fi1, of course). It’s a kind of all-or-nothing with their X4.
Anonymous said: If you could associate certain objects and/or places with the cognitive functions, what would they be?
If Te is a factory, Ti is a library.
If Fe is a theatre, Fi is a home.
If Se is a restaurant, Si is a garden.
If Ne is a market, Ni is a sanctum.
This could be an example from a general perspective. You can extrapolate objects from here, if you want, but remember that in the context of the functions it’s what the mind does there that’s significant, so for instance Ne is not in the merchandise, but more in the novelty, the variety, the potential benefit, the negotiation, the exchange, etc. Try to understand the universal principle behind each association, how the words can be interpreted as different things, not only in the literal sense, how they relate to each other, and how extraversion is a sort of external/public version or manifestation of its introverted counterpart (which is intended as private, obviously).
You can combine this with what I’ve explained about the different positions of the functions and their links. You know for example how a person basically lives in his/her X1, and how it’s not common to find him/her in an X4, at all. Think about that as if the places were only in the mind. The physical settings can be misleading because someone might be there for unrelated reasons, like a Te1 who happens to produce at home. See what images appear for each type. On top of that, if you understand the X1-X2 relationship, you can also make lots of interesting sentences for them, like these:
ESTJ (Te-Se-Ni-Fi): her factory provides for her restaurant.
ESTP (Se-Te-Fi-Ni): her restaurant provides for her factory.
ENTJ (Te-Ne-Si-Fi): he uses his factory to improve his chances.
ENTP (Ne-Te-Fi-Si): he uses his chances to improve his factory.
ESFJ (Fe-Se-Ni-Ti): she can only feel bountiful in a theatre.
ESFP (Se-Fe-Ti-Ni): she can only feel theatrical in a restaurant.
ENFJ (Fe-Ne-Si-Ti): he only feels powerful in a theatre.
ENFP (Ne-Fe-Ti-Si): he only feels social in a market.
ISTJ (Ti-Si-Ne-Fe): she consults her books to make her garden.
ISTP (Si-Ti-Fe-Ne): she consults her garden to make her books.
INTJ (Ti-Ni-Se-Fe): he writes books to enter his sanctum.
INTP (Ni-Ti-Fe-Se): he enters his sanctum to write books.
ISFJ (Fi-Si-Ne-Te): her home is almost like a garden.
ISFP (Si-Fi-Te-Ne): her garden is almost like a home.
INFJ (Fi-Ni-Se-Te): his home is his only sanctum.
INFP (Ni-Fi-Te-Se): his sanctum is his only home.
Anonymous said: Why do INFJs seem more stubborn, less open minded, easy going and innocent than ISFJs?
Anonymous said: What are the differences between Phlegmatic-Melancholic (ISFJ) and Melancholic-Phlegmatic (INFJ) temperaments?
I talked about these types in post #109.
I’m not sure about that first comparison. I just can’t say. Being Ss, it’s the ISFJs that should be in general more change-averse, even if they don’t show it. But there’s also the fact that Ss are more about taking action, so they might seem more involved in whatever comes, while INFJs’ N puts them in a more passive attitude, which might seem stubborn, I don’t know.
There’s also the difference in temperament, which is a bit tricky but might explain your impression.
You can look at the difference between secondary and primary temperament as the difference that one notices between meeting someone [for the first time] and being with him/her in a more private setting, and/or for a time long enough to really know the person, respectively. For example, what I wrote in post post #54 can be seen as the contrast between someone who, in terms of temperament, is always more or less like you meet him/her (this happens with the four “pure” temperaments: INFP, ISTJ, ESFP and ENTJ), and other person who shows a different side in certan situations.
If you look at the IFJs’ temperaments you’ll see that, externally (also initially, superficially, etc), INFJs (Fi-Ni-Se-Te) seem to be open minded and easy going (·/phlegmatic=NF) at first, while ISFJs (Fi-Si-Ne-Te), being ·/melancholic (=SJ), seem more rigid, strict, or demanding. But internally (/later on) they are the other way around: it’s the INFJs who are actually more “rigid”, and ISFJs more accepting.
Types #10X ← ✸ → Types #12X