The Key Factor in Screening Ni Dominance

[InvisibleJim]

j.e.n.i.,
with infj, according to l. thomson, i fit quite smoothly. it showed me a lot about my functioning.
with the enneagram, it's much more complicated; but e3w4, self-preservating subtype, expresses many important things in me.

what i recall most of my interpretation of yesterday is your smiley after the word "confusion"... ;-)

3 is a mutually exclusive enneagram to what is described above.

It is the nature of the Ni dominant to be 'affirmation/recognition shunning' not 'affirmation/recognition seeking'.

This is one of the key behavioural switches comparing either extroverted or introverted NTJ or NFJ.

 

[Andy Quellenlicht]

3 is a mutually exclusive enneagram to what is described above.

It is the nature of the Ni dominant to be 'affirmation/recognition shunning' not 'affirmation/recognition seeking'.

This is one of the key behavioural switches comparing either extroverted or introverted NTJ or NFJ.

i agree that e3 and Ni is quite a different thing. nonetheless, there is a connection imo (which Fi-first's wouldn't have): a dominant perception function comes to meet somewhat an ego, which has not clear boundaries (chameleon). on a unconscious level (which Ni is referring to), it's difficult to say if something is mine or coming from someone else. so "mutually exclusive" is probably a bit too strong. but it's rich in contradictions!

if an e3 is an infj, it's the combination of Ni with Fe wich makes it possible. Fe is typically e3: this is the role i should play in a given context to fit a subgroups standards. intj and e3, this i would consider to be mutually exclusive... but who knows, inviduals fit simplifying typologies quite approximatly, per definition ...

 

[Andy Quellenlicht]

invisible jim,
a bit less abstract: in my inner world, i don't need recognition from the outside world, i want to be alone or together with my few very close ones, but one at a time ;-) they share my inner world.
so if a person is not very close to me, i don't care about beeing perceived in a positive way. with all those i don't wanna have this close bond, Ni even overrules e3: i may hint at things i'm intuiting which could annoy the other. 'cause it's much more interesting to explore the depths of the human soul than to give a damn about social conventions. it's the non-conventional i'm looking for.

but! with regard to my very close ones, i wanna get positive mirroring for what i say, think, feel and do, and i want a lot of it. there are so many things i do to get this - i hope in a subtle way, which includes counter-movements to hide my craving for "applause". (self-preservation e3 is a counter e3). but it's difficult and full of tensions, this e3 vs. Ni! cause even with my loved ones, i'd like to go in the deepest possible, if it's pleasant or not.

in my job, i'm entirely on the e3-side. otherwise i would'nt be able to function. Ni would draw me in realms where i would'nt be able to perform (unless i let it be towed by Fe, which i don't like). and this sucks!

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

invisible jim,
a bit less abstract: in my inner world, i don't need recognition from the outside world, i want to be alone or together with my few very close ones, but one at a time ;-) they share my inner world.
so if a person is not very close to me, i don't care about beeing perceived in a positive way. with all those i don't wanna have this close bond, Ni even overrules e3: i may hint at things i'm intuiting which could annoy the other. 'cause it's much more interesting to explore the depths of the human soul than to give a damn about social conventions. it's the non-conventional i'm looking for.

but! with regard to my very close ones, i wanna get positive mirroring for what i say, think, feel and do, and i want a lot of it. there are so many things i do to get this - i hope in a subtle way, which includes counter-movements to hide my craving for "applause". (self-preservation e3 is a counter e3). but it's difficult and full of tensions, this e3 vs. Ni! cause even with my loved ones, i'd like to go in the deepest possible, if it's pleasant or not.

in my job, i'm entirely on the e3-side. otherwise i would'nt be able to function. Ni would draw me in realms where i would'nt be able to perform (unless i let it be towed by Fe, which i don't like). and this sucks!

But it that e3? I had a bit of trouble deciding between e1 and e3 because I'm neither exactly and I did look at your e6 idea but I don't recognise much of it. I have a secret want to "be important" (though I became aware recently this has more to do with feeling I would have a role in society that way rather than needing the applause). I feel embarrassed if I am shown to have achieved, as I am worried of what others must think of me (do they think I'm better than them because I do better than them?) but I could not do without the achievement, because I need to be successful and I cannot be anything less than successful and yes - secretly - I want people to see my success because I feel sometimes that nobody respects me (always at the bottom of the social hierarchy!) and that it would be nice to be accepted - and that, to me, means I need to do something to earn it. Part of it, of course, is that I will not believe anything of good of myself unless others say it to me (out of fear I am wrong and deluding myself). So to me it gets confusing. As I wrote that I saw a little of the e6 actually, but it really does get very confusing and the enneagram, I think, is not a good fit for anybody.

What process did you go through to decide you were an e3? It seems to me that you have had to eliminate some of the profile to get to make this decision.

 

[Andy Quellenlicht]

jeni,
it's been a quite a long way to see my e3. first i saw e9 - which is indeed my gutfix (9w1). then i identified for many months with e4. it's when i read claudio naranjo's standard-book that i recognized, on quite an structural level, that so much in me functions with the "do almost anything to get positive mirroring" principle, image shifting including. many e3s are not recognized because they live in a counter-cultur (not the one of managers who want to achieve, but let's say one of an artist living in a subculture where the positive-mirroring point is invididuality or a sense of aesthetics way off mass taste. they may seem quite fourish if one does not go into the subtle, the movement in itself, as a structure, without a specific cultural incarnation. what makes the whole thing more complicated are the counter-types. the best known is the counter-phobic e6. but every type has a typical counter-mover (sp e1 and soc e1 counteract their anger, sx e1 lives it much more). so imagine a e3 couteracting its impulses to shine for glory/recognition/applause (positive mirroring). you distinguish all there different types of getting the positive mirroring on could want. from a e3-perspective, it doesn't matter. positive mirroring can be obtained in so many different ways - and who wouldn't want it. but to change ones image considerably, constantly and according to "context" (milieu) in order to get this positive mirroring, is less frequent.

now, what you write aboute yourself, i still read it thru my "overall" question i raised yesterday (or was it 2 days ago)? what function has this pointing at the limit of many concepts in your life? that is, what is it's motivation? this deconstructing, relativizing flows into confusion. your emotion is there. so what are the motivations for this? until now, i don't know. that's why i proposed several e-types who have this "confusion" as a result, but with a different motivation (e6, e6, e9). but maybe your motivations are not e-wise. i just feel your strong "need" to have confusion ("nothing is clear, nothing is absolute" what you said about lacan), as though it could be liberating (this would be a Ni-interpretation) anxiety calming (e6 interpretation) or as a counter-movement to the inner enslaver, e1 - or for whatever reason. with e4, it would be the eternal quest for the missing I - a quest which may not find it's object, because the suffering must be eternalized: love me, because i suffer, is the subtext of a e4. all this is to say that the motives can be so different for a similar phenomenon, which i have underscored, after having read your lines. so, what is your interpretation of this?

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

jeni,
it's been a quite a long way to see my e3. first i saw e9 - which is indeed my gutfix (9w1). then i identified for many months with e4. it's when i read claudio naranjo's standard-work that i recognized, on quite an structural level, that so much in me functions with the "do almost anything to get positive mirroring" principle, image shifting including. many e3s are not recognized because they live in a counter-cultur (not the one of managers who want to achieve, but let's say one of an artist living in a subculture where the positive-mirroring point is invididuality or a sense of aesthetics way off mass taste. they may seem quite fourish if one does not go into the subtle, the movement in itself, as a structure, without a specific cultural incarnation. what makes the whole thing more complicated are the counter-types. the best known is the counter-phobic e6. but every type has a typical counter-mover (sp e1 and soc e1 counteract their anger, sx e1 lives it much more). so imagine a e3 couteracting its impulses to shine for glory/recognition/applause (positive mirroring). you distinguish all there different types of getting the positive mirroring on could want. from a e3-perspective, it doesn't matter. positive mirroring can be obtained in so many different ways - and who wouldn't want it. but to change ones image considerably, constantly and according to "context" (milieu) in order to get this positive mirroring, is less frequent.

now, what you write aboute yourself, i still read it thru my "overall" question i raised yesterday (or was it 2 days ago)? what function has this pointing at the limit of every concept in your life? that is, what is it's motivation? this deconstructing, relativizing flows into confusion. your emotion is there. so what are the motivations for this? until now, i don't know. that's why i proposed several e-types who have this "confusion" as a result, but with a different motivation (e6, e6, e9). but maybe your motivations are not e-wise. i just feel your strong "need" to have confusion ("nothing is clear, nothing is absolute" what you said about lacan), as though it could be liberating (this would be a Ni-interpretation) anxiety calming (e6 interpretation) or as a counter-movement to the inner enslaver, e1 - or for whatever reason. with e4, it would be the eternal quest for the missing I - a quest which may not find it's object, because the suffering must be eternalized: love me, because i suffer, is the subtext of a e4. all this is to say that the motives can be so different for a similar phenomenon, which i have underscored, after having read your lines. so, what is your interpretation of this?

That's interesting. I hadn't quite looked at enneagram like that.

As for your question, it's difficult for me to work out. The only thing I can say about the "nothing is absolute" outlook is that that is the most logical one. I wouldn't say I necessarily live by it, though. I don't tend to have difficulty making decisions, because I don't see my inner self as "not absolute" (although logically I must be). It's just logical to say that nothing is absolute because it is the most thorough theory. It attempts to encompass all (and at the same time recognises that nothing is encompassable). The only drive I can think of that leads me that way is the drive to be "right"/"rational"/"logical". And I guess it is also to understand myself and others. The key end of the theory to me is "reality is subjective". So I choose my reality and others around me choose theirs and if they are struggling I can help them to see that their reality is subjective and usually this makes them feel better - the other theory I grabbed wholeheartedly was CBT - it's a similar thing. It says it is not the event, it is not who you are, it is not what has happened to you but simply how you perceive those things that defines how you experience it. I believe this stuff, others believe in repressed memories and being the "authentic them" and whatnot. Not my thing but if it helps them go for it. My worldview is calming, to me. I do suffer from anxiety, but remembering this - that everything is subjective - I find it freeing. It's just a way of saying "nothing is but everything could be". It doesn't feel like confusion to me, to be honest. I get confused if I try to describe myself - I am frequently wrong about myself. This is confusing and frustrating in a forum like this yes - when people ask for my theory of who I am. I tend to create analysis for who I am so I have a story that makes sense. But I only do this if I am unhappy and want to be able to say good things about myself. Want to believe I am a good person - then I need to know "who I am" even if at all times I think the paradigm is impossible (for everyone). I do not feel any need to identify myself. I know others do, they have talked to me about it before, but it doesn't matter who you are, it matters how others experience you and how you experience yourself and how you experience the world and your life. It doesn't matter "what is" and it doesn't matter "what is means" because it can be whatever you want it to be and meaning is fluid - it changes through the perspective of everyone's eyes, through the lens of culture, history, time passing, emotions....nothing is fixed in meaning so you take the meaning you want most for you.

I'm sorry if that is unhelpful and I don't want it to sound like I live in a state of flux! It isn't like that. I don't change my mind easily, I am stubborn, I stick to my guns. If someone points out illogicity, though, I don't mind changing. I don't want to be illogical - what's the point of sticking to something if it doesn't make sense? Sometimes my theories don't make sense and they are born out of a need to make everything around me logical. Now there's a need that definitely drives me! But the "there are no absolutes" worldview - that's the only one that always works. So everything always makes sense. If you wanted a psychological reading then it's likely to do with mastery and control (although this is a theory I haven't put much into and have only just come up with now!) You could say that needing everything to make sense is simply a need to control your own world. So maybe it's that, I don't know.

To me, the world is clear. Everything is clear. That doesn't mean everything is categorised in total absolutes - black and white - it means it is laid out before me. I get frustrated when it gets muddled - when my theory is proven wrong and I realise I do not have a clear view of the world. Then I change the theory to fit. I need to understand, to grasp, to see clearly. That would be the only need there. In my everyday life though, there's no confusion over such things as right and wrong and there's no confusion over my opinions (which nowadays are sharp and clear though I was frustrated as a teenager that I didn't always know what I thought - that's something I've got better at with age and I think that's just through knowing more about the world). I also have no problem making decisions. The decision comes quickly, though I can be hampered by my constant fear of the effect I have on others (which is also a love of the effect I have on others and the way they effect me - I enjoy being able to feel close to others and I get my most pure joy from watching other people being happy). My fear is that I will hamper others, through irresponsibility, through not being moral enough. It does seem to me to be an e1 fear over an e6 fear though - it's more needing people to tell me "you are good" or "you did the right thing" or "you are good at things!" That's the drive there.

I have no idea whether that made enough sense or whether it answers your question. I'm really not so good at the typing stuff. But don't worry about it, I'd like to hear more about the what it is in yourself you see about being such a such a type. I'd be interested to see how you feel you work.

Oh - as for the freeing part. I tend to feel trapped a lot of the time and I find this distressing. So that would be the freeing part. I feel trapped by my own perfectionism and, perhaps what I mean is trapped by my own mind. Frustrated at my own irrationality. That kind of thing. But this is how I have always experienced anxiety. It is as if something has ensnared me and put in a lot of rules that I know shouldn't be there. But I never really lose touch of a relatively clear vision of what I want to do and where I want to be and now and again I remember that my absolutes are impossible and I go - ah, yea, I am not shy I am confident - and then it is true. I don't know how to explain it without sounding weird! I accommodate others but I do not need everybody to like me. Why would I when I don't like everybody? Some people I find frustrating or boring. So it's not really about changing for them. It's about not changing. Transforming yourself because you never "were" anyway. It is not possible to be "shy" authentically, it is only possible to be shy through perception - so just change your mind. I can visualise myself as confident and happy and so long as I imagine it, it will be true (for a while, before my anxieties creep up on me!)

That's the way in which it's freeing.

PS: I also tend to ramble. I intend to be brief but then I feel I have not made myself clear and I add more to try and explain. Sorry you have to read so much! I hope I'm not boring you, this is part of the reason we should talk about you! I will ramble otherwise!

 

[Andy Quellenlicht]

jeni,

from what you write, it seems clear to me that "everything is subjective" is anxiety calming and freeing, thus a counter-move to a deeper reality which then would be... hm, what would your words be?

you wanna have a clear world (to motive for this remains unclear ;-). the means of keeping your world clear and not muddled is to adapt by shifting your viewpoint. what "allows" you to do this is "logic/reason" which tells you, that everything is subjective. the shadowpart of "clear" is probably "stubborn". This interpretation is trying to somehow connect Ni and e1, cause what you write in this last post sounds more e1 than e6. well, it could, since you identify more with e1 than with e6. well whatever, your inner world sounds "complicated" - i know that very well within myself - i assume this is because of many contradicting forces, inclinations etc. e1 is the counter-mover par excellence...

i what sense do you use the word "anxiety"? is it more worrying or fear or... ? and what's the object of the former and/or the latter?

and what makes you think you're infj?

if you wanna know something about me, i need specific question(s) showing me you're interested in more than the balance in conversation ;-)

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

jeni,

from what you write, it seems clear to me that "everything is subjective" is anxiety calming and freeing, thus a counter-move to a deeper reality which then would be... hm, what would your words be?

you wanna have a clear world (to motive for this remains unclear ;-). the means of keeping your world clear and not muddled is to adapt by shifting your viewpoint. what "allows" you to do this is "logic/reason" which tells you, that everything is subjective. the shadowpart of "clear" is probably "stubborn". This interpretation is trying to somehow connect Ni and e1, cause what you write in this last post sounds more e1 than e6. well, it could, since you identify more with e1 than with e6. well whatever, your inner world sounds "complicated" - i know that very well within myself - i assume this is because of many contradicting forces, inclinations etc. e1 is the counter-mover par excellence...

i what sense do you use the word "anxiety"? is it more worrying or fear or... ? and what's the object of the former and/or the latter?

and what makes you think you're infj?

if you wanna know something about me, i need specific question(s) showing me you're interested in more than the balance in conversation ;-)

Hi, sorry. I just meant what was it that made you think you were an INFJ?

Like, how would you describe your use of Ni? Why did you decide it was Ni over Ne?
How would you describe your use of Fe? How is it affected by Ni?
And the same question for Ti and Se - sorry for all the vagueness! I just meant I wanted to hear your version of the questions your asking me, really. What is that you feel makes you an INFJ? How did you come to that conclusion (beyond reading books! What were the signs in you saw in your personality?)

As for your questions:
Anxiety - unfortunately always had a disorder here. My anxiety normally makes my thoughts very fast and spiralling, it makes me act differently (panic responses like apologising too much or feeling embarrassed for no reason) and I tend to escape into fantasy as a stress response. That was only pointed out to me the other day. I'd always thought I was just "dreamy" but a good friend of mine pointed out that I do that when I'm stressed - just disappear into fantasy. It's not fantasy like a whole other world. It's a re-interpretation of my own world or myself. Difficult to explain. I couldn't' really tell you if it was worry or fear etc. I tend to notice my anxiety by my thoughts not my feelings. I get physically ill quite often and a doctor told me this can happen if we don't experience our anxieties emotionally because then the tension just builds up in our bodies. Seems pretty logical to me.

As for the object of it - sorry, if I knew this I'd be able to cure myself It's a general anxiety. I am aware I'm anxious because I get strange thoughts in my head that don't make sense - common with anxiety and sometimes I act out of it and think what I believe is real - which does tend to be around guilt - so like "I forgot to cite something in my essay so I must phone the uni and tell them to withdraw my degree" - that one's happened before and my boyfriend had to step in and tell me to sleep on it. The next day I could see it was ridiculous. From what I've worked out so far, anxieties are around guilt (not being worthy/deserving of a place in society) achievement (which is how I imagine I would earn my place in society) and control (just because a lot of my anxieties revolve around control - eating disorders etc). The core thought I've worked out is "I am intrinsically different from society" - thus can never be part of it.

I'm afraid the only answer I have for your first question would be that the subjectivism is a counter move to my anxiety. I feel more like myself when I'm being like that, but I consider "myself" just to be "the best, happiest version of myself" - I considerate that to be "my true self" because that's what I choose to do. There's no reason to connect anxiety to myself, therefore, it is just as valid to say that the "happy me", which I have not yet experienced, is the true "me". I don't know! I'm sorry I don't have a good answer for you.

The "clear world" is probably about control. That does feel right.

As for the INFJ thing - maybe I'm not. I've given up giving myself a type really, it's very frustrating to try and find the best fit. I could be an INFP. Both seem possible to me, but I don't really care either way! The more I talk about typing with people, the more impossible it seems to make that estimation and feel certain in it. EDIT: Actually - know I use Ti and Se and I don't fit the other types that use those four so it's the best fit. I'm fine with that and don't really feel I need to fit the descriptions. Too many details! It's close enough for me EDIT EDIT!: Ahem...or INFP because I DEFINITELY judge people immediately (in which case perhaps I have misinterpreted Ti and Se).

I'm sorry if you felt I wasn't really interested, by the way. I am, I should have given you some specific questions. But really all I want to know is the same stuff you wanted to know about me? Please tell me how you see e3 connecting to your INFJness as well.

Thanks

 

[Kmal]

I've gotten both infj and infp in socionics though.

that's infj and infp in mbti as well. so what do you mean?

 

[Andy Quellenlicht]

jeni,

in my perception, you're mainly in your "head" (enneagram-wise). it's commenting, analyzing and your emotions seem not really to come into action. emotions make short-cuts, they judge, very often blatantly (mmmmh, yuck), they give weight to certain features. when i'm reading you, i have the impression, that the judging part, with regard to yourself, is misty. now, for anxiety-fear-types, this is quite usual (like e6). but you define anxiety more guiltwise. in my experience, e1s are very often totally in their heads and do not get their emotions that much. hm, this could also mean that your judging is not functioning on text so much, maybe more on sight or something else. i recognize e6s quite often by looking at their screening and evaluating (ambivalent) eyes. with e1s it's the stiffness of their body, the inner tension. so i think i could probably get a hunch of your types more by reading body language than by the means of words.

how did i discover i was infj? entirely with l. thomson's book "personality type". when i read the other standards, i frequently thought: i could be this and that. it was never so clearly shaped as in her book. now, i won't summarize the many insights i got from her book, but what struck me.

one very important distinction is "holistic" vs. "linear", holistic is more right-brain (a vague metaphor for a very complex neurological fact), linear is more right brain. left-brain is sequential: one thing after another. it's bound to language 'cause language is by definition linear (one word after another). it was rapidly clear to me that i'm mostly linear (i have a very creative side, but that's not the most frequently visited "place", creativity is right-brain). so once this is clear, then INFP is already ruled out. infp is a very holistic type: it's about the integrity of the inner self-world: swallow all that can be integrated, spit out everything that doesn't fit. it's all about: does this object fit my inner world, if not, i won't relate (except for puking it off) - all this are metaphors for pre- or unconscious processes. it's probably difficult to understand them if not by intuition - if one has a similar metaphor-interpretation-system which is defined by culture, subculture, subsubculture... and individual experience.

then there is this cartoon on p. 227:

Calvin, at school:
Test:
1. What important event took place on December 16,, 1773.

Calvin:

I do not believe in linear time. There is no past and future. all is one, and existence in the temporal sense is illusory. this question, therefore, is meaningless and impossible to answer.

Calvin: When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions.

in my tatty book, there is a comment written next to this cartoon: "that's me! i laughed a lot and intensively".

from this moment on, it made "click" and i was pretty sure that infj is my type.

i compared this cartoon with one thomson uses for infps:

"between friends"
2 women talking:
- is something on your mind, maeve?
- it's joel.
- i'm beginning to realize he has what it takes to make me really happy...
- aaahhh... i see... well, we both know what that means
- yes...
- he has what i takes to make me really miserable too.

i had to ask an infp-friend to explain the punch line to me, i simply didn't get it. and to be honest, i still don't get it (i.e. i forgot, because it's so strange to my way of thinking)

so this is the very rational way ;-) how i found out why i am infj. but, of course, in retrospect, i could give a lot of reasons for it: i can closely identifiy with about 90 % of all the infj-features thomson refers to in her book. to me infj is a clear thing - quite different from my enneagram quest about which i was talking in my former post. read her book! i get 30 % of the sales price! ;-)

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

@Andy Quellenlicht

That's really interesting. I'm not sure I've totally got my head around the left-brain/right-brain stuff. Maybe you could describe it to me? Do you think you can describe your thoughts?

As for the jokes - I got both, but the first one more readily (had to read the second twice). Must say, though. The first one is factually incorrect ;-) I assumed time was not linear but a physicist converted me. That said - it doesn't actually matter. I would have agreed with the first joke if it said: "The value which you place on the event is relative - so millions of important things happened in that year but equally, nothing important happened at all". I'm guessing this is the same way you're thinking, yes?

I will see if I can have a look at Thomson's book but I ain't promising anything. I find it hard to focus on one person's opinion without picking holes in it, so I normally prefer discussions where I get to talk back! ;-)

So what about the functions, though? You seem to be coming from a different perspective than some people here so I'm interested to know about it, if you don't mind discussing it! Did you go for a description, or have you been looking through each function and deciding how you see it in yourself? I have done the latter but I think I just have too much contradictory information now and I can't decide where to place my judgement.

What interested me was this thing about linear thinking, actually. Because when I first felt I understood the functions I saw Ni and Ne like this:



This picture has always been the best I can find for this purpose, which is a bit annoying because it's not the best diagram!

Basically, I had argued that Ni was paradigmatic and Ne was syntagmatic. So, in the Syntagmatic axis, Ne picks up an idea and creates something new in a linear way - "the", the what?, the man? what's he doing? He's crying. "The man cried".

To get from "the" to "cried" you have to produce your own context - you have to provide context as you are going along. If you went further with the sentence, you would be adding more context, which could change the idea again. So you are creating ideas in a linear fashion.

With Ni, I thought it was more like the paradigmatic chain where you have a bunch of existing ideas (already inside you) that are related through metaphor. In the diagram, the paradigmatic axis is full of things that are metaphorically related or related by sound (like rhymes) - though it would not necessarily need to work this way with Ni. My idea was more that the information that will be used is already inside and related metaphorically (vertically) rather than in a cause and effect way.

Let's say instead of the stupid chain above "cried, died, sang" (honestly - sang? how's that connected? The only connection I see is the French for blood?) Anyway. I better example is "cried, died, coffin, puffin". So you could say that out to someone and it would sound like code, right? Because it doesn't make sense as it's going along. It isn't making linear leaps - it's not going anywhere at all - it's completely static in the moment. It doesn't make sense externally because it is not contextualised (and due to the flux of meaning existent in every word we require context to understand). But let's say you get a lot of information thrown in from the outside - it was my belief that this is what Ni does with it. It sees metaphorical/vertical connections rather than external patterns. It does not create an idea, but it is able to develop (or innovate - a good choice of word used by someone on PerC) the ideas it is given to give a fresh perspective. However, I wrongly theorised that this process would be more rapid.

How does your way of looking at the MBTI fit with that? I'm happy for you to poke holes in it, by the way. I was just interested in what you said about linear and holistic, because I think in this model I have it the other way round. (although I'm talking about Ne/Ni rather than an entire personality!)

EDIT: Yo! Found this http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ng-perspectives-truth-language-l-thomson.html In this definition I would also be an INFJ and you're right, it makes it very easy to understand. But I feel this may make me a Thomsonian INFJ and not necessarily any other type of INFJ

Still interested in your thoughts on the above but don't need the explanation of Thomson anymore!

 

[Andy Quellenlicht]

jeni,
whoever wrote this article about thomson is simply not able to read, understand and summarize an academical book. it's not slightly incorrect, he or she didn't get it at all! no wonder there is this website mentioned in this thread you put a link in your post where most of the time, the writers make the clear waters of thomson dirty.

proof of my evaluation: you understood the writer correctly and hence thought Ni is the paradigmatic axis and Ne the syntagmatic. but, according to thomson, it's the other way round. Ni is linear thus syn-tagmatic: one word following the other; and then i go back the chains of words in a linear way. Ne is building context unconsciously, based on ones own experience (which is not consciously remembered), it's the paradigmatic axis.

the cartoon about infj: to point of it is: when in doubt, deny all terms and definitions, i.e. point with your finger at the limitation of every concept, and in doing so, let concepts and conceptions have no power over you. calvin could write a correct answer to the test's question after having analyzed/deconstructed the question like this. he was freed from the teachers power over him (hm, almost, at least til he got the mark). your writing "style" in this thread is not so far away from calvins ;-)

so, when my new copy of the book arrives, the one that has not all those notes in it, i will ocr the infj things and post it here (probably also the infp chapters). then, i believe the discussion can start anew.

i hope so that you will criticize her in all the ways you can. it won't be easy, cause she is an intj and has a sense for a systematic approach. well, of course there are many questions about her book and it's easy to point out her presuppositions, but once you play her game, it's quite intellectually coercitive (hehe, this to provoke your deconstructing vein). but to see this, one has to be a left-brainer (grin) - holist don't even realize this, unless they have been trained to see it at the uni (kidding).

your picture: you probably know that lacan reinterpreted the two axes. the syntagmatic is the one of the movement of the signifiers in the way of a metonymy. the paradigmatic axis represents the movement of the signifiers in the way of a metaphore. both tropes are a typical way the unconscious works (as a stream of signifiers). freud called this verschiebung (syntagmatic) and verdichtung (paradigmatic).

about being thomsonian: i prefer 1 clear thought and/or concept to 1000 pages of vague and not clearly shaped conceptions and concepts (knowing this is a fiction!). i also like surrealistic poetry or nonsense poetry a lot (i'm serious). but please, don't mix the genres! (the subtext of this being...)

 

[bickelz]

that's infj and infp in mbti as well. so what do you mean?

I was really just too lazy to explain that there isn't really correlation between socionics and mbti types because they're quite different theories. I've tested socionics before multiple times and either get infp or infj and I sort of identify with both of them equally.

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

jeni,
whoever wrote this article about thomson is simply not able to read, understand and summarize an academical book. it's not slightly incorrect, he or she didn't get it at all! no wonder there is this website mentioned in this thread you put a link in your post where most of the time, the writers make the clear waters of thomson dirty.

I don't mean to be frustrating, but does it matter if he/she understood? We can never be sure that we have properly understood an author's intent, so the author's intent (at least when it comes to theory) is sort of meaningless isn't it? I mean, I see how authorial intent matters in conversation. I wouldn't spread that rule to everything because you wouldn't want to be misunderstood and someone get offended if it's a personal matter. Besides, there's accuracy there, what you tell a person is a certain kind of "truth" in that you need them to understand it and assume it to have meaning and for them to estimate the meaning you have implied so that you are able to converse and work together etc. But when it's theory, shouldn't we aim to gain our own understanding? If you are able to get one interpretation and another guy gets another interpretation then you can't say either are true unless you ask Thomson herself. And even then, you're just asking one person. And her opinion is just as relevant as the PerC guy's opinion. We could test each, I suppose, see which one seems to chime with more people (and thus more people feel able to fit it so it feels more accurate) but neither is accurate anyway and the human brain will shoehorn in any old nonsense if it can. I'm not having a go but I'm quite worried it's coming across that way! I'm not disagreeing with you, basically, I'm just saying - why assume a) Thomson is right and b) either of you understand what she originally meant. Would it not make more sense to say that the only place MBTI exists is in each individual's mind? We're having to ascribe our own meaning to the theory anyway, even if sometimes we get the same meaning as each other (but we can never know exactly). And the theory is an estimation and definitely created through arbitrary lines in the sand.

I understand your want to stick to one idea, because I would prefer things were that way most of the time, I prefer certainty and I find too many opposing ideas frustrating because I prefer to condense to one idea which feels accurate, but I feel like that's actually what I've finally managed to do, after getting so frustrated at trying to align myself with one interpretation rather than others for so long. So far this feels like the most accurate take I have found, to just say, none of it is right but none of it is wrong. The fascinating thing about MBTI is not the theory itself, but how people use it. Sometimes there is a reason there are a lot of opposing ideas. Would denying existing inconsistency not seem inconsistent?

Seriously, I'm quite worried about the way that came off. I sound more sharp than I mean to in text. There is no emotion behind this, I'm just sharing the way I think about it and I hope you feel comfortable doing the same.

And the paradigmatic/syntagmatic thing I came up with was something I came up with ages ago so it seems that me and this other guy just agree. I'm fine with that being challenged, though. Perhaps I believe Ni to be paradigmatic because that's how I think - thus perhaps I use Ne. It could be that that is the case.

 

[Andy Quellenlicht]

jeni, the debate is familiar to me. lacan had no problem not citing his sources. from the view of the social unconscious, quite everything is intervowen. now, when i interpret a text from a literary standpoint, i don't care about the unconscious. yes, i should have said: the text of thomson, not thomson herself, what do i know about herself. but once i refer to the text only, there are interpretations which include (qualitatively) more of what is said or less. to assert and maintain that the constitution of the us is about robert de niros e-type is quite difficult...

about 2/3 of my doctoral thesis was about understanding the numerous texts of an author (more than 3000 pages). nobody had done this before. after a long time, i was able to synthesize his thought in 2 pages. i sent them to the author. he wrote something like: 10 out of 10, this is the core of what i think. sure he could have adapted to my view. knowing him, this is not very likely, he likes to contradict a lot. i tried to analyze some possible unconscious structures - but here, nothing would be true or not true, since the autor nor some kind of expert could by definition (not) confirm it.

so my answer is, in other words: the shere fact that texts of law and jurisdiction exists shows that there are meanings closer to a text than others, even if this needs sometimes a long debate. when coming to intentions of authors, it's not likely to find out his or her intention, especially when the author is not aware of it.

language has a resisting function vs. projection (i share this thought with lacan).

and no: i don't think thomson is right; i like to play and work with her setting.


ps: when i read your "one can never be sure", i hear the subtext: i'd like to be (very) sure, but this isn't available. so again we would have "mist" in the service of "clear" etc.
another option here would be: yes, one can never be sure (in humanities). this is how life is. most of the times, it's about intermediate indications: 35 % , 70 %, 5 % etc. so, there is no security ;-) this would be the basis of a non-deconstructing attitude since everything is already deconstructed ;-)

pps: from time to time i like to read my texts or the ones of others by omitting every negation (and read it as an affirmation). this is (a not to be taken too seriously) psychoanalytical perspective. the text of your former post, would then sound quite differently... (i'm not saying you're saying this and this, how i could on the basis of a a little bit of forum-text, but it's an interesting thing to do, imo).

ppps: to me, it sure is much more interesting if the weight and/or the accentuation of a written text correspond to the emotional weight. then it's easier to understand somebody. cause without emotional (irrational) weighting, the mind rambles and the personnality does not really come accross.

 

[Kmal]

I was really just too lazy to explain that there isn't really correlation between socionics and mbti types because they're quite different theories. I've tested socionics before multiple times and either get infp or infj and I sort of identify with both of them equally.

infj in mbti is Ni-Fe
infp in mbti is Fi-Ne

infp in socionics is Ni-Fe
infj in socionics is Fi-Ne

It's flip-flopped in socionics.

Of course theyre different, but they overlap. I mean, it's not just coincidence that they both have the same 16 personality types.

 

[bickelz]

infj in mbti is Ni-Fe
infp in mbti is Fi-Ne

infp in socionics is Ni-Fe
infj in socionics is Fi-Ne

It's flip-flopped in socionics.

Of course theyre different, but they overlap. I mean, it's not just coincidence that they both have the same 16 personality types.

[MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION] Jim

INFP in socionics = Ni, Fe , Si, Te

It's a mix between infj and infp in mbti so it really doesn't tell me much about my mbti type.

 

[InvisibleJim]

@invisible Jim

INFP in socionics = Ni, Fe , Si, Te

It's a mix between infj and infp in mbti so it really doesn't tell me much about my mbti type.

Um, I think you meant to involve me...

but anyway.

INFP in Model-A Socionics

Ego (1) Ni , (2) Fe (Natural)
Super-ego (3) Se, (4) Te (PoLR) (Resistant)
Super-id (5) Se, (6) Ti (Creative) (Natural-Complement)
Id (7) Ne, (8) Fi (Resistant-Complement)

Which due to positioning has exactly the same functioning as INFJ in MBTI by Beebe...

Ni-Fe-Ti-Se

^Ego, ^Ego-Parent, ^Creative-Te/Trickster in shadow to match PoLR,^Inferior

It's equivalent.

In socionics the position has been played with to produce different models.

e.g. In Jung, Model-J in socionics it's Ni-Fe-Te-Se because Te stands out as PoLR/notable in external behaviour and attitude.

Model A is preferred because it tidily deals with both sides of each functions heads/tails attitude coin in addition to how this cognitive prioritisation interacts with individuals of different (and similar) types.

 

[arbygil]

I've pondered this (the OPs original discussion) and I had to mull it over. Not because I thought it was wrong, but I had to wonder if it was right for me. Unfortunately, I do see it as true for me. I don't like being antisocial, but it's there. I don't like being so weird when I want to be in my head, but I am. But I wouldn't say that antisocial behavior (the pushing aside of friends and family for peace) is a 100% indicator of Ni, either. I think it can be part of it, but not always (it could be an Enneagram type 5 thing, too). It's different from the Fi need to have individual values met at all costs, though.

It's not healthy to be 100% like this, though. It's not healthy to push aside everyone because it can get lonely. I know that I'll "snap back" every once in a while and realize I'm too far out there, and I need to seek others out. But I think that's why Ni needs the balance of others or projects so it doesn't go to unhealthy levels of isolation.

Interesting thoughts to chew on. Yup.

 

[bickelz]

It's not healthy to be 100% like this, though. It's not healthy to push aside everyone because it can get lonely. I know that I'll "snap back" every once in a while and realize I'm too far out there, and I need to seek others out. But I think that's why Ni needs the balance of others or projects so it doesn't go to unhealthy levels of isolation.

I'm in this place a lot. "I actually haven't seen anybody in a few days, maybe I should let them know I'm alive"