Ni - Fi - Ti - Si
- Thread starter Headstorm
- Start date
Sorry, that came out a little bit too soon. I do not question the validity of the model itself (and it's usefulness), but I can see the limitations more clearly. Like any model, it has its limitations and maybe that disappointed me a bit.
It does nothing more or less than it claims. The deeper you go, the more you realise that the limitations you speak of change. Even with the limitations it has in definition and practicality, the possibilites of applicability are only limited by your interpretive imagination. And when you add more models, the limitations change yet again, as they blurr the lines between the models until they vanish. Is that really not worth getting into?
Everything is worth getting into. Learning / trying to understand is both very natural to me as well as a struggle. I am an enneagram 5
There is so much to learn and get into. Since my arrival at this forum I am overloaded with new inspiration (incentives?). Mbti, enneagram, even your quest for spirit animals inspired me. I can't go wide and deep at the same time. So I will try to follow the path that is most rewarding to me I guess. Right now, I think I will first go deeper into the enneagram and/or big five model.
But don't think I will be leaving the forum
It's okay to get into some other things, nobody here would resent you for that. We have some information on other models here too, so too the big five and the enneagram (as you have seen).Everything is worth getting into. Learning / trying to understand is both very natural to me as well as a struggle. I am an enneagram 5
There is so much to learn and get into. Since my arrival at this forum I am overloaded with new inspiration (incentives?). Mbti, enneagram, even your quest for spirit animals inspired me. I can't go wide and deep at the same time. So I will try to follow the path that is most rewarding to me I guess. Right now, I think I will first go deeper into the enneagram and/or big five model.
But don't think I will be leaving the forum
I for one am not particularly convinced of the big five model, as its merit lies in statistics more than anything else, so it doesn't really have any fixed points by which to navigate. Same would go for the HEXACO, although it is more defined and extensive. Anyway, there are discussions here on the site that may interest you.
It's nice to hear that you are going to stay anyway, though
It's theory. Not all of it will be true in every instance. Take what you can find of value in it. It would be equally foolish to dismiss 100% of it as it would be to rely on 100% of it.
A lot of theorists come up with a lot of function stacks - the socionics one isn't quite the same as Beebe's isn't quite the same as Isabel Myers' original isn't the same as Jung's original idea...and so on. If you want to explore the idea of a free-flowing function-attitudes stack, you can read about the Singer-Loomis personality inventory made by some Jungian analysts to reflect your function-attitudes, as they saw them.
One of the reasons for the many models is really that people are defining a lot of things subtly differently -- simply writing down a list of symbols NiTi etc doesn't mean one means the same thing by them as in other models/theorists' terms. In Jung's original, NiTi >FeSe would be no big deal, but this is because he doesn't define "i" as how you deal with the inner world, but rather as a tendency to engage more with the inner world -- that is, he saw there being 4 functions intuition, sensation, feeling and thinking, each of which can be deployed more or less with a slant towards the inner or outer factors.
(Notice this gets rid of the idea that permeates justifications of why e and i alternate, namely you sometimes need to engage with the outside world -- Jung would say Ni doesn't mean you don't use intuition when extraverting, it just means you generally introvert it, because you generally introvert whatever you do, because you're overall an introvert...ditto would go for Ti. The idea that we need one function to deal with inside and the other to deal with outside is not a given, and definitely something we adopt for its perceived utility/success.)
That being said, the attitude of the auxiliary is where Jung's work is basically unfinished/vague. He simultaneously seems to swear there's just one truly conscious function while frequently referring to the top two dom and aux as conscious.
The latter interpretation is what supports the i+i or e+e pairing at the top. The former doesn't -- it in fact leads to a subtle issue.
Namely, imagine what we'd need to know to determine the attitude of the auxiliary. It would seem that it attains consciousness if harmonious with the dominant's agenda -- after all, this way it is synchronized with the dominant attitude of consciousness. However, there's a tension: if it doesn't operate somewhat for its own principle, i.e. irrational if dom=rational or vice versa, then perhaps it's not differentiated enough to truly be conscious. Both need to happen to some extent.
Perhaps the first can be called being subservient to the dom, and the second complementing it -- the second seems closer to Myers' preference.
My pet solution to this has come to be in spirit like the one in socionics (at the very least 8-functions-modelsy), though I hardly follow the letter -- I don't think we can exclusively go with either of the above options, and both have to be incorporated.
A note about that is, where Ni/Te would seem to be different, as they're in different attitudes, in socionics they call these both 'dynamic' which underscores why they might pair together. I actually think there's a pretty deep significance to this even if it's bad if taken literally.
One of the reasons for the many models is really that people are defining a lot of things subtly differently -- simply writing down a list of symbols NiTi etc doesn't mean one means the same thing by them as in other models/theorists' terms. In Jung's original, NiTi >FeSe would be no big deal, but this is because he doesn't define "i" as how you deal with the inner world, but rather as a tendency to engage more with the inner world -- that is, he saw there being 4 functions intuition, sensation, feeling and thinking, each of which can be deployed more or less with a slant towards the inner or outer factors.
(Notice this gets rid of the idea that permeates justifications of why e and i alternate, namely you sometimes need to engage with the outside world -- Jung would say Ni doesn't mean you don't use intuition when extraverting, it just means you generally introvert it, because you generally introvert whatever you do, because you're overall an introvert...ditto would go for Ti. The idea that we need one function to deal with inside and the other to deal with outside is not a given, and definitely something we adopt for its perceived utility/success.)
That being said, the attitude of the auxiliary is where Jung's work is basically unfinished/vague. He simultaneously seems to swear there's just one truly conscious function while frequently referring to the top two dom and aux as conscious.
The latter interpretation is what supports the i+i or e+e pairing at the top. The former doesn't -- it in fact leads to a subtle issue.
Namely, imagine what we'd need to know to determine the attitude of the auxiliary. It would seem that it attains consciousness if harmonious with the dominant's agenda -- after all, this way it is synchronized with the dominant attitude of consciousness. However, there's a tension: if it doesn't operate somewhat for its own principle, i.e. irrational if dom=rational or vice versa, then perhaps it's not differentiated enough to truly be conscious. Both need to happen to some extent.
Perhaps the first can be called being subservient to the dom, and the second complementing it -- the second seems closer to Myers' preference.
My pet solution to this has come to be in spirit like the one in socionics (at the very least 8-functions-modelsy), though I hardly follow the letter -- I don't think we can exclusively go with either of the above options, and both have to be incorporated.
A note about that is, where Ni/Te would seem to be different, as they're in different attitudes, in socionics they call these both 'dynamic' which underscores why they might pair together. I actually think there's a pretty deep significance to this even if it's bad if taken literally.
Last edited:
Thanks for your valuable perspective, charlatan.
You are correct that alternating i and e designations are not features of Jung's original theory. That's particular to Meyer's Briggs. You're also correct that each system defines and justifies the use of i and e differently -- and with good reason.
The usefulness of the alternating i and e in Meyers Briggs is that it provides balance and interplay between the functions. For example, with the judging functions:
1. If you want to come across to other people as a thinker, you would best keep your feelings private. That way, you can show others that logic rules you. As for yourself, if you are a thinker, you would use logic to support your own values, which is Fi. Plus, you would honor logic to the point that you would trust that other people's systems work, and that they are true or fair, which is Te.
2. If you want to come across to other people as a feeler, you would best keep your thoughts private. That way, you can show others that consideration rules you. As for yourself, if you are a feeler, you would use other people's feelings to support your decisions, which is Fe. Plus, you would honor individual thought to the point that you would need to understand how everything works, which is Ti.
It's a bit different with the perceiving functions because we don't use them to interact so much as we use them to take in information about the world. For example:
1. If we use Se, we live in the present and notice every detail of our surroundings and how it affects our survival. Our senses give us concrete information, and we don't pay attention to hunches from Ni because those aren't real. If our senses are turned outward, our minds abstract inward, theorizing how one thing could be influenced by other things.
2. If we use Si, we reference the past and evaluate everything according to our experiences or to history and tradition. Our concern is proof of what has worked, and we don't pay attention to possibilities, according to Ne, because they are unknown risks. If our senses are turned inward, our minds abstract outward, theorizing how one thing can become many other things.
3. If we use Ni, we reference the future. We are concerned with the abstract, and we cannot look at our surroundings without figuring out how something is impacted by everything else. We converge our senses and values into prediction. Since our minds turn inward, our senses need to focus outward so we can be realistic and stay aware of our surroundings in order to survive.
4. If we use Ne, we also reference the future. We are aware of potential opportunities, and we cannot look at our surroundings without figuring out how many directions something could go. We diverge our senses and values into prediction. Since our minds turn outward, our senses need to focus inward so we can be realistic and stay aware of our bodies in order to survive.
You are correct that alternating i and e designations are not features of Jung's original theory. That's particular to Meyer's Briggs. You're also correct that each system defines and justifies the use of i and e differently -- and with good reason.
The usefulness of the alternating i and e in Meyers Briggs is that it provides balance and interplay between the functions. For example, with the judging functions:
1. If you want to come across to other people as a thinker, you would best keep your feelings private. That way, you can show others that logic rules you. As for yourself, if you are a thinker, you would use logic to support your own values, which is Fi. Plus, you would honor logic to the point that you would trust that other people's systems work, and that they are true or fair, which is Te.
2. If you want to come across to other people as a feeler, you would best keep your thoughts private. That way, you can show others that consideration rules you. As for yourself, if you are a feeler, you would use other people's feelings to support your decisions, which is Fe. Plus, you would honor individual thought to the point that you would need to understand how everything works, which is Ti.
It's a bit different with the perceiving functions because we don't use them to interact so much as we use them to take in information about the world. For example:
1. If we use Se, we live in the present and notice every detail of our surroundings and how it affects our survival. Our senses give us concrete information, and we don't pay attention to hunches from Ni because those aren't real. If our senses are turned outward, our minds abstract inward, theorizing how one thing could be influenced by other things.
2. If we use Si, we reference the past and evaluate everything according to our experiences or to history and tradition. Our concern is proof of what has worked, and we don't pay attention to possibilities, according to Ne, because they are unknown risks. If our senses are turned inward, our minds abstract outward, theorizing how one thing can become many other things.
3. If we use Ni, we reference the future. We are concerned with the abstract, and we cannot look at our surroundings without figuring out how something is impacted by everything else. We converge our senses and values into prediction. Since our minds turn inward, our senses need to focus outward so we can be realistic and stay aware of our surroundings in order to survive.
4. If we use Ne, we also reference the future. We are aware of potential opportunities, and we cannot look at our surroundings without figuring out how many directions something could go. We diverge our senses and values into prediction. Since our minds turn outward, our senses need to focus inward so we can be realistic and stay aware of our bodies in order to survive.
That was quite helpful. Thanks!
You're welcome.
I'm going to return to your original question now (since you know how the i and e designations work) and address the theory that a person can be all i or e.
Say you have all e functions. You would decide by taking into consideration what other people think (Fe) and you would also support rules and laws and believe in systems (Te). You would be aware of your present surroundings (Se) and you would predict every possible outcome (Ne.) You would quickly become overwhelmed because you would notice everything, and you would have too many options. You would become confused because people disagree about what is good, true, or fair. You would be unable to make decisions that are both fast and efficient and that please everybody and are legal and workable. Added to that, you would feel unimportant, neglected, empty, or used. You would end up exhausted and unappreciated. You won't take care of your own needs, physical or emotional.
Say you have all i functions. You would decide according to your own value system (Fi) but you would also have to figure out how everything works so that you fully understand (Ti). You would need to experience something before trusting it (Si) and you would predict how everything influences the whole (Ni). You would agonize over every decision, by making sure it doesn't violate your beliefs, fitting it into a unifying theory, trying it out, examining every aspect for accuracy. Added to that, you would encounter opposition because you would have neglected everyone else's viewpoint. You would get lost in your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs and lose touch with reality. Others will become angry at you for being self-centered, but you will be surprised because you were trying to respect tradition, uphold values, and be truthful and authentic.
See? Checks and balances. This is not to say that you don't use all eight functions; you do. Those four shadow functions are useful in certain situations, but you have to balance them out with their counterparts, too. That way, you don't get too influenced by yourself or others, by concrete or abstract concepts.
I'm going to return to your original question now (since you know how the i and e designations work) and address the theory that a person can be all i or e.
Say you have all e functions. You would decide by taking into consideration what other people think (Fe) and you would also support rules and laws and believe in systems (Te). You would be aware of your present surroundings (Se) and you would predict every possible outcome (Ne.) You would quickly become overwhelmed because you would notice everything, and you would have too many options. You would become confused because people disagree about what is good, true, or fair. You would be unable to make decisions that are both fast and efficient and that please everybody and are legal and workable. Added to that, you would feel unimportant, neglected, empty, or used. You would end up exhausted and unappreciated. You won't take care of your own needs, physical or emotional.
Say you have all i functions. You would decide according to your own value system (Fi) but you would also have to figure out how everything works so that you fully understand (Ti). You would need to experience something before trusting it (Si) and you would predict how everything influences the whole (Ni). You would agonize over every decision, by making sure it doesn't violate your beliefs, fitting it into a unifying theory, trying it out, examining every aspect for accuracy. Added to that, you would encounter opposition because you would have neglected everyone else's viewpoint. You would get lost in your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs and lose touch with reality. Others will become angry at you for being self-centered, but you will be surprised because you were trying to respect tradition, uphold values, and be truthful and authentic.
See? Checks and balances. This is not to say that you don't use all eight functions; you do. Those four shadow functions are useful in certain situations, but you have to balance them out with their counterparts, too. That way, you don't get too influenced by yourself or others, by concrete or abstract concepts.
Last edited:
Thanks for writing this out. Am I correct to say that it is possible to use the 'wrong' or not-prefered functions and that if you do, you are basically in conflict with yourself? And that it is quite normal for most people to have these internal conflicts every now and then?
To some extent, yes, but in practice it wouldn't be quite as dramatic as your OP enquired. I have myself once described overthinking in terms of using all the functions top-down, representing a downward spiral into the darkest thoughts. Even that produces a conflict in the self due to limited input.
Internal conflicts are quite common with the judging functions (at least from what I have seen), for example when you find at odds what you should be doing and what you want to do. It doesn't necessarily require the use of non-preferential functions to do that. They just discern which functions you are good at and have under "control". You can still develop and train the non-preferred functions to a degree of functionality, but you still won't find the comfort and ease which you experience with the conscious stack.
In my experience, there is a limit to what is dynamically possible in terms of which functions you are capable to switch from. It is least easy to switch from Ni to Si and the other way around (when they are dominant-demon), for instance. Being focussed on the mind makes you less sensitive to feelings within the body and the same way sensations within the body distract from accessing Ni. When Si is demon, you have the least control and are the least comfortable with it. Sensations within the body are felt without preamble and often intensely, without you being able to shut it down (unless you trained to do it) - therefore making access to Ni harder to obtain, as the sensation draws your attention to it. For me, it takes focussing outward (to an extraverted function, either Fe or Se) to reenter into Ni.
This may not be accurate (I'm not a Dario Nardi), but you can see it as a visual representation of the metaphysical concept. Think of it as the conscious functions and better developed functions (so too the less developed functions and shadow function) being dynamic systems with neurological pathways between them; they'd make four to eight separate systems, having more synapses built within these systems but fewer connecting them - the more developed functions in turn having built more synapses than the less developed, hence the ease and comfortability of use. This could also explain how you seem to use repeating patterns of thought and action when using less developed functions. Until you use neuroplasticity to form new patterns.
This is of course the ideal way of the cognitive function's working together. Due to there being overlapping systems interconnected with one another - and you wouldn't just use one at a time - there can of course come up internal conflicts between patterns of functions working differently, coming up with different but equal output primers for you to choose from. The more similarly developed the systems and functions are, the more likely that would be to occur. Theoretically.
Actually I believe this is a very good description and not just because it explains the "clusters of friendly functions" and how they team-work together but the dynamic which governs their allocation - where there is a sort of internal balancing drive which seeks to unify any active functions but always with the desire to return to the "native" stack when conditions permit.
In my case I have a shadow ISTJ personality (Si-Te-Fi-Ne) which when switched on utilizes its own primary extroverted function (Te) as a way to stay connected to the environment. But any interaction with the outside world only serves to provide further fuel to this stack and appears to further suppress the switched off INFJ stack. Because of the abyss between Si and Ni the normal stack remains inaccessible save for Fe which is indeed the only known way to switch from this back to the INFJ function stack.
Perhaps there is something to be said about inertia here as each stack more or less tries to keep going once started, the major differentiator being that no outside world input is required for the shadow stack while it is needed for the conscious one to keep operating.
I just the other day I quietly followed Ginny into spirit animals. I still feel a little lost. Just this morning I (re) identified in Big 5 archetype RLOAI, which appears to be a sort of synonym for infj, +neurotic, lol. Looking for new angles in the "understanding self" mirror is a neverending journey if you are inclined that way. I applaud your restraint and prioritization on which aspect is calling to you right now.
What?!? Something new I am unfamiliar with? I hear a calling...
But don't think I will be leaving the forum
Yay!
nice to hear that you are going to stay anyway, though
Agreed!
Ditto. I have had to put it on hold too for a bit, until I get the proper look into it with the right tools for me.
hi. i kinda live with this stack (Ne is higher, but my Ni is the 2nd highest). no i'm not schizophrenic, just having a hard time living in the present. my daily activities include:
- trying to focus on chewing the food i eat, because if i slip my mind wanders around and the food just vanished
- judging my past actions based on current value. gladly i've learned acceptance and validation. things have gotten easier since then
- arguing whether i should do things in my head. i break(?) my personality into some "ideas" to easily identify them. a confused me, a kind understanding woman, a critical rule follower, a practical man, and a freak who is the source of intrusive thoughts
- having a hard time taking actions because.. too much contemplation
kinda sucks because i either can or can't relate to the mbti types
- trying to focus on chewing the food i eat, because if i slip my mind wanders around and the food just vanished
- judging my past actions based on current value. gladly i've learned acceptance and validation. things have gotten easier since then
- arguing whether i should do things in my head. i break(?) my personality into some "ideas" to easily identify them. a confused me, a kind understanding woman, a critical rule follower, a practical man, and a freak who is the source of intrusive thoughts
- having a hard time taking actions because.. too much contemplation
kinda sucks because i either can or can't relate to the mbti types
