ENFjs and INFps: passionate and enthusiastic but not edgy and extreme?

[mikesilb]

That seems to be the problem; are you sure you're using ? As I mentioned earlier, what you say seems more to me.

I just responded to your insightful post above and I addressed my confusion about vs. . If you can please let me know how I can differentiate between the two, that would be awesome!

Thanks so much!

[mikesilb]

He probably doesn't enjoy watching the paint dry. Or something of the sort.

BTW, I hate watching the paint dry :wink:. Too earthy and practical for me. Unless of course, watching the paint dry might be precisely what I am Dual Seeking because I personally can't stand to do it??? Hmmmmm?

[mikesilb]

@mikesilb: please take a look how I described this guy, who I type as EIE: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post648868

Jumping from that post immediately to your description I found the characters to be almost identical, lol, and I agree with what you say, that being socially passionate and liking to gather people together to parties + that inclination towards theoretical, mystical, principial, meaning & stuff is more likely EIE.

I'd like to see how I relate to this person, but right now I still do not see the definite connection after reading your post. I swear, if you saw his picture juxtaposed to mine, it would be bloody easy to see the obvious discrepancy. Like day and night, literally.

However, I am still open-minded to your connection between these two threads. If you still feel this way, please let me know how they are related?

[xerx]

How do you relate to Filatva's description of Fi?

Fi – program function. Introverted ethics determines that the EII focuses her attention on judgments about good and evil, morals and depravity, decency and dihonourableness. She precisely senses the norms of behaviour, which govern different groups of people, and she tries to follow these norms in order not to insult the feelings and morality of those that surround her. When she first arrives amongst a group of people she holds herself back. Once she has established a degree of control in regards to the psychological atmosphere of occurences within the group, and only then, after she has soaked herself in the atmosphere, will she consider becoming a full-fledged member of the collective.

EII often makes acquaintence with those that are weak or unhappy. These people serve to incite the desire to help, to support, and to comfort others, within her. To her others will frequently turn for help and she accepts them by examining their confessions for hours on end. She attempts to get accustomed to the psychological difficulties being experienced by the collocutor and she tries to take their side and support them.

EII is often wounded and always emotional, however, she turns all her experiences inward; thus these qualities are not always observable from a distance. She sometimes appears as a steady, even cold person, but this impression is illusory. Every event, even those popularly deemed insignificant, leaves in her soul a deep track that survives for a long time. As a rule she represses in herself anger, irritation, and the desire to reproach. One of the EII’s characteristic manifestations of offense is the creation of a psychological barrier between themselves and the offender. In such cases she’ll assume a position emanating stressed, cold, politeness. She’ll answer all questions monosyllabically. This style of behaviour, characteristic of this psycho-type, is very difficult to deal with for some people; they’d prefer that the EII shouted or somehow otherwise expressed her indignation. It is not even easy for her to exist in such a state. However, if the offender asks for forgiveness and manifests the desire to change the situation than this state of offense may rapidly pass.

High emotionalism, in combination with rationality, frequently leads the EII to replay their role in a past situation over and over. The center of excitation, in their consciousness, darkens all other aspect of life when this occurs. She finds it difficult to focus on anything different. Mentally, again and again, she returns to one and the same; she may speak about this lest it occur that others, around her, find it irritating.

Filatova EII - Wikisocion

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[mikesilb]

I dunno, for IEI, I think it's more of an underlying intensity which only sticks its neck out once in awhile (at least in my case).

In any case, I'm not sure you're beta? You seem too nice or something (yeah okay I know I'm nice on the forum). but for instance, being all worried about that person enjoying themselves at a party? I have to say, I'm not like that. I would never have those questions running through my head. Maybe if they were my best friend or something but then I would already know why they were sad. Otherwise, I'd just assume they were in a bad mood and probably avoid them! I definitely don't see it as my responsibility to make sure others have fun. In other words, as sad as this probably sounds to you, I would probably abandon the party pooper rather than trying to be some "loyal friend" by pulling them in. To me, if they aren't in the mood to have fun, then they aren't and my job is to leave them alone.

Thank you for seeing the nice/receptive side here since I do try to be this way.

I completely get the difference between your response and my own. It definitely gives me pause as to whether Beta is actually incorrect.

A few weeks ago, I posted a video under the question of whether I am an EII. Someone (on a different board) gave me a relatively convincing argument that I was exhibiting the type of passion, enthusiasm, etc. that appeared to fit an type. Additionally, my discussion of destiny, meaning (and its relationship to spirituality, etc.) made this person think that Beta was my main territory (instead of the obvious Delta). I could relate to his description that I did not hold my emotions in check that much, and rather showed them quite outwardly. Hence, by simply following the basic definitions of , it looked like I was (in his opinion) an -dominant type.

From my angle, it made sense because while I am very sensitive and friendly to others in an NF-ish kind of way, I also am able to express my emotions and to read the emotional space in a way that seemed congruent with an way of viewing things. So I bought his argument.

However, now I am thinking about how that applied from the perspective of how quadras are viewed here. I found a mismatch between the way that I communicate to the way that Beta is described here. This is why I brought this new thread forward. I needed to understand what underlies Beta and whether or not I can adequately put myself in the Beta camp.

Anyway, as this thread develops, I am more and more open to additional possibilities as to my type and quadra. You all have majorly valid points here, and I need to address all this so that I can find my proper 'home' (other than within my own inner sanctity/sanctuary) within this theoretical system.

Thanks so far for helping me work through this uncertainty!

[mikesilb]

What about the pictures? I asked you to take a look at the description of the guy, not the pictures. Ignore them.

What I would love to see above all else would be a video of how this person interacts with others. This would really tell me a lot about his interactional preferences. For now, I can take your word on it that he is an EIE based on the way that he communicates emotionally and energetically with others, as well as his mystical side. That is the only way that I can draw a parallel here.

[silverchris9]

I dunno, for IEI, I think it's more of an underlying intensity which only sticks its neck out once in awhile (at least in my case).

In any case, I'm not sure you're beta? You seem too nice or something (yeah okay I know I'm nice on the forum). but for instance, being all worried about that person enjoying themselves at a party? I have to say, I'm not like that. I would never have those questions running through my head. Maybe if they were my best friend or something but then I would already know why they were sad. Otherwise, I'd just assume they were in a bad mood and probably avoid them! I definitely don't see it as my responsibility to make sure others have fun. In other words, as sad as this probably sounds to you, I would probably abandon the party pooper rather than trying to be some "loyal friend" by pulling them in. To me, if they aren't in the mood to have fun, then they aren't and my job is to leave them alone.

Good ol' beta attitudes.

All this definitely applies to me. Either I am a Delta (or Alpha), or I must be a harmonizing subtype within the EIE camp. But no matter what, I can relate way more to inclusivity, unity, and harmony, than the lack thereof.

Well, it's difficult to type off of being a good person. Lots of EIEs love inclusiveness and harmony. In fact, many of the EIEs I know are sort of the engine of bringing people together in many social groups. But those same EIEs also harbor some very strong negative opinions about some people both in and out of those social groups, and are not hesitant to expound upon them (though usually in a jovial, joking way). And hey, there's nothing wrong with liking harmony. Still a focus on harmony as a priority over emotional expression, openness, etc., is very likely to indicate delta over beta.

I agree that we have to consider Alpha or Delta here (in addition to the possibility that I still fit the Beta framework but from a slightly different standpoint). I am open to the various possibilities here, and am not sure at all which ones make the most sense right now. Time will tell...[/QUOTE]

This statement sounds Ne to me. Like, the idea that from a different perspective, maybe you are beta, maybe we need to look at things a different way, etc. It all sounds very much like Ne considering multiple perspectives, trying to look at things from various angles, not staying too attached to one viewpoint, etc. Especially the idea that we "have" to consider multiple viewpoints... I dunno, sounds very Ne to me!

Because at the onset of this thread, I thought that I had as my ego block. What bothered me more than anything else was assuming that I did have those two IM elements there, I did not exhibit much of the outward behavior that most Betas on this board exhibited. So either one of two possibilities could happen, 1) The concept of Beta-NFs need to expand or generalize to include non-edginess (since I still cannot for the life of me understand why necessarily exhibits such intensity, especially when Ni is more about imagination, contemplation, mysticism, and conceptual understanding), or 2) I am actually incorrect about being part of Beta, and am actually either an Alpha or a Delta (I highly doubt that I am Gamma).

Here's the deal. Beta-NFs are generally perceived as edgy because Se and Fe are our two extroverted functions, and Fe is more "edgy" than Fi (which is more focused on harmony, stasis, permanent bonds etc.) and Se is more "edgy" than Si. Sure, you can be non-edgy and be a beta. I don't know if you've read any posts by a user named sigma, but he's definitely not edgy. But he's still clearly an IEI, in the way that he's so theoretical, sort of in the clouds (but in a good, IEI way). He has a belief system that seems to me rather like that of an EII, focusing on harmony and such, but he goes about it in such an obviously beta way (which is something almost unquantifiable, at least I experience it more as a general "vibe" than as something I can break down into its component parts). Also, your word "intensity" is really a better word than "edgy". That's what Sigma has that isn't edginess, it's an intensity, a sort of energy--betas like being in a high energy state. He's really intense in pursuing his Nonviolent Communication, but he's not edgy like, wearing eye-liner and stomping his left foot like a 1980s rock star or a performer in the new musical American Idiot starring Jonathan Groff a.k.a. Melchior, a.k.a. Lea Michele's boyfriend on Glee. So maybe that explains it a little better?

Also, please do remember that the way people behave on this forum is not how they behave in real life. I'm much more diplomatic and much less likely to spout theosophistic nonsense. I can be blunt irl too, when it comes down to serious topics, though. Hope that helps, even if only a little.

Also, on the difference between Ne and Ni:

Ni will tend to provide certain advice about what *will* happen in the future. Beta NFs in particular are prone to analyzing people's character and issuing predictions on how they will react to certain stimuli. Ne on the other hand will tend to provide advice about all the things that *could* happen in the future. Delta NFs are likely to say, "well, given this situation, Bob could do x, or y, or z." The focus is on the essential properties of Bob in the form of possibilities.

Delta NFs are more inclined to tell you all the things that could happen so you can prepare for all of them. Beta NFs are more likely to tell you the one thing that is most likely to happen (and to update the prediction as more information accrues) so that you can take the right action, at the opportune moment, that sort of thing.

In my own more theoretical understanding, Ni is concerned with uncertainty between signs and what they signify, in other words, semantic uncertainty. Ni is interested in exploring the relationship between signs and what they signify. This is how Ni gets a reputation for mysticism or focus on "meaning"--Ni-egos want to understand the meaning behind signs. It's still tinged with MBTI, but as a pure function description, I find a lot of what Lenore Thompson says about Ni pretty valuable.

Ne, on the other hand, is more focused on essentially properties in the sense of capabilities or capacities. This reminds me of Aristotle's form that inheres in objects, or the form of a thing not as a Platonic Idea existing outside of space and time, but as simply the set of powers of a given object. Ne is concerned with the essence in that sense: the set of powers. As such, they tend to look at a variety of options, because they spend their lives noticing all the different possibilities that inhere in everything. They always want to look at new options, because they see how many different capacities everything has. They also tend to see things in a new, unique way: for instance, seeing that, sure, a table could be a bed, why not? Or a window could be a paint canvas, why not? That sort of thing.

[Aiss]

BTW, I hate watching the paint dry :wink:. Too earthy and practical for me. Unless of course, watching the paint dry might be precisely what I am Dual Seeking because I personally can't stand to do it??? Hmmmmm?

I meant the fact that you seem willing to bend Beta characteristics to fit in, yet seem to find Delta too boring, which actually is a stereotype. This is of course only my impression.

I am so damn confused about this honestly. On a theoretical level, how can we separate from , and which one appears to make more sense in the context in which I am mentioning this? BTW, I very much can relate to the Alpha NT style of theorizing in sort of a loose/lighthearted way. So you are on the right track here.

It's hard to clearly separate the two because you have both of them either strong or weak.

On the purely theoretical level, is internal dynamics of fields and is internal statics of objects. In my own words, it's "what could be happening" and "what could it be" ("could be", "could have been", "would be" - anything but "is", really).

Silverchris probably did a better job explaining Beta than I could have done - you might notice that is somehow differently described in Beta and Gamma types. That's where the concept of blocks appears - is different from , and so are all analogical combinations. (Alternatively, it's -Ni and +Ni, but that's Model B.)

The view of seems Alpha over Delta. In NFs it's often described as focusing on potential in people, although ideas are by no means dismissed.The understanding of the big picture is also more concerned with meaning, or personal meaning of it, is implicit rather than explicit.

It is also my observation that seems to be connected to the concept of plot or narration, whereas focuses more on interesting and surprising elements, such as characters, objects or ideas (insert speculation warning here).

You spoke of universe and your place in it, and it seemed to me exactly sort of thing. would rather focus on development and change. So whereas the topic itself is of interest, the way you put it sounded - to me - as a conceptualized idea more than the flow I spoke of, though of course I can't know what exactly you meant and how you perceive it.

Also, note that you'll be strong in both if you're N, and it seems you're sure of it. So you're probably familiar with both, and especially if you're rational they might be hard to determine.

I am not even sure about this one. I have a bad tendency to 'sugarcoat' a lot of interpersonal situations and to make it sound as if everything is fine (when inside me things are far from fine). It takes me a while to state my deepest truth if that means that it will hurt the other person. As a result, I will stall to state this inner truth. This is a pretty big reason why I debate whether or not EII is actually my type. I am more prone to "make it look like I am satisfied" (when in fact, I am not).

Look at what Betas (especially IEIs) write about being open about your opinions vs being considerate of others in http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...i-valuers.html thread.

If I state something that is my own opinion and that I feel dearly about, I do not appreciate if it is ignored. While I anticipate that others should ideally follow their internal/subjective guidance about a given situation, I also absolutely would want to be listened to as well...and perhaps even have my advice heeded to. So it is tricky as to whether or not this paragraph applies.

I think the focus was more about insistence than a need to feel appreciated (which is pretty common amongst all sociotype, even though some might have problems admitting it).

[mikesilb]

In terms of the / difference, how accurate would the quote below (by Tereg) be in describing it?

Ok. So, for me, is something that I cognitively understand conceptually, but for me to actually use it feels quite foreign and many times is difficult to harness.

My understanding of is more along the lines of being able to intuitively understand concepts and trends with incomplete information. The only metaphor that I can come up with is like a sea of floating ideas, and somehow is able to gather these ideas and be able to draw a conclusion out of it. It's like understanding something's essence without the need for its full description.

This differs from in that to me is about being able to connect understood concepts together. Being able to connect seemingly unrelated things, providing good examples of things that illustrate concepts.

The key difference here for me is the amount of information that is understood about the thing being processed. typically does not require a complete explanation about something. generally means that I can draw in another concept similar to what is being discussed because I understand the information more completely.

So is fascinating to me, but I find it difficult to actually do because I feel the need to understand an idea or concept's makeup before I can start to draw conclusions or similarities to it.

[mikesilb]

Hi Aiss,

Earlier in this thread, you mentioned something that I would definitely appreciate some follow-up to...

The way you describe your interests here and in your other posts sounds rather to me. It seems more of a big picture thing, zoom out, and static over dynamic. It's similar to Alpha NTs, in a way. I don't think can be reduced to brainstorming, either.

Is there a way that you could elaborate on this (i.e. your perceptions/intuitions about my thinking style) from what you have noticed thus far? As I said earlier, I definitely think that you are on the right track here about the way that I am conceptualizing all this. I feel that I am able to casually theorize (perhaps the word 'wonder' [and maybe even 'wander' :wink:] in a highly curious way might be a good word to describe it) about a topic of interest is something that I do a lot of. It stems from wanting to learn in an exploratory manner about various aspects of knowledge and wisdom. Is this in line with why you think that fits better? What about would not fit?

Again, I think that this is actually helping me a lot in my process, and your recognition of how I am verbally describing my thinking pattern here can actually shed (what I think will be) considerable light on this debate of whether I am Beta (NF), Delta (NF), or even Alpha (SF or maybe even NT).

Thanks in advance for your insights!

[Aiss]

In terms of the / difference, how accurate would the quote below (by Tereg) be in describing it?

There's a good point about and uncertainty. can thrive on very little information, making up the rest as it's needed, but there's also - at least with - awareness of it's doubtfulness. Another aspect of influence is Delta NFs' thirst for knowledge (DS or HA), which is somehow different in nature from Alpha NTs, so I'd be cautious about equaling it with itself.

Is there a way that you could elaborate on this (i.e. your perceptions/intuitions about my thinking style) from what you have noticed thus far? As I said earlier, I definitely think that you are on the right track here about the way that I am conceptualizing all this. I feel that I am able to casually theorize (perhaps the word 'wonder' [and maybe even 'wander' :wink:] in a highly curious way might be a good word to describe it) about a topic of interest is something that I do a lot of. It stems from wanting to learn in an exploratory manner about various aspects of knowledge and wisdom. Is this in line with why you think that fits better? What about would not fit?

Again, I think that this is actually helping me a lot in my process, and your recognition of how I am verbally describing my thinking pattern here can actually shed (what I think will be) considerable light on this debate of whether I am Beta (NF), Delta (NF), or even Alpha (SF or maybe even NT).

What I meant by 'big picture' is that the idea I got from your description (especially the one with allusion to life, the universe and everything) seemed like trying to unite and understand everything as one. Something I observed in Alpha NTs is that they're the people who are often interested in "theories of everything", or at least everything in a particular area of life/knowledge. This may seem paradoxical, as is related to potential and multiple possibilities, but they are also focused on putting it all together in a system ( or ) and cutting off what doesn't fit or is redundant. To me it seems forced, sometimes, to combine concepts which don't smoothly bind - JohnDo's theories are a good if extreme example; it's in fact one theory and every aspect of socionics is either added to and possibly reinterpreted to fit (dual-types as subtypes) or rejected as "incorrect" because it doesn't fit, at least that's what he does on this forum. This is exaggerated but most LIIs and ILEs seem to show the tendency to some extent.

By analogy, Delta NFs would be using to put it all together. Where Alpha NTs interpret implicit () explicitly (), Deltas do so implicitly (). This would result in more philosophical (I realize philosophy can be strictly logical, that's not what I mean here) than scientific/logical focus, though they want to be knowledgeable, too - valuing, thirst for knowledge coupled with uncertainty of its reliability, hence desire for "confirmed" information. When you say "universe and my place in it", it sounds as if you meant this big picture view, except deriving more implicit, maybe personal or philosophical meaning from it - whether it is typical Delta NF perception, you'd better ask them.

would focus more on significance or insignificance in long term perspective; there's a visible tendency among dominants for nihilism - if you consider far enough future, nothing is significant, nothing matters anymore. In millions of years and beyond that there will likely be no trace left of humanity. This is depressing and by no means refers to all types, but the idea is there. It won't matter tomorrow; why do it today? The other side of it is a feeling of significance in the long term, often derived from spirituality in Beta NFs, being part of "the greater scheme of things". Whereas Gamma NTs are more likely to consider taking action beneficial if it matters for long enough - like years, lifetimes, generations. Gamma values are often misinterpreted, I think; "sacrifice for society" refers more to sacrifice of immediate pleasure for future benefit, an idea of investment, understanding that difficult reforms are necessary, not necessarily personally giving to others, volunteer work or something like that - in fact this might be used for one's own gain, but the consequences of this gain are considered, too. The driving force for both and is supposedly .


"It stems from wanting to learn in an exploratory manner about various aspects of knowledge and wisdom." - this looks and and -valuing, exploration and wisdom and knowledge, though not excluding other possibilities by any means.

This seems to have evolved in a rather lengthy rant about intuitive types of all quadras. Just my point of view on them - it's possible I'm misinterpreting your words and you relate more to side of things.

[xerx]

I don't think Ne / Ni is related to wanting a magnificent destiny for yourself. Everyone wants to have a good destiny and most people want to achieve something important that's rooted fundamentally in who they are at a deep level.

With respect to destiny, I think Ne / Ni differ more so in addressing the notion of fate, where fate is something completely beyond your control. Ni egos have a tendency (from my perspective) to exaggerate the outcome of events as being predetermined even before the thing in question happens. A lot of Ni philosophy and theology deals with the preordained and the inevitable. Things like "great cosmic cycles that we have no control over, which affect our lives" is Ni. "It is written that you will follow a certain path," is Ni.

Since Ni means Se dual-seeking, it makes sense that Ni transfers the initiative to something outside.

[tcaudilllg]

My god there are a lot of wasted words in this thread. If only people would actually click on the link in my sig, they might learn something.

[Aiss]

I don't think Ne / Ni is related to wanting a magnificent destiny for yourself. Everyone wants to have a good destiny and most people want to achieve something important that's rooted fundamentally in who they are at a deep level.

With respect to destiny, I think Ne / Ni differ more so in addressing the notion of fate, where fate is something completely beyond your control. Ni egos have a tendency (from my perspective) to exaggerate the outcome of events as being predetermined even before the thing in question happens. A lot of Ni philosophy and theology deals with the preordained and the inevitable. Things like "great cosmic cycles that we have no control over, which affect our lives" is Ni. "It is written that you will follow a certain path," is Ni.

Since Ni means Se dual-seeking, it makes sense that Ni transfers the initiative to something outside.

I agree about wanting to achieve things and for the record, didn't seem to imply otherwise in my musings.

I don't really agree about the examples you give. This is Beta Ni, or rather, Ni + Fe. I think the spiritual/mystical part of both Ni and Ne lies in fact in its combination with Fe or Fi - not that other types don't enjoy the notion at all, but it doesn't seem nearly as prevalent. Gamma, focusing on implicit consequences of interaction of explicitly active objects (Ni + Te) is more into what in real world makes some things inevitable, or pointless to attempt to change.

[xerx]

I don't really agree about the examples you give. This is Beta Ni, or rather, Ni + Fe. I think the spiritual/mystical part of both Ni and Ne lies in fact in its combination with Fe or Fi - not that other types don't enjoy the notion at all, but it doesn't seem nearly as prevalent. Gamma, focusing on implicit consequences of interaction of explicitly active objects (Ni + Te) is more into what in real world makes some things inevitable, or pointless to attempt to change.

I would have thought so before too, but I've met ILIs who are quite spiritual and many spiritual ones are depicted in fiction. Jung himself is typed ILI by socionists.

Logic isn't always responsible for helping someone arrive at a rational world view. Usually it just focuses on clarifying the facts explicitly, but another function (like the Ni base function) uses those facts as a springboard to reach a deeper, much less explicit and more subjective conclusion.

Also I don't think ethics is about having a more "out there" world view. Ethics is about understanding values and relationships between things and between people, the energy investment and interest they convey when performing tasks and so on. It's a fully rational function within its domain of operation, and usually very accurate about sizing up people.

I think Ni (or any function) can be used much more practically and less abstractly. I know atheist IEIs who like to reduce everything to mechanical processes, who are materialistic and don't believe in a deeper reality whatsoever.

[mikesilb]

Hi Aiss,

Thank you for taking the time to write in a detailed way about the Ne vs. Ni discussion. Really well appreciated overall!

What I meant by 'big picture' is that the idea I got from your description (especially the one with allusion to life, the universe and everything) seemed like trying to unite and understand everything as one.

A huge part of my philosophy and spirituality is very much akin to this sense of unity, that we are inexplicably connected in some profound way, and if we were deeply cognizant of the way that this connection occurs, we would not spend nearly as much time separating into factions and creating arguments with each other. We would try to work out our differences and try to find common ground that would unify us (and yet, celebrate our differences in a respectful way). I guess that this does sound quite delta-ish after all.

(BTW, I will say right off the bat that I feel really bad that I am discussing all this on the Beta board, when it is apparent that the topic has strayed considerably. I would love to move/transfer the discussion to a different part of the board due to this straying focus. If anything, it may demonstrate what attributes/aspects are not Beta, more than anything else. I just wanted to add this. Does anyone know a way to move a thread from one subforum to another...or even to move it to my personal typing thread?)

Something I observed in Alpha NTs is that they're the people who are often interested in "theories of everything", or at least everything in a particular area of life/knowledge. This may seem paradoxical, as is related to potential and multiple possibilities, but they are also focused on putting it all together in a system ( or ) and cutting off what doesn't fit or is redundant. To me it seems forced, sometimes, to combine concepts which don't smoothly bind - JohnDo's theories are a good if extreme example; it's in fact one theory and every aspect of socionics is either added to and possibly reinterpreted to fit (dual-types as subtypes) or rejected as "incorrect" because it doesn't fit, at least that's what he does on this forum. This is exaggerated but most LIIs and ILEs seem to show the tendency to some extent.

By analogy, Delta NFs would be using to put it all together. Where Alpha NTs interpret implicit () explicitly (), Deltas do so implicitly (). This would result in more philosophical (I realize philosophy can be strictly logical, that's not what I mean here) than scientific/logical focus, though they want to be knowledgeable, too - valuing, thirst for knowledge coupled with uncertainty of its reliability, hence desire for "confirmed" information. When you say "universe and my place in it", it sounds as if you meant this big picture view, except deriving more implicit, maybe personal or philosophical meaning from it.

I think that you are totally correct about this. It has a quasi-Alpha NT feel to it, and as an NF-research scientist (biochemist), it is very clear that I can relate quite strongly to the type of scientific, theoretical, discussion that Alpha NTs feel in general. I will say that I probably stray from the Alpha NT style in that I am more connected to this element of being kind, friendly, loyal, compassionate and feeling a strong internal desire to act/behave that way. This would push me into either Delta-NF or Alpha-SF. I strongly give the edge to remaining NF (and Delta), although I can relate as well to the lighthearted manner in which Alphas communicate.

would focus more on significance or insignificance in long term perspective; there's a visible tendency among dominants for nihilism - if you consider far enough future, nothing is significant, nothing matters anymore. In millions of years and beyond that there will likely be no trace left of humanity. This is depressing and by no means refers to all types, but the idea is there. It won't matter tomorrow; why do it today?

Undeniably, that does not fit me at all. I am probably the exact opposite, to tell you the truth.

The other side of it is a feeling of significance in the long term, often derived from spirituality in Beta NFs, being part of "the greater scheme of things".

I wonder if "the greater scheme of things" has a time/evolution-bound element to it. To me, the concept of meaning, destiny, and significance has a bit more of an Eckhart Tolle-"The Power of Now" sense to it, that really, all that I can control is the here and now, and as long as I can embrace life, moment by moment, that is how I find significance. I also think that I sometimes equate the words 'destiny' and 'highest potential' as if they are the same thing. Clearly they are not the same, and I get the feeling that I am defining destiny as an Ne based 'highest potential' rather than something that is about a 'final evolution'.

What I also try to do (in my mind's eye) is collapse time and space into a matter of discrete moments that invariably changes from one frame to the next frame. It happens the most when I am in an active meditative state, but I wonder if mentally collapsing time and space reflects a timeless Ne aspect rather than a flowing Ni aspect?

This seems to have evolved in a rather lengthy rant about intuitive types of all quadras. Just my point of view on them - it's possible I'm misinterpreting your words and you relate more to side of things.

No...I think that we are clear from this and from other parts of the discussion that I was likely incorrect in assuming Beta. Stretching the boundaries of beta to include me does not instinctively sound right, and this thread has taught me this.

I am left thinking either Delta (which is likely correct, although I will need to confirm this with subsequent discussion [probably in a different thread]) or Alpha. To me, this is less clear.

I think that one of the most important determiners that makes me lean toward either Delta or Alpha (instead of Beta) is the / dynamic and how this bridges the former two quadras (and likely bridges Beta and Gamma, obviously). I am much more favoring of than (more reflective, enjoyment-oriented rather than active/doing-focused and staying on my toes), and the interplay of / fits me much better than /.

I think that I will move the discussion elsewhere out of respect to the Betas here.

Thanks so much for clarifying certain things for me!

[mikesilb]

As a quick update, I now realize that ESE/alpha is most likely my type/quadra. Feel free to browse this particular thread in light of this new information.