Myers-Briggs Typology.

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Introduction: my approach.

With some effort, I found a passage from a Myers-Briggs type description that I could actually relate to. It says:

[size=95]ISTJs direct their energy towards the inner world of ideas and information. They try to clarify concepts and information, seeking to have as clear a knowledge as possible. They often place a lot of trust in experience, but also envisage future goals providing there is a clear pathway to that goal.[/size]

What Makes An ISTJ Tick?[size=95]

The Dominant function is the perceptive one of Sensing. Characteristics associated with this function include:

* Likes looking at information in terms of facts and details

[http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/myers-briggs/istj.htm.][/size]

I think this is a good start of this OP, because it implies precisely my problems with Myers-Briggs typology. The concepts are unclear to me, and I seek to clear them up; I seek “to have as clear a knowledge as possible” of them. I want to be able to look at the dichotomies “in terms of facts and details”.

Part 1: the dichotomies.

There are four dichotomies, i.e., four polar opposites, of which any Myers-Briggs personality type consists. They are:

  1. Extraversion Vs. Introversion;
  2. Sensing Vs. Intuition;
  3. Thinking Vs. Feeling;
  4. Perceiving Vs. Judging.

Now the last dichotomy, # 4, is probably the easiest to grasp. It’s about which function is extraverted: Sensing/Intuition or Thinking/Feeling? Sensing and Intuition are the Perceiving functions, Thinking and Feeling the Judging functions. So in the case of an ESTP, the Perceiving function—that is, Sensing—is extraverted; and because the person in question is predominantly Extraverted, his dominant function is Extraverted Sensing.

In the case of an ISTP, on the other hand, the dominant function is Introverted Thinking.—

Well then! We have done the easy part, now let’s start with the difficult part. Let’s talk about dichotomy # 3 now. Thinking Vs. Feeling. The head versus the heart.

“Judging” in the context of Myers-Briggs means “decision-making”. Perhaps we can say about dichotomy # 3 that Feeling types tend to make decisions based on what feels good, whereas Thinking types tend to make decisions based on what seems right. The latter may then be called an ethical function, the former an aesthetic function.

Which dichotomy should we discuss now? I have problems with both of them. Let’s just begin with Extraversion (AKA Extroversion) Vs. Introversion. These literally mean “outward-turnedness” or “-turning” and “inward-turnedness” or “-turning”, respectively. But outward from what? Inward from what? Wikipedia says:

[size=95]Briggs and Myers recognized that each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people and things (extraverted attitude) or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator sorts for an overall preference for one or the other of these.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator#Attitudes:_Extraversion_.28E.29_.2F_Introversion_.28I.29.][/size]

My problem with this distinction is that it presupposes a highly specific outlook. For what brought me back to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator after more than a year was the philosophy of science of Ernst Mach. And Mach says:

[size=95]Let those complexes of colours, sounds, and so forth, commonly called bodies, be denoted, for the sake of clearness, by A B C . . .; the complex, known as our own body, which is a part of the former complexes distinguished by certain peculiarities, may be called K L M . . .; the complex composed of volitions, memory-images, and the rest, we shall represent by a b c . . . Usually, now, the complex a b c . . . K L M . . ., as making up the ego, is opposed to the complex A B C . . ., as making up the world of physical objects; sometimes also, a b c . . . is viewed as ego, and K L M . . . A B C . . . as world of physical objects. Now, at first blush, A B C . . . appears independent of the ego, and opposed to it as a separate existence. But this independence is only relative, and gives way upon closer inspection. Much, it is true, may change in the complex a b c . . . without much perceptible change being induced in A B C . . .; and vice versa. But many changes in a b c . . . do pass, by way of changes in K L M . . ., to A B C . . .; and vice versa. […]
Precisely viewed, […] it appears that the group A B C . . . is always codetermined by K L M. A cube when seen close at hand, looks large; when seen at a distance, small; its appearance to the right eye differs from its appearance to the left; sometimes it appears double; with closed eyes it is invisible. The properties of one and the same body, therefore, appear modified by our own body; they appear conditioned by it. But where, now, is that same body, which appears so different? All that can be said is, that with different K L M different A B C . . . are associated.
[The Analysis of Sensations, I, 5.][/size]

From a Machian perspective, then, instead of being predominantly turned outward or inward, a person is predominantly turned toward A B C . . . or a b c . . ., respectively.

Let us now turn to Sensing Vs. Intuition. These are the ‘Perceiving’ functions, i.e., the “information-gathering” functions. Based on the information gathered predominantly by sensing or intuitively, the person makes his decisions. But what is the difference between Sensing and Intuition? What, in fact, do these terms mean in this context? I’m at a major loss here. I can only think of Nietzsche’s cynical explanation of intuition. I don’t know where I read it, so I can’t quote it; but he basically argued that intuition meant just making a decision and, because hardly any decision is ever completely wrong, there will always be enough ground for retroactive ‘justification’ of that decision.

Perhaps “Sensing” just means the gathering of information from consciously discerned data, whereas “Intuition” simply means the same from unconsciously discerned data. Or, because the latter is unconscious, Nietzsche may also be right. “Sensing” may mean information-gathering from actually perceived data, whereas “Intuition” may also base its ‘information’ on faith, folly, flotsam (though Intuition might also be better at telling the relevant from the irrelevant data, the flotsam).

Though this is not necessarily based on any tests or descriptions, I think I’m an ISTJ. If this is correct, it may explain why Intuition is in the ‘shadow’ for me. In any case, any light would be appreciated.

2

The sensing vs intuition thing makes little sense if you try to see them as polar opposite information gathering functions IN GENERAL (IE, try to make sense of them, and see their opposites, without looking at it in a more specific context).

Looking at them in different functions (Ne, Ni, Se, Si) helps make it a little more relevant.

I’ll try to give an explanation considering the type you associate with, with its functions, given a situation where you are trying to make sense of an ambiguity–trying to understand exactly what the terms sensing and intuition mean in the typology context.

ISTJ functions
dominant (most basic/strongest influence/most comfortable using) - Si

secondary (second strongest, assists and balanced dom) - Te

tertiary (can initially be weakness earlier in life but can eventually be strongly developed to be very helpful… it’s eventual high development can be "life changing) - Fi

inferior (considered a weakness, as it is the opposte of the dominant) - Ne

So you are motivated to understand sensing - intuition, so begin to gather info on them.

First, Si: Those words, assumed as “data” (real things), lead your mind to gather “inside” (introverted) information regarding that data (IE your mind sees your own experiences, past and present of that data–the words). You end up getting information of what you’ve read Nietzsche say about intuition.

Te: As you do Si, you identify “intuition” based on deductive reasoning with consideration of ordered hierarchies. IE Information from the senses becomes a standard of lack of delusion, while intuition is questionable.

Fi: Based on emotion from one’s personal experiences. Motivated by personal values. In this case, you equate intuition with folly (as it is seen as a lack of the “real” concrete things seen from your Si, and the corresponding logic–your value–of your Te)–though you are careful to consider its potential benefits.

Ne: Throughout this process, your mind doesn’t search for the meaning of these things based off outside meanings/contexts (IE I had to make this post to inform you that S - I only has meaning/relevant, which varies, depending on the meaning of different contexts).

Perhaps “Sensing” just means the gathering of information from consciously discerned data, whereas “Intuition” simply means the same from unconsciously discerned data. Or, because the latter is unconscious, Nietzsche may also be right. “Sensing” may mean information-gathering from actually perceived data, whereas “Intuition” may also base its ‘information’ on faith, folly, flotsam (though Intuition might also be better at telling the relevant from the irrelevant data, the flotsam).

3

Thank you! What a great response. I’m at a loss to reply to it, though: it seems to confirm my self-typification, but it does not give me a taste of intuition, for example. Can I then only understand intuition indirectly, through sensing, thinking, and feeling? Will it forever remain a blind spot for me? Note that I do not necessarily want to develop my intuition; perhaps I would just like to be an NF type for a moment, for comparison’s sake. But it’s probably better if that’s impossible.

4

Ah, you’re right, I didn’t specifically clarify the difference of intuition - sensing.

Well… let me think of a focus/context (from which information is gathered), and I’ll try to describe how functions (opposed in terms of i - s) differ in their… “movement”.

Say one is reading a person’s post, and is pretty confident they understand the other’s meaning thus far (and agree with it… they see the logic behind it). However, a word comes up that catches the reader’s attention, because the reader doesn’t know how to interpret it (so that it affirms its use in the context).

Let’s just say this word is… “Postmodern”.

I’ll give some general descriptions of how a type with dominant Ne would move, and then Se. Then I will do the same with Ni and Si.

I want to point out these will be generalities that not every person with that dominant function would relate to, because the influence of the secondary function acting alongside with it (as well as the possible context of a well developed tertiary) can result in unique perceptions of the process (and, of course, some types, and some individuals in those types, have varying levels of introspection). In these examples I will leave it open, attempting to not suggest any specific secondary function influencing it.

Also–and this may be a very simple answer to your question–one may of looking at intuition - sensing is by considering the context (being investigated) as, for sensing, a basic thing in its most concrete form (as perceived by almost anyone–IE void of any abstractions or meanings that would cause people to disagree with what that thing is).

So, in this case the thing is “postmodern” (as a word)–the word itself (being read and seen as a single word/thing) is the “sense”. So a sense function refers to first accepting the “problem” (of investigation) as real data/a “thing”, and then, in that light/from that context, gathering information of data (other “things” whose base definition is their the experience of them). Intuition, on the other hand, refers to interpreting that initial problem (of investigation)–in this case a word, “postmodern”–as a certain meaning of that word (when reading the word one “intuits” a certain basic meaning, rather than seeing it–first and foremost–as a word) and then, from that context, investigating things related to that meaning.

But okay, here are specifics (I think, rather than explaining how the mind would work, I will emphasize questions that reflect how the function goes about an answer)

Ne - What is the meaning of the sentence (which exists outside of and encompasses “postmodern”)?
Ni - Can my understanding of this word be stretched/shaped to sensibly fit this use of it (as I already have interpreted the sentence’s meaning)?
Se - What are the other words in this sentence?
Si - What memories of this word’s use may help clarify its meaning?

5

ENTP, but the P is rather weak and veers towards the J. I’ll give a more formal reply later (maybe, I’m bad at later replies on ILP). But that is the way to roll. Because we all want to be on the winning side, right?

6

High five fellow idea guy! I haven’t looked much into typology for some time, but last time I did I thought entp described me the best. That was when I actually paid attention to it based off the different functions, though. When I first saw the types I just thought of it like (in terms of my oversimplified ideas of the words at the time) “Well… more introverted in general than extroverted… more intuitive than sensing… well, pretty strong feelings that I notice and motivate me, but I’m always logically thinking of stuff–eh 50/50…ohhhh much more perceiving, I’m not good at ordering/structuring my life”, where I would choose 1 of 2.

The actual functions behind the types are more in depth, giving a clearer image of what’s going on in the mind (rather than just identifying the type based off results and liked/dislikes).

I see the dominant Ne function as fitting me as I’ve always tried to find the meaning of things, and their possibilities.

Secondary Ti describes how, when trying to understand meanings and possibilities, I was constantly analyzing new principles and theories by comparing and contrasting with others I had had

The tertiary, Fe–concern for harmony with outer reality/social structures/present situation/etc–wasn’t always a steady growth process. I guess at times (especially in childhood) it was an unconscious motivation, but I went through the “angry at the world phase”, where I sought comfort by indulging in ideas of what my social situation SHOULD be like. However, I still struggled to be polite and not degrade the potential of a situation. Only in the last, I dunno, 3 years has it been developed to a point it’s more often than not consciously considered (in light of not only myself, but others) when the dominant function is doing its thing.

I remember, Xunzian, the first time I noticed this emphases/context on harmony (both individual and societal) when assessing the potential value of religion in one of your posts. I had a “hey, this guy shares a view similar enough to my own to make it seem like he may have arrived at it in the same kinda way” kinda moment. :smiley:

Si always definitely seems like my weakest function (which sounds a lot like “judging”)–my lack of focusing on and thinking about all the particular things in my environment, and those consistently in the past, leaves me rarely thinking about my future (and goals to make it a certain way), any daily or weekly schedule, or the small little piles/messes that are beginning to collect throughout my room.

7

Ha matthater, this is genius! I did the test some six years ago, the result was INTP, but i didn’t understand much of it in retrospect. This title of the thread inspired me to do it again, and again INTP (big on P, F and T allmost equal).

Now reading the functions online it was starting to make more sense. But your posts here are something else.

Especially this :mrgreen: :

Si always definitely seems like my weakest function (which sounds a lot like “judging”)–my lack of focusing on and thinking about all the particular things in my environment, and those consistently in the past, leaves me rarely thinking about my future (and goals to make it a certain way), any daily or weekly schedule, or the small little piles/messes that are beginning to collect throughout my room.

Though I’m no genious at managing my social affairs, my SI function seems to be in worse shape. The Ne and Ti functions seem to have shifted too. Maybe extensive reading of Nietzsche has ruined my appetide for systembuilding just for the sake of it, or real live circumstances have forced me to give up on truth for truth sake, and look more theory in practice.

INTP definately seemed to fit in the past, but now I don’t know. I seem to be moving more towards the ENTP order of function descriptions.

What’d you make of this?

8

Hmmm… maybe the development of a more conscious (consideration of) Si has corresponded with a more existentialist mindset… where your usual experiences of Ti and Ne (activities that you used to get super absorbed in) are now being analyzed in the context of “Does this have any benefit for me “getting my shit together” (Si)?”

9

Yeah, i think so, I used to write stuff like poker manuals in my free time, and poker really isn’t something you can get coherently in a system, still i tried anyway. Now i’ll be saying fuck it more often if things don’t add up to perfect coherence. I still revert - so i do see it as negative - back into INTP sometimes, when i’m not high on confidence. Philosophy being something i want to lay off too :mrgreen: .

Reading Nietzsche, and a better understanding of logic, language and knowledge as something humans do, and not something of the world really has shattered my motivation to “discover” coherent wholes. Now i see it as something we create, and thus more as tools for my goals…

My fundamental outlook has changed, my habits don’t allways follow at times.

Come to think of it, maybe i’ve allways had this dual aspect to my personality, extrovert-introvert.

10

I can relate (unless I’m interpreting your way in a way I relate to, rather than exactly what you meant :unamused: ).

Making a coherent system (to make something understandable), requires the basics to be seen/interpreted a certain way.

Tough to remain motivated when you have no assurance the system could clarify the fundamentally imprecise :neutral_face:

11

No, you got it exactly right (I used to get superabsorbed in these activities).

I wouldn’t necessarily see it as a bad thing though, unless you believe ones “personality” can’t change, if one can’t stop it, even in the light of crushing evidence.

Maybe that’s why INTP’s are said to be rare, because they eat their own tail.

12

To get back to you’re orgional question Sauwelios, I think the sensing-intuition distinction simply has to with scale or the timeframe in which you see things. Sensing will be more atomistic, more detailed, short-term, whereas intuition will tend towards bigger contexts, further in time or more “wholistic”.

I’m having a harder time seeing clear on the feeling-thinking distinction. They are both about decision-making, thinking seems to refer to a straightforward, organised, delineated, measured way of dividing things. The feeling way of decision-making seem to be a more messy way, with taking into account different perspectives, through empathy, and linking other emotions in the mix. Less structured and exact you could say :mrgreen:.

The P and J are straightforward.

I find the Introvert and extovert distinction the more difficult to make sense of. Especially because they are linked to the eight functions, and any person apparently only has 4.

13

I think that’s a pretty good description. I would emphasize that this movement (IE info gathering process) should be viewed in light of a “starting point” (for/from which one gathers information).

The starting point will always be (IE if one could explain that initial focus) described as some word (or combination of words). However, this isn’t the best way to look at it (as the person has to use words to describe it)–though one has to use a word to describe it, that doesn’t mean the starting point for that person was actually the word.

Say someone is showed a Rorschach inkblot and asks what they see.

Hypothetically (this is just an exaggeration ignoring specific primary function, any other functions, life experiences, etc.), the extreme “senser” would say something like “some shapes” or “an inkblot”. The image is interpreted according to data that everyone would sense (and agree can be described with those words).

Also an exaggeration, the extreme “intuitor” would say something abstract
(that is not linked to the “sense data”–of an inkblot and shapes that can be outlined within it–in such a way just about everyone would “get it”), like “hope” or “Radicalism”.

I’ll get more specific later in this post; I’m going to try to clearly differentiate between introvert and extrovert (in terms of typology functions, not all-encompassing personality type), and then describe Ni, Ne, Si and Se.

IMO, the biggest reason it may be tough to clearly see the distinction is because you’re trying to fit them into a system that is clearly formulated with specific, precise terminology/words (IE - trying to accurately understand/describe/rationalize feeling with thinking :smiley: ).

I’ll try to give examples of functions Fe, Fi, Te and Ti, which may appear vague at first, but I think will make a nice set up for trying to explain the difference between I and E (which I think can be confusing… maybe because of the predominant meanings–and common connotations–of those words).

Let’s say the below different types are reacting to the image of a woman spanking her child in the grocery store (I don’t mean to suggest any relevance/association with any of the functions and any respective moral judgments of the behavior).

Fe - That mother has no understanding of her child’s experiences, and that kind of behavior will only further the distance.
Te - That’s what happens when a parent takes a child to a grocery store without following a plan that sufficiently accounts for the child’s diet, fatigue, personal worldview and associated goals
Fi - If it weren’t for that poor child I’d give that horrible woman a smack of my own
Ti - The mother would make it a lot easier on the both of them if she was thoughtful enough to communicate to her child in a way he could understand.

And here are some coinciding professions for each:

Fe - Marriage Counselor, Occupational Psychologist
Te - Event Planner, Statistician, Historian
Fi - Social Worker, Minister
Ti - Translator, Philosopher, Mechanical Engineer

I actually think this one can be pretty confusing–mostly because, in terms of the functions, these are sort of an after affect. This is a confusion resulting from Jungs functions being altered slightly into the Myers-Briggs.

Originally, Jung theorized two separate pairs of cognitive functions:

  1. thinking and feeling
  2. sensing and intuition

He called the former “rational”, as they go with making decisions and judgments (thinks you verbally/consciously “rationalize”),
and the latter “irrational”, as they go with gathering information and perceiving.

Myers-Briggs added the J and P to the end when they turned the operation of different interrelated functions onto 16 distinct types. Basically, the Judging - Perceiving is an add-on at the end that emphasizes the function the type uses to relate to the external world.

If one actually a) determined their type by studying functions, rather than where they feel they go, overall, between each 4 things, and b) understood the below basic idea (in bold), the types ending with P and J are pretty much superfluous (other than to emphasize one’s dominant function to differentiate between “ENF”, for example).

Basis behind J or P in type:

(J = “rational” function = thinking and feeling)
(P = “irrational” function = sensing and intuition)

  • If dominant function is introverted, person relates to world with auxiliary (extroverted) function
  • If dominant function is extroverted, person relates to world with dominant function
    (if dominant function is rational, auxiliary is irrational, and vice-versa)

Because of how the function works, the J and P at the end of the types emphasize that the person with a J relates to the world with their preferred judging function (thinking or feeling), and the P type relates with preferred perceiving function (sensing or intuition). If the type is an introvert, that function (preferred P or J) that they relate to the external world with is their auxiliary functions; for extroverts it’s their primary.

Take Sauwelios, for instance. He relates to ISTJ.

The dominant function for ISTJ is Si. But can you imagine an Si functioning with the external world? It’s the drive to examine data, but the data is going on “inside” (IE some word results in the mind experiencing memories/past information relating to that data). You can’t function in the external world with this alone–you’d be unresponsive to the environment and wouldn’t communicate to anyone! Rather, he relates to the world and communicates with people with his auxiliary Te function. He’s like a historian, pulling out data from different texts (often Nietzsche references) all over the place, setting them all in a certain order as support for a certain argument (that argument being the initial motivation, and all that data as related external data).

Well I think the problem is that the popular meaning of the words (as all-encompassing personality identifiers) confuses things. The types shouldn’t be attempted to express “introvertedness” and “extrovertedness” in terms of common categorizations of likes, dislikes, sociability, etc. Rather, they should be seen in light of whether or not the initial stimulus (context/starting point of movement) directs attention outside of it or inside of it. Though this usually involve looking to the external world versus “living in one’s own mind”, it isn’t always that easily divided, and the overall qualifier is the STIMULUS/starting point (making sense of it by looking inside of it and its parts versus making sense of it by looking outside of it to related things to compare/contrast it to), not the (delusional) self (concept).

Let’s say different dominant function types are asked a certain question:

How does one pursuit happiness?

Possible answers reflecting function types:

Te - Follow a step by step plan that carefully moves one towards happiness while avoiding predicted obstacles.
Logical system constructed to build a bridge (from current state to goal of happiness) that is inspired by/in light of/determined by/has meaning from goal of getting to happiness, but exists outside it (encompasses it). Example: Research.

Ti - Ensure that A) Happiness is confidently equated with the attainment/fulfillment of/oneness with a concrete kind of circumstance (defined as having certain specific, clearly and easily referenced objects arranged in some necessary way) and B) it is possible to arrange that circumstance without taking actions or utilizing belief systems that impede or contradict defined “Happiness”.
Logical system that investigates the inner parts/meanings/etc. that makes the thing what it is (what it should be). Example: Neo :laughing:

Fe - By making the best of their situations
To be happy is to not be in conflict with your environment. Example: Gautama Buddha

Fi - By being true to oneself
Judgments (of right and wrong) predominately based off how things are sensed as confirming one’s values. As long as one stays true to those values, one limits amount of “bad” regularly experienced. Example: Artist

Does that clarify things a bit?

14

Yes, I think I see clear on this distinction. I’m not sure if i understand the difference between the I en E addons though. I quickly scanned the rest of you posts and saw you gave examples of the T-F distinction to demonstrate the difference. I think it’s more clear there. Especially for intuïtion this seems to a problem because you’ll allways have to take some larger context into account, and that can only be done via memory. So it’s allways introvert to some extent. Or am i missing something?

Maybe claryfication via an example could help. I saw a flag with some advertising on this afternoon and was specifically thinking about it in this context.

The S-I distinction is reasonably clear. S will typically sense what the flag and advertisment looks like, e.g. the color, shape, what is being advertised, how it’s moving in the wind…

Intuïtion will look more for larger stories, why is that flag with that advertisement being placed there, by whom? Can I link these questions with other things i know from other contexts. I know the owner of the house for instance, i know what he does… this way you can see a larger picture. Now, I think what I just described may be Ne.

Could Ni then be something like, accessing this memory later, after the fact, and comparing shapes, aestetics, forms of the advertisements… and forming an idea’s of what good advertising is?

I’ll cut it short here, i have to go, i’ll get back to the rest of the post later. And Thanks you for taking the time to explain this! It’s interesting :mrgreen: .

15

Sure thing, Diekon! I’ve been enjoying it; it’s been quite a few years (and quite a few significant “concept-rearrangements”) since I last tried to make sense of this, so I’m reading up on it and learning as I try to better explain how I see them.

I’m sorta thinking that typology (the the clear distinction/meaning of opposing functions) is easier to “understand” the more “concrete” one’s idea of the words are (in an all-encompassing sense). IE I’m thinking if Ti is one’s dominant or auxiliary (which is also very habitually used) function, one is less likely to just equate (and accept) that “sensing” = data (“real things”), “intuition” = creativity, and then define (“understand”) those words in light of these other “real things”.

I totally understand this confusion. I used to associate introversion with intuition as well. The problem is thinking of introversion as “focus on what’s going on in the mind” and extroversion “focus on the outside world”. However, as you know (if I am correctly connecting your name as the user of certain posts I’ve read), one’s focus on the outside world is in the mind as well. Both intuition and sensing are inseparable from memory.

I think it might help if I make a diagram.

Here:

Maybe claryfication via an example could help. I saw a flag with some advertising on this afternoon and was specifically thinking about it in this context.

It’s not that so much–they all start with being affected by physical characteristics of the flag. It’s more that sensing moves according to focusing on the concept of that thing (the word that everyone agrees to use to refer to that sense), while intuition moves according a meaning behind that thing (that others may not equate with the “real thing”).

16

I don’t know about in the MB system, but the best definition I ever got for the introvert/extrovert distinction was a question: Where do you get your energy from?

There are plenty of hyper social people, outgoing, wonderful people. People that everyone would describe as an “extrovert”. But they need some time alone each day, time to recharge their batteries, if you will. Those people are, in fact, introverts. Social, wonderful people, but introverts.

The opposite example would be shut-ins who find no satisfaction in it. Their time alone gives them nothing – they need to be around a group of people to recharge their batteries. So, to satisfy that urge they’ll go to a concert or club alone are rock their Dionysian selves.

There are extroverts who spend most of their time alone. There are introverts who spend all their time surrounded by other people – that simple analysis doesn’t answer the question. It is more about where they draw their energy from.

17

Yes, that makes sense, Ti seems to be about rearanging words, concepts, shifting meaning. The opposite of essentialism. I like the concept “concept-rearrangements”. I don’t think it comes very naturally to me.

Yes, i agree, and it sounds like something I might have said.

Thank you for trying Matthatter, but I’m still at loss what the difference between Ne-Ni could be.

I think i’m not one to spew all kinds of self aggrandizing esoteric stuff arround, but i’m gonna do it here anyway… :mrgreen: . I think i have a keen sense of what’s going to happen, before most do. And not in a short time frame, like someone sensing eratic behaviour of a driver in a lane before them and taking the decision to switch lanes. I’ll typically miss those. But on a larger scale, i’ll steadily take in information from a wide variaty of different sources in my enviroment… and all of a sudden know where some things are going. Often i don’t know how to explain it, which can be very frustrating if convincing people is neccessary. It’s like vectors all being alligned in the same direction, if that makes any sense.

Ne or Ni?

I think it’s the vital part if i want to know where i fit in the sceme, because i use it so much.

18

Okay, i did some research (i want to get to the bottom of this).

Ne seems to refer to seeing a range different possibilities, possible courses of action. It’s more open ended, divergent.

Ni then is seeing what is likely to happen based on a range of facts. It’s eliminating, working towards a conclusion, convergent.

It works even beter if the different deciding functions are tied into it. For example Ti working to eliminate the different possibilities provide by Ne and working toward a logical conclusion, and Te working to veryfy the flashes of Ni, and working out a course of action in the light of this conclusion.

19

I just lurve those personality-type tests, and I always come out the same too, so they are consistent if one is consistent… 8-[

20

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=170931 - try this test and find out what TYPE you are… :wink: