How to Type Someone: Part III: Typing Yourself
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- I WROTE A BOOK:
Purchase the print paperback: www.amazon.com...
Purchase the ebook pdf: subjectobjectmi...
__________________
Patreon? Patreon anyone? / michaelpierce
Video Script: subjectobjectmi...
I hope everyone had a very happy holidays! I'm back with another video. It's a bit rough around the edges in my opinion, though, but I hope it is still informative. And I know there are several inquiries given to me that I have not yet answered for the past two days: I have no forgotten you guys! I will hopefully be able to answer you tomorrow!
I do not own copyright to any of the pictures.
I think most struggle with typing themselves because they have been unduly influenced by issues in childhood. If your needs are not attended to, if your feelings and wants are not respected, if your are abused or rejected, you will struggle to understand yourself and will feel parts of yourself are invalid or wrong.
Great point, I had an interesting realization recently along these lines, using the framework of Dario Nardi's subtypes where a function can be a more yin or yang variation (analytic/holistic is another way he put it). I believe that with my main functions (not certain about the order), my extroverted functions are the more fluid variation (Te and Se) and my introverted functions are the more solid variation (Fi and Ni). Here's the interesting bit and it's a bit of a chicken egg question. I've historically had issues with people-pleasing, which may have caused me to suppress the more solid variation of Se and/or Te and go into the fluid version regardless of preference, as those are inherently a more externally expressed function. And then hidden/protected myself inside by embracing the solid variations of the introverted functions. BUT, the chicken-egg part is, did it play out that way, or is it that my preferences were already that way and because they were already that way, it made me more likely to do people-pleasing as a response. Like if my initial preference for the extroverted functions was the solid version, maybe I wouldn't have developed a people-pleasing response and would have developed a combative one instead. It's hard to say which comes first and why.
@@TransparentLabyrinth Wow, response to a 3 year old post. Pleasing people should be a normal expression of you personality. People pleasing is a reflexive response where we deny and fail to stand up for our own best interests. It's a trauma response (fawn), others are fight, freeze, flight.
The former should make you feel good about yourself, that latter will make you question yourself and make you wonder why you do it.
I don't think looking at this through the lens of personality is that helpful. It's much better to look at your actions and reactions to events and evaluate how they make you feel and whether they seem appropriate for the situation. The caveat to that is for people with personality disorders, in which case self evaluation of behavior is rarely going to be seen objectively.
I agree with this. For example if you were an introverted feeling type who was never allowed to have any autonomy and ended up growing up being a people pleaser you could easily think that you were an extroverted feeling type.
I understand the functions and the axes completely, but yet I cannot, for some reason figure out which ones I myself have. I can easily manipulate myself to feel or think one way or another, making it difficult to see which attributes I truly contain. Do you have any specific methods or ways to make it easier for one to see which attributes they themselves, objectively have?
RainingDynasty I know what you're talking about, and I've worried about people having that sort of problem. When I've studied these concepts I've questioned my own type a bit, just to see if I really did prefer the functions I thought I did or if I was really one way or the other. It can be very hard to decide on a preference, especially if its YOU doing the deciding, and not somebody typing you, or a test typing you, and even people don't like to be pinned down.
I think something important to remember though, is that because I am able to make a video about other people's preferences and understand them completely, then psychological preferences do not present an unbreachable barrier between people. That doesn't mean we "switch types" or are "between types" either. What it means is its perfectly natural to find that you relate to both sides. I see the good in both sides. The trick is, I think, to determine which is more innate in you, or which resounds more naturally for you, or which has struck you more as you've grown up. It's not a matter of alienating yourself from the other manner of thinking, but of determining which one is more naturally performed by your psyche, and that is often a question of comfort. Which side are you more comfortable with?
Like I've said before, I think another important step is making a decision, and then sticking with it, even if it's "wrong". You'll figure it out eventually, but I personally think that decisiveness at least puts the system to use if you have a lot of trouble figuring it out.
I don't suppose that helps?
Michael Pierce
Thank you, I see what you mean. I've always had a little trouble deciding whether I was an INTP or INFP (I've contemplated INFJ and INTJ as well), as I've always had a struggle between the logical and value-based sides of my brain. Your idea of sticking to a type at least for now is a good one, and after delving into this even more-so, I believe I'll settle on INTP for now, as I feel as if the Ti/Fe axis fits me more correctly, than the Te/Fi axis. However, if I find later that this is untrue for me, or that I'm actually an INFJ and not an INTP, then at that point I'll know. Thank you very much for your advice and keep up with the good work!
RainingDynasty I'll give you the same advice I gave to TheMaleAvenger above:
In determining your own type, it's helpful to focus on character flaws and persistent quirks rather than what you're good at - your talents are a useful pointer, but it's much easier to acquire competence in something than to erase deeply rooted flaws. Thus they more reliably hint at your type than strengths do.
Personalitypage's personal growth pages have a decent list of potential flaws and quirks to check yourself against:
www.personalitypage.com/html/INFP_per.html
www.personalitypage.com/html/INTP_per.html
www.personalitypage.com/html/INFJ_per.html
www.personalitypage.com/html/INTJ_per.html
Secondly, the different function stacks give different types a distinct style of self-expression - there's something that's just right about the way people of the same type express themselves. They focus on the right things, express it in a way that makes sense, there's no unnecessary fluff, it's just all cozy and familiar.I can read a bunch of stuff written by NTPs or STPs and agree with them. I see that their point is good, their logic sound, but it's not quite the same.
The biggest thing, though? NTPs and STPs that I disagree with just look like complete fools, but even though I vehemently disagree with, say, Marx, there's something to his presentation that's still alluring because the way he takes in and processes information is the same. Reading ISTJs and INFJs - aux/tert Te/Fi and dominant Ni shared, respectively - feel like they're quite there, but something is a bit off.
So, if you're up for a good bit of reading, read the following pages including the More Quotes sections, paying especial attention to the people you disagree with. See what feels right, and you're probably on the mark:
www.celebritytypes.com/infp.php
www.celebritytypes.com/enfp.php
www.celebritytypes.com/intp.php
www.celebritytypes.com/entp.php
And for the Ni stacks:
www.celebritytypes.com/infj.php
www.celebritytypes.com/enfj.php
www.celebritytypes.com/intj.php
www.celebritytypes.com/entj.php
Third, if stressed and in an argument, do you tend to reply with a barrage of facts that can be rather unrelated to each other?
Are you more concerned with the particulars of what a person is saying, or do you try to figure out why he is saying it?
Do you find yourself binging on things like food, alcohol, tobacco, light drugs, sex, etc.?
+◎Emphenon◎ Being able to manipilate yourself into feeling and thinking like many types (and uncertainty about your own type) are both typical for INFPs.
Mitja Kocjancic I know. I've settled on INFP some time ago.
Your cadence and clarity is so calming, I love it
In the beginning there is the part about acting like your type until you don't think it works. The funny thing is that I am on the Fi-Te dimension, so in response to hearing this I want to instinctively not act like my type (Fi-Te individuating, and Ne playing around with another objective possibility of how I can act rather than conforming to properties "as is") but then I would be acting like my type by trying not to act like it.
Also, just generally thank you for helping people think in terns of the functions. I feel like tearing my hair out whenever I see people thinking in letters and the E/I J/P etc. dichotomies. But the letter-think is everywhere ;__;
RIP sanity
Yeah, I can tell you had trouble with the Si/Ne axis since you don't experience it directly and had to resort to comparing it to Ni. I'm not blaming you, perceiving functions are _extremely_ hard to pin down concretely, so I understand completely why you did it this way, and you really did your best to present it in an impartial manner.
Really useful. More so than other videos I have watched. Not only has this helped to clarify my type but what you say about settling into that type makes sense. It will either fit or not. Thanks.
THANK YOU for making this video- these explanations made so much sense to me, and made me much more confident in my self-type as an INTJ. I've tested as both INTJ and ISTJ in the past, and I've always identified more with the INTJ type descriptions, but I haven't been sure until now.
You have. I'm still not sure of whether or MB/Typology is BS it not. But the why you summarize does make logical sense if any if this is based on fact. Retoric!
Keep em coming!
Did you make your mind up about whether typology is BS or not?
This helped me sit well with my type as an INFP (Now that I actually know it!), I've claimed another type before and actually done so on one or two of your videos. That was me however focusing on the really non-important stereotypes. And them distracting me from getting to the actual differences in the functions. I feel kinda stupid now, though to my defense there's a TON of people spouting these overly subjective petty stereotypes as if they're all matter-of-fact. I feel there's far to much overlap within most of their 'behavioral' claims that fall into every type or a lot of them at the same time. It's quite literally all some converse about and nothing on functions. (I've never felt that you've this by the way. I wanna make sure that's clear.)
I feel horrible for the other people out there that it's confusing, Causing them as I did to get lost in those 'claims' quite deeply and then becoming to skeptical,clouded, and or emotionally bias to actually make a concise decision. EVEN for a while after learning about all of the functions! No one 'wants' to be associated with those 'bullying' negative behavioral stereotypical claims, let alone the negative aspects of yourself that you're already aware of before you first start to learn about all of this.
I'm sorry I know that got a little rant(y) I apologize and do take some responsibility for my errors in my initial typing. To the video now specifically, this was super interesting and stimulating! As I was listening to you explain Fi/Te and Si/Ne it really resonated so well with me in a "natural" way "Even when you mention the Te part in a leading Fi user. It also showed me how 'my types' function stack is really quite an intriguingly awkward pairing. "I'm sure other people may feel the same with other types too".
So again very sorry for claiming a type beforehand I obviously not (much noob) and thank you taking the time to make this videos, I really enjoy the way you explain these things and contrast them it's very helpful!
Mac Hammac Hey! No need to apologize! You're good! I've been behind on responding to comments so that's why this is about a week late. But I want to thank you for your compliments and let you know that I really do appreciate them, particularly because you hit on pretty much exactly why I started making these videos in the first place, because I felt like no one was making videos or resources that laid things out in a reasonable, organized way; so yay! Someone feels I've succeeded! I'm glad these have been useful to you, and I hope I can continue to serve you well in the future!
Mac Hammac One less mistyped person in the world! Score!
Congratulations on finding your type ^_^
I'm positive that I'm an INTP thanks to your video. Thank you so much for this.
Also want to add that I like your advice about choosing one type and sticking with it....I thought for several years that I was an INTJ...I happened to take the test again and scored INTP and looked into that one and determined that it was my actual type.
Jim Meyers So your other comment mysterious disappeared, so I'm replying to it here.
Cool! I'm glad they were so useful to you! And it is definitely a lot to take in -- but I'm here to do whatever I can to help in understanding it better: if there's anything that you're having trouble wrapping your head around, I can try to help dice things up better for you. That always helped me immensely, anyway.
As for your questions, I originally wanted to be mysterious and never reveal my type, but I broke that goal pretty quick, and have told anyone who asks that I identify with the INFJ personality. Although, depending on who you ask, some contend that I've mistyped myself and am INTP, or ISTJ in a few cases. But that's a different story.
I'm no expert, as I repeat again and again, mostly as an excuse for any mistakes I may make to tell the truth; I mention that because I don't know if I was really qualified to say that about Jung. But the ideas I was referring to were many of his essentially philosophical, mystical, and scientifically unusable ideas, such as the collective unconscious and its archetypes, which are more useful for literary analysis in my unprofessional experience. There is also his work with symbols and interpreting dreams. The work I am primarily familiar with is "Psychological Types", where he discusses the direct connection of an overly extroverted attitude and the medical term of his day for hysteria. Obviously, this isn't useful to us today because the definitions and categorizations of "hysteria" have changed. Both Jung and Freud and many of their contemporaries from what I understand were the ground breakers of cognitive psychology, and as they were literally working from ground zero, its remarkable what they did, and I have a deep respect for them. However, at ground zero they were very philosophical, and did not make the same distinctions between fields that we do now.
But I'm not an expert, and I have a bad habit of talking authoritatively about things that I don't really have a right to. But that's my opinion, for what its worth.
Michael Pierce Thanks for your thoughtful response Michael. I deleted my previous comment because I did not want a certain someone to see it..if you know what I mean.
I began looking at MBTI's about 4 years ago when I was introduced to it. But about a year ago or so I had the good fortune of running across the audio of Jung's work "Man and His Symbols"...which at the time I felt was the most important book for me personally to that point in my life....it seemed to grapple with a lot of the questions...both conscious and unconscious that I've had in my life. After that I really dove deeply into Jung....BTW I strongly encourage anyone to start reading Jung. I think that maybe one of the reasons that I connect with Jung is because we have similar psychological type and view of the world.
Your comments about the collective unconscious is a typical response, IMO, of anyone who really has not examined Jung's works. I am particularly interested in Jung's theories of the unconscious. Jung gives numerous citations of how and why he came up with his theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious. He came up with that theory because he had clinical observations to support it. This is clearly stated over and over in his works with examples. His theory of the archetypes came from logical and rational conclusions.
I am concerned with uncovering truth. I try to look for authoritative information on psychological types and the unconscious and have trouble finding it. I really believe that these subjects are still "up in the air". I think that modern psychology is going in the wrong direction by not pursuing Jung's ideas...of course that's my opinion.
IMHO, I think Jung's psychology is a lot closer to the truth than what modern psychologists believe.
Am i using NE if i'm looking at as many information sources as i can and constantly re-evaluate what my type actually is? I watch videos from many people and read various articles.Of course,i'm also going through this process as was suggested by Interpersonality(here on UA-cam) but then again,i have always felt against taking a free online MBTI test.I had this inner pressure,a bad gut feeling whenever i thought of taking a test again as if to say:i don't want to. Partly because i was taking answering these questions seriously.
Well, from what I know about Ne, and from what I've seen of it in others, my answer would be *yes*, your never-ending search for your type is itself predicted by your own Ne.
Michael Pierce
Thank you for the information.
Couldn’t Se also do the same thing in terms of constantly seeking more data points in order to eventually arrive at a convergent Ni conclusion that provides some synthesis of all the raw Se data? This is what I believe that I do when I keep searching more sources (datapoints) in order to seek the ultimate answer (Ni).
I may just be looking into it too far but as an ENFP I wonder if advising to choose a type first shows an fe bias, maybe ni (but I need to review the perceiving function axis more). Thanks for the great videos I find your overview of this branch of personality theory the most coherent.
I got infp, then realised after a bit, i am someone who likes routine and order. The trying to be very fervently infj i after much confusion found within this foggy woods im an intj, an the cause of many of my problems was i was trying and even beleiving i was messed up as an infj not just an intj and that was all. Using my weakest function as my axillary was catastrophic in a way but i learn
So why do you have Se connected to Si in that image when you're talking about the axes? (which are presumably Se and Ni and so on?
Nice vid! Yeah, I'm definitely an INFJ, and this video just confirms it more.
INTJ here. Great work as always.
Not surprisingly, my question for you Michael involves taking this understanding and applying it in a measurable, goal-oriented way:
According to your interpretation of Jung's framework, each person has two axes and a point on the spectrum of each axis, creating a unique combination and thus personality.
In order to live a "balanced" life, should a person spend more time and energy "exercising" their preferred functions, or do the opposite? For example, for an INTJ, should I put more time into exploring ideas with my Ni (which I tend to do by default anyway), or should I put extra effort into in-the-moment sensory experience? What about attempting to allocate "equal" time to all four?
Thank you for your thoughts.
INTJ here. I'd recommend trying activities that tie Se use to the fulfilment of your more conscious functions - read interesting books in paperback so you have the physical sensations of handling the book, sing soaring, melodic songs so Fi can celebrate to its heart's content (I find singing better than an instrument - maybe due to Ni's love for words). If you play things like card games, Chess or Go, play them in person for the game pieces. Maybe try competitive action games, martial arts or the like as hobbies. Things where you both work to understand systems and employ Se physicality to a lesser or greater extent.
I find a smidge of alcohol amazing for parties - just enough to get tipsy, but not enough to shut the brain down. At least with me it moves my first impulses towards a mellow Fi/Se operation where the first impulse to express myself isn't an analytical word but a something physical like hugging people or just laughing. This is obviously pure indulgence instead of any kind of integrative activity, but it's fun so can't hurt every now and then, now can it? ^_^
I've been asked similar questions before: from what I understand, you can't really help but exercise your more dominant functions unless you are in the most stressful or restrictive (and therefore unusual) of situations. That's why they're dominant, because you prefer to use them. It would seem to use less energy for you. So I think if you're going to exercise a function, it would be your tertiary and inferior functions. And then it is a matter of finding things, rather like Komatik explained, that help do that, such as writing to express yourself or taking up a hobby like martial arts. The other suggestion I could make would be to meet and work with people who express your tertiary or inferior functions more dominantly, which will often unconsciously inspire growth and development there. So the short answer is, exercise the more inferior functions because your dominant functions do it naturally.
Hi Michael,
Do you have a transcript of the audio? Google's auto-generated one is accurate, but there are some issues here and there. I'd like to really process this meticulously and maybe add the pictures you use in the video to really gain a deeper understanding of things.
ohex fourteen Hey -- good call. I need to step it up with contributing my own subtitles. I've done it for a few. But anyway, I can definitely send you a transcript. How would you prefer it sent to you?
Michael Pierce Awesome. Email is probably the best bet: 0x1458@gmail.com . Thank you so much for replying! Your videos are informative and quite authoritative.
ohex fourteen I have just sent the script to you! Let me know if it hasn't reached you...
But I do appreciate these videos and their contents. Very well done.
Thank you for clarifying this more for me, it was incredibly helpful.
longing is such a great word for ni-se. I must say though on first watch I still don't understand the differences in the judging functions. I find them far less plain than the perceiving ones.
Good vid, further cemented my judgement that I'm an INTJ. I'd like to pitch my tent or find a cave to settle down in, but damned if I'm not also looking to get a good fire going. Wild animals are scared of fire, if I got both my cave (hopefully not also occupied by a bear or swarm of bats) or tent and the fire, I'm one happy camper fully confident that I probably won't be dying that night.
I also see objects for their properties. A girl is beautiful (or at least most people will say so) because her proportions and outward appearance fit what most would see to be attractive. She's thin, symmetrical, has "soft" features, curves in all the "right" places, ect. If I want to break X I'll likely need to grab something "harder" than it or at least something substantially more massive (brute force, if it ain't working you simply aren't using enough of it).
However, I'm infinitely curious as to how I could pull it off unexpectedly (i.e. break the hard object with a softer or less massive one). As our understanding of the world is incomplete at the moment, and I lack omniscience, most anything is possible in reality (even what scientists say is "impossible" and the like). I know the "likely" outcome of given actions better than most anyone I know, but I am also painfully aware of the unexpected or unpredictable. The only way to limit this, to compensate for the infinite possibilities and more efficiently arrive at a desired outcome, is to get more knowledge. Learn more, understand more, and use that to get what you want ASAP. Learn about and understand the world as it truly is, or die/be condemned to ultimate failure. That's how I feel about the world, and that probably resonates with any well developed INTJ.
Great video as always Michael! For a suggestion: I've always been interested in the social implications of Jungian philosophy. How the functions relate and interact with one another within family, society etc.
Just look around you. You can see Fe types bending over backwards trying to accommodate others, stubborn Fi users clashing with each other with no resolution in sight. You can see the physical liveliness of the Se types, or those of them who just radiate energy even if they're not particularily fiddly.
Meanwhile in some corner of the party an INTJ is boring some poor souls to death with a long-ass lecture because they made the mistake of asking his opinion on something and now he feels the need to pour out a whole Ni vision with precise Te language.
Komatik I meant more like what jobs each type is good at with regards to things such as leadership, nurturing, organizing, etc. I've never seen a concise explanation of the complex workings of a society based on personality theory.
Probably because being concise and remotely accurate on a subject like that is impossible.
Not sure what you're trying to prove here--it's just a suggestion. I'm not trying to argue anything. I can openly say that I don't know much about it, and since I like the way Michael presents information, I gave him a suggestion. It's entirely possible to present the general ideas of the theories of any subject.
I'm not trying to argue here either, per se. Just trying to say that the topic is very complex and broad (and highly speculative too, when you start generalizing individual thought patterns into something on a large scale), so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that a concise explanation of it doesn't exist.
You’re very good at this
thank you for this
I have some questions about the very end, but also want to say amazing job at teaching these. They are much clearer in my head now. My questions are about when you showed the stack at the end, it was TeFi and NeSi, but how does Fi dominant on that picture imply INFP? Does the dominant relate to one of the four in this set: INFP, ENFP, ISTJ, ESTJ? Am I drawing the correct conclusion tying that set to TeFi+NeSi?
Hello, just wondering what I used as a perceiving in the large red ball when you were discussing the Se-Ni axis. What came to my mind was a globe. Thanks!
This is so fantastic.
Perception axis is tricky one, thanks to Ne/Si. I was actually sure that I was Ne/Si user, but because of my nature, was starting to doubt it again and again. My mind tends to see both Ne and Se as sensation, and Si and Ni as something inner and helping the sensation, maybe memory, or even archetypes. The naming of S as sensation doesn't help and makes it confusing. One naming that is good enough, I think, is concrete and abstract (thanks to cognitive type theory by Juan). I like to assume that our vision (eyes) all works the same way. If that's true, then Ne/Se is probably has something to do with the processing of the already perceived vision (and other senses...or, is it?). Maybe it has something to do with time? Is it accumulated/associated through time or perceived as static images? Or maybe it has to do with a single image being processed all at once while the other processes it detail by detail. I also consider the possibility that part of what's described as Ne is actually Si (association, connection, possibilities, imagination), while Si is actually Ne (impression, atmosphere, and something else I still don't know). Because I tend to see it like this: Environment > Pe > Ji > memory > Pi > Je > environment. All as one flow from sensation to motor action, which might be incorect, but seems interesting and sensible to me. It drives me to redefine all of these functions according to that flow.
Sorry for rambling in bad English.
This is really your most comprehensive video yet, ragtag though it may or may not be.
I am curious if you have ever heard of the 24 subtype MBTI theory? To my knowledge, though not much yet has been read into the idea, the idea is that the cognitive functions behave more fluidly than the standard MBTI function stack description. The idea behind having a 24 subtype system is that you rearrange the four letters of each type, from highest to lowest based on how you score on an MBTI test. So for example, under the 24 subtype system, I would be a an NFIP. How I see this effecting cognitive functions, is with myself for example, though I consistently score higher in iNtuition than in Feeling, I end up typing as an INFP even on cognitive function tests, because though relate strongly to both the descriptions of Ne & Ni (though I slightly lean more towards Ne), I relate and identify most instinctively with Fi above any other rational or irrational function.
wambly.weebly.com/the-24-infp-subtypes.html
The problem with the thing you presented is that it's thinking in letters, and thinking in letters sucks. The functions are the whole point of typology. You're not a Thinker or a Feeler, you're both, everyone is. The question is what kind of feeler and what kind of thinker. The thing you linked to seems more like a hackjob theory for people wanting to feel more like a special snowflake.
As far as I'm concerned the type code is a good shorthand to reconstruct the actual functional stack, little else.
I create handmade bead bracelets. I look at the beads I have on hand; the colors, patterns, and shapes. I visualize a design and begin working on it. I may have a passing thought that a kind of bead I do not yet have would be visually pleasing, yet I focus mainly on what is available. There is no long term planning of individual designs: I just do whatever looks good. Please analyze.
Hey Michael, so what about feti vs fite in regards to perception of beauty? Is it an tife thing to look at an inanimate object and feel like there is something *something* unexplicably beautiful because of something about it?
Nietzsche approves! /sternface:'D
My thoughts on the video:
I think you did Te/Fi justice. The warmth of an inner fire vs. forcible organization of the outside is very apt. Something about the Se/Ni axis breakdown bothers me though.
I view Se as a camera and the feeling of being "sunken" into the space I am in (in contrast a friend described the experience of Si as playing a computer game - there's you, and then there's the world, and they're highly separate).
Si observes, drinks in the experience and then catalogues it away as the experience itself, or an impressionistic painting or something of the sort. A thing that captures and stores the feeling and organizes it.
For Ne/Ni, I really like yeghor's wormhole/black hole analogy, though a river in a complex container might be a better analogy for Ne. It goes everywhere, finds somewhere that it can go and then goes there on new explorations. The current is probably not very strong, unless amplified by Fi, lending it a gentle quality.
Black hole though, spot on. I don't like the fuzzy lens as an analogy for Ni because while it does kind of highlight the impression-centric quality of both introverted sensing functions, the fuzzy lens doesn't really capture the associative quality of the function. I love the idea of Si as an archive especially of impressionistic paintings, because it captures both the content and the method of operation. For Ni, the black hole feels apt - it's a snare that collects things - doesn't matter if you're an idea, a physical object, a strand of light, even a note of music - once you're past the event horizon, you're done. You get sucked in and crushed into a part of something singular.
Another potential analogy would maybe be a quilt of ideas - it's a patchwork of many things that will take ages to describe accurately with Te/Se language, but it's still very recognizably a single quilt. The images themselves can be fact, impressionistic feeling, whatever. But it's only there to look at and marvel, not to wrap into right now. Basking in the warmth and fuzzy is Se's job.
All in all, I don't feel like forcing the perceptive axes into a single metaphor is necessarily fruitful - their complementary nature comes from how they grasp time: Si catalogues past experience while Ne is looking into the future (especially the near/immediate future? Ne dom/aux users, halp!). Se lives in the here and now, Ni everywhere but the here and now.
Komatik Ne & Ni both simulate reality. It's the reasons that differ. Ni is a simulated reality with fixed physical laws & fixed paradigms--it then goes to explore the many ways that universe goes. Ne, on the other hand, simulates multiple realities mixing & matching physical laws & paradigms at will. However due to the obsession for creating a plethora of multiverses, the simulated universes are not as in-depth (and I daresay NOT AS "ACCURATE" as the Ni users' God-mode world-building).
In other words, an Ni user is your software developer specializing in the mastery of a specific code whereas an Ne user is the hacker that learns multiple programming languages in order to be better at hacking.
Komatik haha to put it simply, an Ni user will think that general relativity & special relativity are the holy grail of science whereas the Ne user will probably argue that quantum mechanics is the holy grail.
Hi Michael, INFP here. I'm getting a much broader (and abstract) understanding of the axis with your explanation, except with the Ne-Si one (which is of course, mine). I have read the script and watched that part of the video several times and I'm still really confused by the way you're explaining it. And while reading the comments below I found that you posted this:
"Si/Ne = 'examining'; what is the Truth behind the multiple perspectives from which we can view things?".
Ni/Se = 'conjecturing'; what is the meaning or bottom-line of all this information and data?".
I didn't quite get the difference between those two definitions, and I'd actually relate them both with the Ni/Se axis. So, I really have a void in my understanding of your perspective on Ne/Si. I know my doubt is too general, but if you could give me some clarity it would be great, I really think the way you have of sharing knowledge is truly a gift of yours.
I've loved the descriptions you've had for the type axes, and in an attempt to better grasp them I've tried to think of them in terms of the central focus of each axis.
for si-ne, what is self-evident, the essence and purpose of things
for te-fi, what are the costs and benefits -- the power and control
for ti-fe, what is accurate and verifiable -- the facts and mastery
for se-ni, what produces the greatest yield -- cool and popular stuff, fame
i know you're busy but i'd appreciate any feedback :) i've never seen axes discussion before; it's pretty eye-opening
+Michael Kiyoshi Thank you! I'm glad you've found them so useful! I think what would be most useful for you is my more recent videos on the axes, where I refine my ideas quite a bit and (hopefully) make them a little easier to understand. But in general, I would describe the axes this way:
Si/Ne = 'examining'; what is the Truth behind the multiple perspectives from which we can view things?
Se/Ni = 'conjecturing'; what is the meaning or bottom-line of all this information and data?
Fe/Ti = 'translating'; what am I thinking and how can I communicate that?
Te/Fi = 'operationalizing'; what am I feeling or desiring and how can I efficiently get it?
Judgement Axes: ua-cam.com/video/GXCnhWVC8yY/v-deo.html
Perceiving Axes: ua-cam.com/video/aG8ii-2hhEQ/v-deo.html
michael kiyoshi wow. This was actually clearer to me than mike pierce's video! Hahahahahaha but yes I think that sums it up pretty well! (still, kudos to michael pierce, his videos are invaluable for my research into mbti)
@@MichaelPiercePhilosophy what do you think about these examples you gave tehre today, now 5 years later?
I am glad i found this video after years. I typed myself like a year ago as infj bc i related to its topics without actually getting deep into the functions. I just started learning about them and came to conclusion that i am for sure an Ti Fe user and couldn’t figure out whether i am Si Ne or Se Ni. After watching this video i came to conclusion i relate more to the Se Ni. I just hold onto morals and values bc i am religious and will argue and disagree with someone if they violate that code.
Hmm, this is very thought-provoking. I can only speak from subjective experience, since I don't have too much objective information on the matter, so I will do that..
I don't see how this helps someone choose between Fe-Ti and Te-Fi, because I do feel like I'm lost in a foreign land and learning to speak the language of other people, trying to cope with the world I live in, but at the same I have the rough approach to things of a Te-Fi user who isn't afraid to get down and dirty with a very straightforward and blunt approach.
I have always been typed as INFP (Fi-Ne-Si-Te) from tests. Is there any point I'm missing in this?
Maybe I just need to keep watching your lectures and figure it out on my own, but something is nagging me to ask ahead of time anyway.
Very very nice and precise.. as another INFP I do feel that I see the whole picture but my opinion is my own and I would never claim that anybody else would or should see the same as me.. I have taken a lot of interest in typing lately because I(obviously as INFP) want to understand what brings people to do the things they do and think the things they think. My biggest trouble has always been worrying that people misunderstand my perception as universal truths when the matter of fact I want to open up people's minds to the world they live in.. I know from myself that I jump to conclusions very quickly which is a bad trait but I find that my observations are very accurate. The struggle lies in determining whether someone can understand things the way I do and I ultimately feel bad about this because I don't want to be concieved as someone who is better than others..
I'd like to know what type you are personally. My own hunch is xNFP because of your play with words, you don't want to be misunderstood and it shows in your dedication to replying with long comments.. I believe you have worked quite a bit on your Ti and Fe because you are able to confidently analyse and pinpoint some of the definitions you have made.. the Fe part is a hunch because you seem concerned about the community and the broader public understanding of typing.
I once heard someone say that Fe can be seen metaphorically as a group of people in a circle, people coming together and determining the value together by comparing results whereas Fi works more as a democracy where every opinion is unique and true, but a common ground must be found in order to create stability..
let me know what your thoughts are on the subject, if I am at all making sense. I would appreciate a Ti Ne answer... If that makes sense.. :)
Michael is an INxJ, and you sound like an INFJ to me. The way you talk about wanting to understand how people work and why people think the way they do is a classic example of Fe/Ti. Then on top of that I see you rely on your hunches a lot, my INFP friends never like to make definite hunches on people because thats not what Ne does. Ne likes to think about all the different possible and impossible possibilities about something/someone. I'm obviously not here to tell you who you are, but just stating my observation.
Oh and another thing, people who take the time to very carefully articulate what they are going to say before they actually say it are Ti users (this personality trait is most prevalent in INFJs.)
9:3 you mistakenly said "Ne" instead of Ni I think
Great video and explanation💜
One challenge I have with MBTI is with the idea that all types are equally desirable or useful or valuable. To me it's difficult not to see this as saying that someone who may have a tendency toward laziness and someone who has a tendency toward productivity ought to see those traits in one another as equal rather than see the laziness as a weakness or flaw.
Every good trait has its bad trait counterpart if misused.
My question is, what does Jungian typology say about our personality? How does cognition interact with our behavior? What does our cognition say about us? I’m not trying to disprove Jungian typology, more just trying to clear things up in my head.
As a likely INFP and a Moral Realist, I have no idea what to make of this video.
Ive come to the conclusion that I'm divergent!
What leads you to that conclusion?
I wonder if its statistically more likely for introverts to get a J P confusion. As like in socionics intjs are intps etc. The dominant function is opposite in orientation to the type as a whole.
Value IS subjective. That's a fact. For example, money has no intrinsic value. We just agree upon a made-up value, because it makes transactions more efficient. That's not "my limited perspective", it's simply true. If humanit stopped valuing money, stopped considering it a currency, you could no longer buy things with it, it'd be like any other piece of paper. Also, from my experience Ti doms/auxs (especially xNTPs) tend to agree that value is subjective, contrary to what you said in the video.
Hey, good video, it'll take a little time to digest the information and come to a conclusion on my type. I've definitely settled on Ne-Si and Fe-Ti axes. I definitely favor Ti over Fe and Ne and Si tend to be more equal-ish. I definitely don't move very fast in my judgment, and spend most of my time in my own mind. I've been rejected INTP as my type because I just don't like anyone in the INTP groups or relate to any of their Ti quarks, and I don't really relate to ISFJ too much either (besides passivity). Although, I do see myself as more of a slow moving observer that can also see many possibilities to what I interact with. I somewhat relate to some INFPs and INTJs. Sometimes, I can relate to the Fi-Te axis too. My mbti journey has been very confusing on settling on a type.
can i ask if Si-Ne axis are generally more indecisive than Se-Ni axis? or maybe, indecisiveness is not a valid point to differentiate two different perceiving axis. please help me clarify this,thank you.
I did not make it clear in this particular video, because my thoughts were still being refined (and they still are) -- but my answer is YES, I believe that the Ne/Si axis can be accurately described as more indecisive, in the sense that it operates by seeking more perspectives on an issue, tending towards multi-facetedness, rather than exploring the given perspective in all of its implications: intensity.
Michael Pierce thank you for the reply,that helps a lot. oh, and more question, to speak out things that crossed their mind (or, speak out what/how they feel) in bluntness (or being frank and honest), is it related to any cognitive function or is it not?
If you walk into a forest and admire the trees, smell the scented air, listen for the birds, and look for the animals, you are Ti - Fe.
I you bring a chain saw, you are Te - Fi.
ENFP, reporting in! I am so in love with this topic. So I've been trying to type my friends. After typing them, they would go "ok what does that mean?" and I would give them some off the hand explanation. But now my explanations have gotten longer, and more descriptive, to the point to where if I strung them together, they would be a coherent lesson. Could you please critic my explanation of the functions?
-------
extroversion vs introversion is your focus. extroversion is objective and introversion is subjective. you have two extroverted functions and two introverted functions.
judging vs perceiving is not what you think it is.
judging is making a decision based on thinking or feeling. these two words aren't what you think it is either. thinking is deciding something based on wether it is working or not. it is cold and straight forward. (a = b, b = c, ergo a = c). Feeling is deciding on something based on wether it is morally right. (a = good, b = bad, so I should do a)
perceiving is like your understanding based on intuition and sensing. intuition is your ability to understand concepts while sensing is your ability to understand reality.
so now you look at your functions.
introverted thinking (Ti) "how is something working to me"
extroverted thinking (Te) "how is something working to everyone else"
introverted feeling (Fi) "is this good to me"
extroverted feeling (Fe) "is this good to everyone else"
introverted intuition (Ni) "building ideas into one"
extroverted intuition (Ne) "breaking ideas into multiples"
introverted sensation (Si) "reality based on experience"
extroverted sensation (Se) "reality based on others experience"
SarcasmSunshine Well, if you want me to compare my understanding to yours, they're fairly similar. I essentially agree with your view of extroversion and introversion. I try to base it completely off of Jung's original words, which is that the extrovert has a good relationship with objects and adapts to objective information, while the introvert reserves a view interposed between them and the object, meaning a subjective idea that they adapt to despite objective information. But what that boils down to is what you said, a focus on objective vs. subjective.
Our views on judging and the judging functions are actually the same, so I'm not sure what I might have said to make that unclear. Judgment is focused on making decisions, or more specifically, coming to conclusions on things, forming criteria and seeing if things are "up to snuff" as it were. The two ways people do that are thinking and feeling, which I consider to be what you said they were with the very same examples (which I give in one of my own videos).
I understand perceiving to be just that "perceiving" or "seeing" something, "experiencing" something, and no more than that. In other words, you form no judgment about the thing, but are only observing it. It's not a matter of morality or whether its working, its simply what it is. A judgment can be formed later. Which I think is what you were saying by it being your "understanding" of a thing. Though, my idea of sensation and intuition does differ from yours, though I haven't discussed it in detail in my more recent videos, only the earlier ones. Sensation, though I often describe it by saying "reality", shouldn't be thought of as unable to understand concepts, or even uninterested in concepts, and somehow only interested in boring everyday stuff. That's just not the case. Everybody uses concepts all the time. What sensation does is looks at things themselves. It looks at concepts themselves, and records both their details and their patterns and their concepts and all that. Intuition doesn't look at objects, or rather, it looks at objects through a fuzzy lens, meaning it doesn't see and isn't interested in the object itself but what the object could be, or what we could imagine the object is, or what it seems to look like or associate with. So both sensation and intuition could look at the object of a chair, or they could look at the object of Freud's theory of dreams. Sensation looks at Freud's theory itself, or if the sensation is introverted, it looks at the subject's impression of Freud's theory itself, seeing it for what it is and nothing more or less. Intuition however, doesn't actually get around to looking at the object itself, but is immediately thinking of and investing associations into the object to relate it to other things. If the intuition is extroverted, the associations are derived from the object itself. If the intuition is introverted, then the associations are seen as derived from an interpretation of the object.
I actually drew a diagram for my friend the other day. I'm also an ENFP - but so is she so she was all excited 😆
Hey Michael. I am just curious. What is your type? INTP?
He's said in the past INFJ. The intense eye shot on his channel totally gives him away
He has a certain soothingness to his voice, stereotypically INTP would be a lot more stilted with the Ti lens filtering everything for extreme accuracy to the point where it misses something from discarding or overthinking it, you'd hear a lot more audio cuts that won't flow as well.
Daniel Garcia They've got it right: I consistently type as INFJ. But many people assume that I am INTP, I think because my father is a very, very strongly preferenced INTP, and being around him has helped develop my Ti. But yeah...I suppose the intense eye shot gives me away...
Michael Pierce Tbh I thought you were an INTJ, but INFJ with high Ti certainly does seem to fit.
***** The videos contain small indications of Fe use that I've usually found unnecessary :P
Can you relate enneagram types to jungian functions?
Hey! Sorry it's been so long before my reply. I don't know enough about enneagram to know myself though. I've heard people trying to do it, but I'm afraid I can't give you an answer there.
Is it possible for an INTP to enjoy the pursuit of knowing oneself and humanity at large but doesn't give much effort to blend in the group (e.g., would be annoyed when his ideas are not understood or followed, just let himself not talk when he doesn't want to) or would someone with an inferior Fe overcompensate with these kinds of scenarios (i.e., be more polite, overthink about his interactions)?
Concrete example, how would person that has Ti-Fe and person that has Te-Fi would react if they were raised in there family in one way and the society value other values.What would they do would Fe-Ti person would try to adapt this new morals in this new surroundings or would kept the ones that were learned by parents,or only Te-Fi would keep them,or those are subjective preferences?
At 18:34 the combination of traits don't seem to make sense to me. Fe/ti for example gives results for both F and T. As well as n and a and j and p. The only difference is when it is combined with an se/ni it makes the n have to be paired with an f and a j and the s have to be paired with a t and a p. The video up to this point seems to be saying that te/fi is t and not f (but is shown with both). Up to this point it seems as if ne/si is showing an n as opposed to an s. But paired at the end it affects the other letters. Am I reading this chart incorrectly? I am confused.
I think you're confused about my overall system of typology. This should help, it's the recommended starting place: ua-cam.com/play/PL6rzdODmcL67yYuPIQI1nY_ct1P2TDUyv.html
Michael Pierce Thank you, that playlist was definitely helpful.
I would be bucketed as an INFP but I identify completely with your description of the FeTi axis because I value those things based on my worldview.
And that's the problem with this system. My being an INFP, in theory, affects my cognition, but that doesn't mean that my belief system is dependent upon my being an INFP. Why would I waste my life with a belief system that isn't truth based or that isn't grounded in reality? I have great passion, yes, but it is the truth that fuels my passions and not the other way around.
Something is wrong here.
The Yeti
These are exactly my thoughts, as someone whose also most probably an INFP as well. Fi can be Fe, almost EXACTLY Fe, on the condition that ones moral compass points them to value what Fe users would naturally gravitate to. How can you decidedly tell the difference?
I am a broken man after this video. LOL I have been having a lot of trouble for quite some time in determining myself as an INTJ or INTP. I find myself, in general, leaning towards the way of the INTP because I feel like have a very deductive way of thinking, trying to simplify things until they can no longer be reduced, hence the Ti. However, I do feel like I can see the underlying connections of problems that I process unconsciously thus leading myself to think that I am and INTJ because of the Ni. I have also thought that maybe I feel like I can see the underlying connections because Ni is the critical parent of the INTP. In general, I try to focus only on objective truths and universal standards, but I don't know if that is caused by my Ti (if I am INTP) or with my Te (if I am in INTJ). To some extent, I can see myself relating to all of the examples shown in the video (except for Se), could you please help me try to unravel my thoughts?
MrZaw97 Being INTx is a huge pet peeve of mine - people seem really confused by the "J/P preference" when really, when you go back to the actual functions, the two types don't have a single one in common: Ti Ne Si Fe vs. Ni Te Fi Se. Nail down just one, and you nail your type if you are absolutely sure you're either one.
Typically, if you're unsure it means you're probably INTP.
How do you express yourself? Do you cut your sentences midway because they turned out wrong, or do you communicate at (excessive) length and detail what your view of something is if asked for an opinion, because the short answer would be so gross and insufficient as to be incorrect anyway?
You are probably concerned with a certain sense of truthfulness, but would it be more accurately described as a sense of authenticity and sincerity (even if you express those opinions matter-of-factly and bluntly enough to hurt) or as a concern for logical integrity?
If you get thrown into a new situation where you don't have that much context, are you a deer in the headlights, almost incapable of doing even a simple task because you don't yet grasp where it fits into the situation/process as a whole?
If you get into an argument, do you tend to bombard people with facts and just generally appear obnoxiously sure of yourself? Conclusion clear, time to batter these fools into submission style, or more make observations that stop just short, so they connect the final dots themselves?
MrZaw97 I recommend Komatik's comments above: I think he's provided some very good distinctions. Though let me know if you have more questions!
So TeFi say “I am the fire the to heat the world and reshape closure to my heart’s desire”?
Even if the difference between Te/Fi and Ti/Fe is clear in theory, i still struggle a bit with this one for typing myself. I came to the conclusion (and am almost sure) that i am an INTP with a 4w5 enneagram, but i thought i was INFP for some time when i knew a lot less about typology. Being INTP+type 4 is as if my brain is wired for Te/Fi but my type 4 admires Te/Fi and wants me to be Ti/Fe or something. It's as if for a lot of years when i was younger i tried to act like an INFP but it felt just wrong. When i finally started acting like an INTP all seems to fit now, as if i finally found the good user manual for my life (even if i am just beginning "reading it"). But i'm still unclear about this so it is still difficult for me to explain how this feels etc :-/ i am trying to understand it myself.
So i was wondering. Do you know Enneagram typology also? I would be interested to know what you think about how the 2 systems interact with each other into a single individual, especially when you don't have the "stereyotypical" mix of both (like type 4 INFP or type 5 INTP).
Sorry for any english mistakes (my 2nd language) and by the way i love your channel.
Hey!
So how do I understand the working of functional stack within a type through the understanding of these axes?
***** Well, let's say you're ISTP. That means the two function axes you prefer are Fe/Ti and Se/Ni. For an ISTP, their preference "stacks" like this: Ti, Se, Ni, Fe. Another way to write that might be: Ti (dominant), Se/Ni (not repressed), Fe (repressed). So, for the ISTP, both aspects of the Se/Ni axis would be visible, with Se being of more conscious or natural interest for them, and something people see more clearly in them. But they probably see clearly both the good and bad sides of Se vs. Ni, sympathize with both, may even feel conflicted about which is "better", though always end up using Se more often anyway. This kind of equalized relationship is not present with their dominant and inferior functions: Ti vs. Fe. When hearing the ideas of both axes, Ti stands out to them the most, while Fe probably does stand out as recognizable, but either as an aspect of the "kind of people" the ISTP has disliked in their life, or of a weakness they themselves are working to resolve. By virtue of their dominating focus and talent with Ti, they have to sacrifice their relationship with Fe. They probably greatly respect those who can use Fe very well and without the side effects the ISTP is used to because of its repression.
The way I look at it now, and this is an idea that Heavy Mole expressed well in a comment on my Function Axes Categories video, is that the function axes represent rods that psychic energy plays out on, and each individual partitions out some of their energy into two of the four possible rods, one for judging and one for perceiving. One rod has a greater amount of energy spent in it than the other: this is the dominant and inferior axes, where the force of the energy is so strong it represses the inferior side of the rod; while the other is the auxiliary and tertiary axes, with the force not strong enough to actually repress anything.
That's my view right now. Did that answer your question?
Michael Pierce So, it would be better to find out in which of the four categories you would fit in, right? Then you could explore in that category itself. Isn't it?
Well, I have two differentiating views on how the functions work. One is of that the influence of inferior can change your perspectives or that the change in the realm of one's attitude brings about the change. It can be both together too but what starts all of this, is kind of where i'm getting at(i guess). In Jung's childhood life he felt 'personality no.1' being objective and 'personality no.2' being subjective which I very much suppose to be change in the attitude. It's like trying to meet the needs. I think that the needs that you are trying to meet mostly determines one's attitude. There was also this perception about the function stack that the Attitude of the dominant is the opposite to the rest of the three(?).
***** Michael Pierce As children we're still growing - I was a very different kid than I am now as an adult. As far as the needs of the functions go, the dominant and the auxiliary tend to be the ones you use compulsively and out of habit - their need for expression tends to be met. The tertiary and inferior need to be looked after more consciously.
The inferior especially tends to have "tantrums" where it's need for expression drives a person to do stuff like a Ni dom binging on alcohol, an Se dom seeing things that aren't there because of an untrained Ni making wild associations, resulting in paranoia.
So you have to care for the lesser aspects of your cognition, but what ultimately keeps you healthy is expressing the two primary functions. Indulging the inferior is like feeding cheese to a rat - it likes it, but it's just not healthy in the long term.
=> Develop a method to express the inferior via activity that expresses one or more higher functions as well. A Ni dominant could sing (Fi+Se), take up martial arts (Ni+Te+Se). An ISTP's inferior Se is ideally served with things like repair where concrete systems understanding coincides with making people happy and possibly working as part of a team.
The EIEI or IEIE function dynamics are based on the unqualified understanding by Briggs of one sentence in Jung's Psychological type. What Jung talked about was a 'general attitude of consciousness' whereby the more conscious a function is, the more it adheres to the attitude of the subject's temperament.
Myers and Briggs needed that assumption to work with their general in the tent analogy. In Jung, one does not need an extroverted function to act out in the world. The entire context of Jung's functions is a relative cognitive orientation.
From my experience, cognitive functions are not compatible with MBTI types, and certainly not with the more popular (and thought to be MBTI online) Keirsey types.
Mohammad Alshafey
I really dislike Keirsey's typings. INTPs and INTJs very much alike? What? We're not. I identify far more with eg. ISTPs as far as "temperament" goes. Linda Berens' categorization of the types based on interaction styles seems like a far better fit (if way too trademark sign infested for my taste). She groups the types into styles of "chart a course and travel it", "in charge", "get things going" and "behind the scenes". Not quite right still, but infinitely preferable to Keirsey.
Speaking of which, can someone tell me why he groups intuitives according to thinking/feeling preference but sensors according to intro/extraversion?
"From my experience, cognitive functions are not compatible with MBTI types, and certainly not with the more popular (and thought to be MBTI online) Keirsey types."
Can you elaborate on this?
I'm not sure about Keirsey's exact reason, but when considering Keirsey, it's important not to suppose that they mean the same things.
Take a look here for example:
www.keirsey.com/aboutkts2.aspx
While Jung saw E and I as temperaments, Myers and Briggs saw them as a property of the function itself, while Keirsey saw that there are four temperaments (SJ, SP, NT, and NF).
With all due respect to Myers and Briggs and to Kerisey, going by psychological principles that are intuitive and clear, and armed with the thorough examination of thousands of people, seem more reliable upon examination than having to take a model as given.
It's also important to see why the different systems were made, and their use, whether it is self discovery and growth (and intellectual curiosity) for Jung, or making profit out of career counseling for others. etc.
I wish I could answer your question. I need to read Keirsey yet.
Mohammad Alshafey
I was mostly interested in the "cognitive functions are not compatible with MBTI types" line, sorry if I was being unclear.
To clarify my own POV as it stands atm, I've found the MBTI-ordered (EIEI and IEIE orientations, JPPJ and PJJP order to function categories) type construction to describe what I see and hear in friends' description of their experience pretty well, but the test itself to measure things that I don't feel are there - as I said in another post, it's just thinking in letters and dichotomies that don't exist, the functions and axes are the meat of this stuff. I think attitude describes what the function is interested in, not whether it's capable of acting in the outside world (I don't feel introverted perceptive functions are expressive though - I feel my Ni colors my expression via other functions but doesn't really come forward the same way Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, Ne and Se do in and of themselves)
It's why that line interested me - people do seem to fit the MBTI style orderings when given types by looking at their functions, but you say the MBTI types aren't compatible. Why?
Komatik An example: A friend of mine tests ISFP. When you try to judge the cognitive functions composition, they make sense (on the surface). He values feeling over thinking, he's an artist who brings things from inside of himself, he likes (sometimes) to experience in fast cars, etc. When I considered Jungian cognitive functions, and what they actually mean in ways that fit the functions dynamics, and not what we make them to mean to fit with the MBTI and Keirsey type, he was clearly Si first (very artistic, impressions sink in, etc) with feeling. A pop-type outside observer would say 'wait, but he is clearly not a 'judging' type. Naturally, a judging type he was with the Fi Se assumption, but that was ignored, and now that he turned out a perceiving type, a false problem is seen. I think mostly due to Keirsey. SJ types in Keirsey are conservative 'guardians', and certainly nothing like the artistic Si types of Jung.
Another friend tests ISTJ, but never could find Si to fit with him unless with a Keirsey-work-back way into Si being about order, organisation, etc. In cognitive functions (the Jung ones not the ones you find online) he turned out Ti with S. Again, a pop-type observer would say 'but he's clearly a J'. Well, he's indeed a judging type because he's Ti.
Komatik The MBTI makes the horrible mistake of equating abstract and theoretical with N, and down-to-earth and unimaginative with S. It makes no distinctions with the 4 functions and their manifestations in introverts and extroverts. It assumes the general in the tent analogy where extroverts and introverts "show" to an outside observer the extroverted function, leading to the J/P dichotomy, etc.
The Fe/Ti description perfectly resonates why FJs will always be a love/hate relationship for me. Their compulsion to give way to others grates my skin because it makes them sheep and appear more altruistic than they really are. But I also admire them for their charisma and ability to better develop relationships with people and show affection more openly even if it is very manufactured
Oh dear... I have just realized, especially through research of the cognitive functions thanks to MBTI_Notes Tumblr page as well as your videos; I had two of my functions incorrect.
It takes me quite a while to answer a question; as I try to formulate the precise response. Highly indicative of high Ti. Meaning that I must have Ti-Fe then in that case. Also as the case of Se-Ni, I suppose that it stacks like this; Ti-Se-Ni-Te. ISTP. No wonder I nitpick, analyse everything to the ends of the earth. Finding the underlying truth to the system/thing I am working with to it's fullest extent. Doing things that make the must logical sense. I feel so dumb now, in a Ti-Ni loop perhaps? No wonder I don't like being proven wrong as well as analyse the shit out of everything. Thinking about it, this is also indicative when I lose a video-game (or other stupid shit happens) I do not know how to control my emotions and either get angry, or burst into tears. Embarrassing to admit but really indicative of inferior Fe perhaps, the fact that last day of high school years ago; someone wanted to see what game I was playing on GBA, they took it from my hands and gave it back a moment later however; I cried for an hour about it... What The Hell...? I bottle emotions up like I do because I don't understand them and they terrify me. I try to make everyone else happy because I fear their emotional responses (and them not liking me).
My sisters stack is Fi-Ne-Si-Te, INFP, also no wonder my sister is mad at my choice of food, I see the logical reasoning behind it and her Fi is just like ( I will judge and ridicule your life choices, as they clash with my worldview) when I am not even trying to push beliefs on her in the slightest... -_-; Saying that my logic is flawed and I am being "illogical' just because I choose to be a vegetarian, I see the logic behind it and it makes sense to me, so I do it. I am not an illogical person; the choice I had made is supported by hard evidence and fact, she can't seem to see that nor wish to understand, as if she is closed off to the idea because it breaks tradition Si, and her worldview Fi is being challenged... Ridiculous if you ask me.
Ranty, sorry about that. Keep up the wonderful videos! When are you getting to the ISTP Revisiting video? Though I bet you have quite a bit on your plate as is, no need to rush through anything. Just curious about it.
What would cause Ti to look like Fi? I have read various things on Tumblr and elsewhere about it but can't get it through my head. Perhaps that is why I had mistyped myself as ISFP? As their functional stack is Fi-Se-Ni-Te. How can two functions that are fundamentally different (one dealing with Logical systems and the other dealing with people/values) look similar?
Still need a tad bit of help with this, as I am extremely tired; does this make any sense to anyone, and does anyone have answers to the questions I had proposed in the final three paragraphs? Or perhaps helping to fix my faulty arse reasoning?
GaryOakIsMine ISTP? Yea you are, but you are probably not as robust as inuitive Ti (INTP) in getting to the bottom of things. Nevertheless, both of us love to.
This is the most confusing thing I'm ever watched, and I have no idea why.
The whole P/J thing really does screw it up for us introverts. I was confused by your descriptions of perceiving vs judging, since I identified far more with the perceiving description you gave, however I realized that as an INFJ, I would be considered a perceiving type by your definition, since my dominant function is perceiving, just introverted. Just like how an INFP is a judging type.
Yeah. IJs are perceivers functionally. The J/P in the type code just says which of your two main functions is extraverted so J = Je Pi in some order, P = Pe Ji in some order.
Letters thinking (=thinking in the four dichotomies in the type code ie I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P) makes the J/P thing really suck though, because you get people saying stuff like "House is clearly INT but is he J or P" when functionally the whole question is extremely silly. How hard can it be to differentiate Ni Te Fi Se vs. Ti Ne Si Fe? Then people think flippantly it's only one letter when changing it would change the whole stack.
Jung clearly stated in talking about Judging and Perceiving that he was speaking about the person's experience and not social perception. Myers and Brigs flipped that over and made it about external perception.
One thing I think in response to this video is that Ni/Se + Te/Fi (SFPs + NTJs) would then be the most "brash" with objects, plunging into something rather than carefully excavating it like an archaeologist, and then using Te-Fi to be individualistic and fight the object. It sounds rather cool to me. I wonder if this hurts the ears of SFJ + NTP people.
Then SFJ + NTP would be the most careful, very cautious in a sense, especially if the judging function is first (Ti or Fe).
I'm INTJ and it hurts my ears. Plan first, implement it, strive for excellence. Destroying the skeletons you're excavating is not excellence but incompetence, and if there is a cardinal sin, incompetence is it :P
okay, thanks for commenting. I guess I got it wrong.
Type Tips Komatik I was beginning to think the same thing as you while making the video, but I think ultimately it was just my metaphors that were beginning to merge together, as I began describing the Te in the Te/Fi axis as working more "roughly" with things than Ti/Fe, while Se/Ni also "got its hands into the mud" to describe things. I may need to revise this imagery in later videos, though I don't think its wrong. I actually still agree with Type Tips, but I also agree with Komatik, and think the problem is just one of imagery. SFP/NTJ is the most "brash" with objects from other types' perspectives, not because they are necessarily clumsy, unthinking, or without strategy, far from it, but they might appear this way to say, an SFJ/NTP type. For instance, the differences between Newton and Leibniz in the development of Calculus. When compared to each other, Newton's seems rougher, sloppier, not stitched up or anything, but its a working machine to get from point A to point B that can be tightened up later. It still works just as well as Leibniz's, though his is already developed as a self-contained, neat, tidy system. Leibniz would probably say to Newton: stop! good grief you're ruining it, slow down and think! But Newton IS thinking. He's not REALLY rushing in and throwing stuff around at random at all, he's being very strategic and thoughtful about it, and probably doesn't think he's even going that fast, but his way of being strategic is to get from A to B, so he's not concerned with what Leibniz is concerned about, therefore it appears to Leibniz that he's being "sloppy" and "brash". He is certainly being "rougher" with the object of Calculus, but that doesn't necessarily mean "clumsier".
I guess my own perception is that ESFPs and INTJs are somewhat the same...what I find similar about them is "brashness" (and I think there might be a better term, but I can't think of it right now) expressed in different ways. ESFPs are "brash" in the sense of doing what they want, not letting anything get in the way of them having fun in life, just out there confidently being themselves. INTJs plan things a lot more. However, they are brash in the sense that they do not succumb to any peer pressure...they are not going to adjust themselves to others' liking. They will walk straight ahead towards their vision and not let anything get in the way. Both ESFPs and INTJs are going to ignore Fe-Ti sense of "appropriateness". "Brash" is not quite the right word since it is negative, but it is other types' perception.
ESFJs and INTPs, both judging types of the Ne/Si and Ti/Fe dimension, have something in common (and I know, I have two in the family): appropriateness. ESFJs want to look and act appropriate to others. INTP writing is legalistic and exacting because they want to approach knowledge in an appropriate way. Carefully excavating, carefully collecting, carefully defining, carefully behaving. INTPs or ESFJs may have weaknesses in appropriateness that the opposite is capable of handling well, but nevertheless they are appropriate or aspire to be that way.
Video idea : how this manifests for each type
And now what... how do we bring value compassion and empathy for both sides All types Without stigmas or stereotypes. To produce something tangible to create the shift towards globalization Dissolving the man-made divisions Between this and that Inclusivity indivisible Collective cohabitation...I Don't know...I just want to help you be creative towards making a difference from what you're learning?
Shoot, I still don't know. I've tested as both INTP and INFP, more often the former.
I don't even know if I'm introverted or extraverted. Maybe I'm an intuitive introvert? That's what I initially tested as on this website, the one you recommended: sites.google.com/site/jungpsychologicaltypes/home
I don't trust MBTI anymore. That's for sure. They've messed up the definitions of introversion and extraversion.
TheMaleAvenger The MBTI test, or the modern functions-based approach, or both?
In determining your own type, it's helpful to focus on character flaws and persistent quirks rather than what you're good at - your talents are a useful pointer, but it's much easier to acquire competence in something than to erase deeply rooted flaws. Thus they more reliably hint at your type than strengths do.
Personalitypage's personal growth pages have a decent list of potential flaws and quirks to check yourself against:
www.personalitypage.com/html/INFP_per.html
www.personalitypage.com/html/INTP_per.html
Secondly, the different function stacks give different types a distinct style of self-expression - there's something that's just *right* about the way people of the same type express themselves. They focus on the right things, express it in a way that makes sense, there's no unnecessary fluff, it's just all cozy and familiar.I can read a bunch of stuff written by NTPs or STPs and agree with them. I see that their point is good, their logic sound, but it's not quite the same.
The biggest thing, though? NTPs and STPs that I disagree with just look like complete fools, but even though I vehemently disagree with, say, Marx, there's something to his presentation that's still alluring because the way he takes in and processes information is the same. Reading ISTJs and INFJs - aux/tert Te/Fi and dominant Ni shared, respectively - feel like they're quite there, but something is a bit off.
So, if you're up for a good bit of reading, read the following pages including the More Quotes sections, paying especial attention to the people you disagree with. See what feels right, and you're probably on the mark:
www.celebritytypes.com/infp.php
www.celebritytypes.com/enfp.php
www.celebritytypes.com/intp.php
www.celebritytypes.com/entp.php
Third, if stressed and in an argument, do you tend to reply with a barrage of facts that can be rather unrelated to each other?
Are you more concerned with the particulars of what a person is saying, or do you try to figure out why he is saying it?
That's all I can figure out off the top of my head. If you have questions, just ask ^^
Komatik The MBTI test.
It seems I lean more towards INTP. Thanks. =)
i don't like sticking to a set of cognitive functions. i like to use all of the functions whenever i please and be well at all of them. that is what i am going to do.
Typing oneself with blind spot Fi is hard. The lack of self awareness is real.
first video I've seen with no thumbs down. TROLL NO LIKE THUMBS UP.. stop!.. NOOO ME THUMBS DOWN, ME THUMBS DOWN. noo please troll me don't do.. someone help
Another easy way is to figure out what David Keirsey temperament you are and then go from there.
Guardians- rule keepers/ ESTJ, ESFJ, ISJF, ISTJ.
Artisans-rule breakers/ ESTP, ESFP, ISFP, ISTP.
Idealists-rule questioners/ ENFJ, ENFP, INFP, INFJ.
Rationals-rule creators/ ENTJ, ENTP, INTP, INTJ.
Oh
So if I undestand well Ti/Fe are people who would like to fit into society as best possible. While Te/Fi are more fuck the world I am going to self-improve my ass.
Stating Ni "users" turning ideas around sounds awfully like like thinking, not like the perceiving function concerned with hunches that it is.
Yes, except that a function is not introverted. The person is.
With all possible respect, this was too vague to comprehend.
This is based entirely on stereotypes, not considering people that fall in mid-zones of dichotomies, which happens quite often. Find a better source for yourself. Find a psychologist with a PhD at your local college.
I have high imagination and low observation
Ne types are lazy and have a knack for taking mental shortcuts to do a work with the least possible amount of effort. Hence the inventiveness. They are looking for exploits and mental shortcuts in the mental framework, like woemholes in space.
lol what's wrong with that? jk jk I am an INFP. Absolute love Ne...and I agree with Michael Pierce, that function does make me think people are mentally slow...lol
Nothing wrong with Ne, it's just that it can knock us Ni Doms out of balance on occasion. It's comparable to boxing: people with an Ni/Se axis are sluggers, wanting to cut to the chase and figure out the quickest way for a knockout, while people with an Si/Ne axis are boxers, weaving their way through the fight and thinking up multiple ways to win.
Great analogy. We Ne/Si will eventually win! jk jk
It's because things take time. And although you may see us as impatient, (using the the "Wormhole" metaphor) we'd simply rather not take a lifetime to get to our destination.
But we Ne/Si types have to cover every aspect of everything until eternity, that is the only way, lol
This video is very subjective. I can tell that the video maker has a Si/Ne axis.
Interesting -- what makes you say that?
Matt Thomsen I know you're just being facetious, so don't take this personally: but please don't call her a "fool".
Why is Si/Ne subjective?
Michael Pierce
God, it’s so damn nice to have someone actually care about another on the internet. It’s so rarely seen, and often only insults are thrown. I’m genuinely happy that you took time to write that comment:)
I'm very suspectful of these typing yourself "guides". It requires a whole lot of selfunderstanding. Just take the test and be done with it. Just accept the result, it is always SOME truth to it. /INFP