I want to talk about Ni

[Bertrand]

I think Ni is probably the least understood function, which has really snowballed in regards to the total level of misinformation and ignorance out there. Hopefully with this post I will make things better, not worse.

Ni is commonly referred to as intuition of time, but I want to point out that is a outside-in "Ti" formulation of Ni. That is how Ni can be understood as part of a semantic set of relations (a "system").

Phenomenology, loosely, is the first-hand account of something--the "what its like" or "qualia" (the "qualitative experience" from the first person perspective). This would use language and form descriptions that differ dramatically from standard outside-in Ti descriptions but phenomenology is no less the basis for a Ti system. It is however a form of subjective understanding that is at the same time more and less useful than your standard "textbook" "3rd person" understanding of a thing. It is more useful in the sense that it really helps you understand whether you do or don't share the experience, but inasmuch as you don't and to the degree you differ, it is easier to understand more universal Ti notions of a thing, stripped of phenomenological description or taken to their highest possible level of universality...

I want to accomplish a phenomenological account of Ni by comparing 4 different types: Balzac, Dostoevsky, Jack, and Hamlet

Balzac leads with 4d Ni and it is conscious, whereas for Dostoevsky it is unconscious but it is nevertheless 4d. Jack and Hamlet both share 3d Ni in the creative position.

Reinin describes Ni as "the integrity of the internal situation" in various places. Which is on its face, for most, totally unhelpful and abstract and general to the point of meaninglessness. Perhaps it would then be helpful to compare it to Ne in order to provide some context and hopefully some clarity in light of their dichotomous relationship. Ne is thus "the integrity of the outer situation." People, I feel, generally understand Ne to mean "the actual state of the world, and its possibilities/potential"-- in other words its the holistic abstract picture of what really is out there, along with everything that has a real connection to what is objective and actual. In other words, a connection may not actually be realized, but the existence of the connection ensures the possibility that in some potential happening it could in principle. Things outside the realm of Ne are things that are either impossible in principle (logically impossible) or things that are impossible in virtue of what the actual picture of the world is (factually impossible), and that for them to be possible one would have to erroneously assume something untrue or inaccurate about the picture of things. Thus when people seem out of touch with reality in a Ne sense they don't just assume things that are unlikely but rather things that could not happen if you take a holistic and accurate picture of the world and make it "mesh" with whatever assumptions or declarations the person in question is making. This occurs on a highly abstract plane such that most the time people aren't comparing their Ne picture of the world to the actual Ne picture of the world consciously when they make errors of this kind. Believing something does not mean you likewise believe or approve of all the implications of your belief because you may not be aware of what they are. Thus people lacking in Ne tend to come to conclusions they themselves would not believe or try to make if they realized they were making them, but they don't. This is most common in Dreiser and Maxim, who work most comprehensively on the level of introverted rationality, which is a kind of calculus aimed at internal consistency, the downside to which they often draw conclusions on the basis of which that presume to say something about the world without actually referencing the "actual" world. Rather it was derived from limited information that was highly refined to come to a conclusion that was procedural probably very scrupulously drawn and error free, but it is essentially a case of "garbage in garbage out."

With that in mind the "outer situation" and its "integrity" is the idea that the intuition of the world as it really is is internally consistent with itself and complete as possible. In other words, we often conceptualize intuitions as large circles that ultimately have a self referential quality to them (they return to themselves, the snake eating its own tail), and that we tend to reject formulations of the world in "rational" terms that we see as having underlying intuitions that entail a contradiction when you see "the circle" in its entirety. We can say concern for "the circle" being free from contradiction or disharmony is the "integrity of the outer situation."

So that is Ne; what, then, is Ni? Every individual has an "inner state" which we tend to experience as our unique "mode of consciousness." It can be hard for some types to understand that other human beings experience different modes of consciousness. In this way both subjective and objective intuitions are linked, because failure to understand differences of subjective intuition amount to a failure to understand the actual status of the world. It is one data point that when overlooked amounts to a rather large "disharmony" of the outer picture, but it is founded on the fundamental inability or unwillingness to conceive other human beings as being radically (at the root) capable of fundamental differences in their state of mind. So when we fail to account for this difference (one that is termed "ontological" in philosophical circles--meaning the fundamental assumptions that form the basis of one's outlook--their intuitive "picture of the world" which they found all their opinions on) we skew the picture of the world-at-large and distort any judgements we derive on the basis of this failure to provide it with accurate data. This is how intuition is linked in the sense that you will never see 1d Ni paired with 4d Ne in the same individual, because the two are linked in a necessary relationship where you cannot have one without a sufficient degree of the other. Likewise a failure of one entails a precipitant failure of the other and vice versa, hence all the confusion between "is this really a failure of Ne or Ni?" type questions. This is the circular nature of intuition to perhaps the most abstract extent I can conceive of.

Ni is the "integrity of the inner situation", which does not necessarily mean a placid and balanced inner situation in the sense of Si, which would be like actual physical calmness (or more abstractly a "positive"--whatever that may be-- inner physical state). It means that the subjective inner world is consistent with itself and entails no contradictions; however, such a state could be a highly consistent state of tumult and agitation. Hamlet is the one most likely to experience these sturm un drang inner states: to conjure them as a "product" of creative Ni within himself and transmit them to others via Fe/Se. To contrast Ni with Si one must understand that while Si and Ni are linked in that a tumultuous state in one can very easily influence the other it is not necessarily the case, and that, further, "integrity in the inner state" in terms of Si does mean a consistent, non contradictory, physical state, which is most often seen as levels of physical states that are "sustainable" and either "productive" in the case of creative Si (LSE adjusting his inner state in order to achieve a task) or "healthy" (in terms of SLI which is aimed at ultimate health for its own sake, not task-oriented) or "epicurean" (in the case of SEI--maximal overall production of pleasure, not aimed at Te practical ends) or to "put on the party" (in the case of ESE--maximize Fe via adjustment of ones own physical states and to spread positive physical states to others).

Si is a little easier to understand in the sense that Si base, "introverts" view the world through the impact it has on their own inner sensations, and further view those inner sensations in terms of practicality or positive emotion. And for each, one word means the other; hence SEI finds the pursuit of introverted (self centered) physical states that serve to improve their emotions as the definition of "practicality", implictly (unconscious Te/Fi) by the way they live their life and acting out their program. Likewise SLI views the long term sustainability of their own internal physical states viewed in light of practical objective metrics to be the cause and measure of positive emotion--to them; achievement of these states is achievement of Fe, and conspicuous avoidance of direct Fe engagement yet seeming effortless ability to become the soul of the company (promote Fe states) is evidence to the efficacy of this strategy. To wrap up this digression, the Si egos either go about thinking in terms of Si as a product to be manipulated in the self and provided towards others as a superordinate goal that it is either "logical" (Te) or "ethical" (Fe) or as the fundamental goal unto themselves which is then promoted by serving up rational methods (Te, Fe) in order to maximize them for both the self and others. In essence SEI says to himself "what can I do to improve the mood such that I might feel better--I know I will give a compliment!" whereas ESE says "how can I improve someone's physical state in order that I might improve the mood--I know I will offer candy!" Each of these approaches can be directed at the self or others which leads to the paradoxical result of introverts treating themselves the way an extrovert would treat another person, and an extrovert treating themself the way an introvert would treat another person. It just means at that moment contrary to what they do most of the time they have inverted their prevailing attitude. This brings me to one final aside that personality is just a relatively consistent pattern of behavior manifest over time. So it means what defines you as an introvert or extrovert is not prescriptive in that it does not "control your destiny" rather one could conceivably simply act in an extroverted manner and if in doing so over time you spent the majority of your time in an extroverted way you would be by definition an extrovert. The underlying factor seems to be whether or not people biologically have the energy to do such a thing or whether their habits are in some way determined by a base energetic economy. That is still something of an open question.

Now, finally, perhaps we can get to Ni. Most people are not Ni egos, hence their internal situation is not something they consciously monitor and even less consciously manipulate (as is the case with Ni creative). The consequence of this is they fall into one or two habitual "states of mind"--they don't need more, nor do they know what such a thing would even be like, in principle. In the case of 1d Ni, these types display a habitual lack of control meaning they either habitually fall into the same state of mind that they cannot get out of (SLE/SEE) (without help, such as drugs, or an intuitive ego type), or they are "all over the place" without realizing it (ESE, LSE). This is common to all 1d functions, characterized by rigid habits, desire to change but inability to do so (valued 1d) or inability to recognize them in the first place and hence characterized by wild excesses or deficits resulting in unforeseen painful consequences (the seemingly "from nowhere" aspect adds a level of unpredictability hence randomness hence terror which amplifies the pain of it all).

LSE is easy to see when they go into their explosive bouts of anger (I recently saw a youtube of a SLE pretending to be an LSE dad who was on a tear in regards to some petty provocation out of all proportion to the situation acting like a dick to his son who hadn't seen in years). It is because their internal state of mind is so out of control that such reactions flow from the, at that time, internal picture of the world which concludes that "shits all wrong and I'm in "hulk mode" in order to correct it" the irony is what they see as internal consistency "hulk mode -- to correct" is actually out of step and thus counter productive to the real situation at hand (Ne), thus their lack of control is about to lead to negative consequences--damage to their relationships--precisely because they cannot see that their inner state is inappropriate and out of balance. My dad does this all the time, it basically is his most obvious Achilles heel, where he starts to misread a situation, which in of itself is not the worst problem, the problem is the inability to control his inner state in response to it and thus "hulk out" at inappropriate moments, moments that are inappropriate precisely because he acts in a way to destroy that which he values most--familial relations.

I'm gonna take a break now but I am eventually going to get to base and creative Ni. The thing is, this groundwork needs to be really understood to even get there, because I think not fully understanding 1) Si and 2) creative functions in general, is what snowballs into people's inability to really get a grip on Ni.

[Bertrand]

So lets pick up where we left off with LSE--out of control, internally feeling justified, enraged at his picture of the world, and using that internal situation to justify and fuel his destructive onslaught (which he will later come to regret)...

What if he could control and manipulate those states at will instead of falling prey to them..? Sound like a super power? That is the X-Man, Hamlet.

This is how Hamlet psychologizes. He sees those internal states in others, but more importantly in himself, and he can notice and hang onto a cavalcade of different states, to pull out at any moment. He expresses those states primarily via Fe. Hence he is "the actor" and the best at what he does, because he doesn't just "act" when its invited, his "acting" is so good he gets by on it his whole life whether its welcome or not. In a certain sense people go to movies and suspend disbelief as a condition to fully enjoying and participating in the film. Hamlet doesn't need you to do that, he convinces you whether you're onboard or not. His best performances are perpetrated on an unwilling and, even better, hostile audience (because the greater the risk the greater the glory, and his attitude, which distinguishes him from Yesnin, and likewise Balzac from Jack, is "Qui audet adipiscitur").

The first step to understanding creative Ni is that you have to understand that the internal state can be differentiated, it is not one static ongoing forever developing (or not) implicit sense of self that cannot be controlled. It can be brought to the surface and it can be understood as the self looking at the self (a picture of this is looking at skull in hand). States change but we hardly notice them, let alone make the jump that such a thing could be freely and consciously manipulated. When Jung talks about the contents of the unconscious controlling you, Ni is a very conspicuous actor (although not the only one) in this process. Unconscious Ni that shifts underfoot is cause for all sorts of mayhem as anyone whos literally been mind-boggled @ ESE or LSE can attest to. I used to wonder just how my mind could be so incredibly blown at these two types and I could never articulate my experience until socionics, where I realized it is someone with conscious Ni running up against Ni PoLR. The first hand experience of it is like watching literal chaos in action, it is the unknown acting itself out unknown to the actor, who acts as if they're possessed, all the while looking at you like you're crazy and furthermore acting in accordance with their delusion in a concerted effort to do something clearly destructive. It feels like evil made manifest in the world, but not in its intentional self aware form, but in the form of the hurricane or natural undirected random unfeeling unseeing manifestation. In that sense, xSE is cause for pity not hate. I can only imagine when the veil is lifted the guilt and sorrow that awaits them, but then I think every type has this waiting for them in some way. To fully realize this, Jung says, "is a shattering experience." I would simply add if you haven't been shattered then you probably don't get it.

but I digress...

When Hamlet is acting in the world, in the regular course of his day, he views the world through the ethics of emotion (Fe). The "ethics of emotion" is another potentially hopelessly vague term that I hope to explain. The idea is here that emotional states are really energetic states and Fe is viewing the world in terms of those states as they either manifest in the present (blocked with Si) or as they develop over time (Ni). Hamlet wants to improve the over-all level of positive emotion in the world, because he sees it as the base material that powers the world. It is in essence the "economy of human spirit" and at its root he sees Ni as the mode in which it must be viewed and manipulated and, ultimately, perfected (inasmuch as such a thing is possible), or die trying. The idea that positive emotion is the fundamental unit of human meaning and therefore purpose and thus action constitutes the "ethic of emotion"--that "right action" ought to be oriented towards this "currency" to which money (dollars) is a mere profane imitation--a "false God." The real God to Hamlet is this underlying flow of energy, and there is no higher cause but to live, and die, in its service.

Here we can start to see an interesting intersection between Ni in terms of "intuition of time" and Ni as "integrity of the internal situation." They are indeed only different aspects of the same phenomenon, which I think gives rise to a lot of potential misunderstanding [1]. As I see it, Ni as "internal situation" is inherently the mode of being you take on in light of "the intuition of time" it is the phenomenological experience of the self's "internal situation" as a "snapshot" in terms of the self's being-towards-time-and-the-world. So you must have an opinion on where time is going (Ni), what events are unfolding in what direction (Se/Te/Fe), in order to orient towards those events (Ni) on the basis of certain principles (Fi/Ti) and information (Te/Fe). Thus your "inner situation" is your orientation or understanding of events unfolding in time. Creative Ni is the ability to mold and shift your orientation in order to meet goals that are likewise shaped by Ni. Thus Ni often has the feeling of a "self fulfilling prophecy" because Ni orients itself towards the flow of time, but in doing so influences events-in-time, because that orientation itself has a casual influence on the outcome. When people without intuition egos perceive Ni in action it often looks like "prophecy" but intuition tends to "see the game", especially in the case of Ni creative, and see it more as a willfull product manifest in free manipulation of the self in regards to a perceived future.

Ne and Ni are both commonly thought of as being "open minded" or "capable of seeing things from other's points of view." I think this is rooted in Ni's capacity to "step into the shoes" of another persons "internal situation" and play out the consequences of the internal situation in time in light of the events surrounding them. Actually the first half is the basis for a degree of empathy but the second is more of a prognosis that may be more accurate than the person on whom behalf they're trying the Ni on is aware of. Hence the role of "advisors" of Nx types.

Psychologizing someone is thus a difficult concept to accept as legitimate from the point of view of someone who cannot do it, and thus see the rationality to it, because to them it is a form of magic, or hoodoo, or bullshit or whatever else you want to call it. A common criticism is that it sometimes fails to accurately predict the eventual outcome, but it lacks the granularity to see that some decisions, albeit ultimately turning out to be wrong, may be made for better or worse reasons than others. In other words, some methods, even when they fail, we can say are preferable to others, because on the whole they're working with better equipment to accomplish the goal. So even though building a house with a sponge will sometimes creates a better outcome than building a house with a hammer, and they're both pretty unreliable in comparison to having a complete and comprehensive toolkit, on the whole we can say that one is a real improvement over the other and thus legitimate to that degree. Thus psychologizing gets a bad rap, but in some situations its the only available tool at hand in order to understand a situation and thus we are better off using it than not.

[1] and even better, lots of potential real understanding

[Grendel]

introverted telepathy, shit's overkill

[Pallas]

So lets pick up where we left off with LSE--out of control, internally feeling justified, enraged at his picture of the world, and using that internal situation to justify and fuel his aggression (which he will later come to regret)...

What if he could control and manipulate those states at will instead of falling prey to them..? Sounds like a super power? That is the X-Man, Hamlet.

This is how Hamlet psychologizes. He sees those internal states in others, but more importantly in himself, and he can collect a cavalcade of states to pull out at any moment. He expresses those states primarily via Fe. Hence he is "the actor" and the best at what he does, because he doesn't just "act" when its invited, his "acting" is so good he gets by on it his whole life whether or not its asked for or not. In a certain sense people go to movies and suspect disbelief as a condition to fully enjoying and participating in the film. Hamlet doesn't need you to do that, he convinces you whether you're onboard or not. His best performances are perpetrated on an unwilling and hostile audience.

Too short and simple in comparison to the first part. It was a marvelous feat of Ni on my part to not have said "Bravissimo, encore!" like I was tempted to before you made this post.

[ooo]

EII Ni: " jee! Have you seen what Bertrand did?! I've always suspected he was a genius!"

[Tigerfadder]

When at it I like to share some how I isolate single elements to think of them. When looking at EII and LII they neglect Se like no other type yet got that 4d blasting Ni. For example I think google search engine and their AI they are developing are based on some EII mind because of it. The end result is to narrow down to exactly one thing you want but the road there is a ocean of possibility outcomes. Ni and Ne. In the AI way lets do voice/image recognition which is basically layers. First you have a picture, a frame. Than it see shapes. Than it see details within the shape etc. A picture of a car is basically 20 layers of details within details (or it is at least how this new image recognition is going to function). Same with how the voice works. Why I think it is EII is that it is such a passive way of going for something, there is basically no force what so ever but just braking it down to finer and finer pieces. And it deals with concepts, like what is a car? What make something a car and something a tree? How does it relate to everything elses in the picture? ...I guess am just psyched about this new technology ;p

[Bertrand]

I used to wonder just how my mind could be so incredibly blown at these two types and I could never articulate my experience until socionics, where I realized it is someone with conscious Ni running up against Ni PoLR. The first hand experience of it is like watching literal chaos in action, it is the unknown acting itself out unknown to the actor, who acts as if they're possessed, all the while looking at you like you're crazy and furthermore acting in accordance with their delusion in a concerted effort to do something clearly destructive. .

One question that occurs to me is "how do you know whether you're dealing with Ni creative or Ni polr" This bugged me for a long time because it seemed to me, in real world experience, these manifested themselves similarly, because they had in common the distinct feeling of "competing introverted intuitions." What I have now come to realize is that is merely the difference between them being conscious or not. Hamlet knows he's full of shit on some level. Thus Hamlet is either a man of faith, or a nihilist. Either he trusts in God to look after him and guide him and legitimate his effort (because he knows he's stepping into the unknown), or he chalks it all up to it not mattering anyway and it might as well be his way because its gotta be someone's way, and why not take the place of God if you don't want to serve Him? This is how I personally distinguish humble and other-centered Hamlets, from their more destructively self centered version.

Religious ESE is easy to confuse for Hamlet because they invoke the same words in regards to God and Faith and act in a superficially similar way as "Good Hamlet" except that unforeseen and unintended consequences follow them wherever they may roam

I want to add that, If you want to know what your PoLR and Creative is: one is the thing you're "all over the place" with, intentionally, which you admit to yourself and in good humor can laugh off mistakes made in such a manner, and take criticism constructively with confidence and a critical but good natured understanding (as long as you're not getting overtly fucked over, in the process). PoLR is the thing you're "all over the place with" and can't even really detect until its pointed out to you, hopefully not under circumstances which are fucking you over, because its likely by your own hand and not competing initiatives, as it is with creative. All the same stuff applies to base as does creative except you're not "all over the place" its pretty straightforward. nasty projections occur when you assume polr is creative

paradoxically, both super ego functions will on occasion fulfill the criteria I just set by PoLR, however its the one you notice less that fucks you over in the most serious way. Thus Balzac is "all over the place" in his mannerisms and it forms a pattern of an unstable somewhat weird person (but he acts as if its the most normal thing in the world--this disorienting vibe he puts out is Fe polr), whereas Jack can be quite charming but is "all over the place" in regards to his internal sensations but doesn't realize it. both occasionally experience saying something that had an embarrassing reverse of intended effect. its the long term implications of what is really fucking them over the most by establishing a consistent pattern, to the level of stable character trait, that other people are identifying and avoiding that defines polr. thus jack says Fe polr sounding stuff on occasion but no one really thinks of him that way, those who know him, more like they're worried about his personal sanity when they look at his lifestyle (that he likely hides), whereas Balzac actually probably takes decent care of himself and isn't really a threat to anyone or himself on that level, hes just a frickin' weirdo socially and doesn't quite know it. balzac makes weird sounds and tics and mannerisms or things to that effect, Jack scares people when they see how he lives

its the disjunction between how someone acts when not being normal but what their self concept puts out in contradistinction to what theyre actually manifesting that constitutes the "polr vibe"--its why balzac is quirky and kind of dopey, its the straight faced presentation of such oddities that strikes people. whereas Jack when he goes to work amazes people with his presentation and results, yet when he occasionally "lets people in" theyre shocked to see how he really lives, sometimes like a homeless person or drug addict, etc... people would assume its the socially eccentric guy that would have the weird home life but, at least with gamma NTs, its the opposite and thats what makes it polr, because neither recognizes their side of the disjunction because they both struggle in the same area their weakness is they each only work one side of the problem, and of course the introvert takes care of himself (Si), the extrovert his expression (Fe).. Jack notices Fe gaffes more readily, if you asked him hed probably identify with Fe polr precisely because its more obvious than Si, until Si hits him in the face some day. Jack will be subtly critiqued on Si all his life and not know it, same with weirdo balzac and Fe

[Bertrand]

Too short and simple in comparison to the first part. It was a marvelous feat of Ni on my part to not have said "Bravissimo, encore!" like I was tempted to before you made this post.

haha Its a work in progess, thank you though

[wacey]

1.) awesome.
2.) however excellent, Ni wasn't really fleshed out by this. ---> only in relation to other things.
3.) what does God have to do with this? ---> just used as illustrating a point?

[The Reality Denialist]

ignoring Ni: I hope you are ready for battery of tests that will unfold as we continue... Frankly I'm content to be totally mental and I flex it for my own amusement. For example I have scared ESI by not giving any value to my own state of being upset. You can tease me mentally all you want and I'll laugh at it. Physical stuff is bit different, though.

[Bertrand]

there's no asshole quite like an ILE asshole

[Bertrand]

I want to say that my personal vision of evil is 4d Si with 2d Ni and 3d Fe, and here is what it feels like:

This person is outwardly totally calm because its obvious they are inwardly in a physically content state and its also obvious that this is something they could keep up indefinitely and show no sign this is something they will ever likely deviate from, this in turn implies an impressive degree of confidence (3d Se, that militates towards persuasion of the exception in their favor). This person is also inwardly conformed to norms of Ni, thus their inner situation may be failing to rise to exceptional circumstances, but any attempt to explain why this is this the case falls on deaf ears (thus not only is it physically sustainable it will persist in time as is). Further they're exhibiting 3d Fe to such a degree that by all appearances they are behaving in an ethical manner that is also at the same time highly persuasive and effectual on the immediate environment. Nevertheless they are acting in a way (or advocating a course of action) that I perceive (Ne) will have major negative consequences (Te) both in terms of Te but also in Fe (norms) on the intuitive level, and I am in front of an audience that is only capable of 2d Ne, no more, or is Fe valuing [1]. They will not see why I am against such a nice, docile creature, and preaching such an unpleasant message to boot! Thus I will lose every time and fail to be understood, bad things will happen for everyone involved, and I will not be able to stop it. My opponent in question will get their way, but it will lead to all our doom, and I take no satisfaction in the knowledge that it will bring them, as well as those who decided, and all who failed to heed my call, not to mention the innocent, and everyone I love, down with it.

This is the complex of tied hands

this is a situation that not only will I lose every time, but that SEI can keep up indefinitely, and when she dies she will have surely reproduced to ensure it never ends. This is the "temptation of Satan" to me--that which when people give into it, the world gets worse. Sin in a nutshell. It is what the "whore of babylon" means to me on the affective level. I see the destruction of society in it. it is hedonism and self satisfaction that devours itself (sodom and Gomorrah)[2]. the only possibility of "triumph over evil" is to be in an exclusively gamma audience or in the presence of a supportive dual, who takes on the vision of "the mother of Christ" [3] in measure of personal significance to me. this is how I experience and interpret religion; good and evil.

I want to add; I have always felt this way, socionics did not make me "hate" SEI or something, it simply gave expression to what I already felt my whole life. This is also, of course, an illusion. The super ego, the Anima. It gives content to religious feeling, but SEI is not evil; nor is good and evil SEI v LIE, it is simply how it is subjectively experienced. Christ is the image of unification that transcends this, but religion is also animated by the contents of the unconscious even as it tries to assimilate them and in doing so transcend them so as to be "Christ-like"

[1] this comprises the whole of the socion, the exception being delta NFs (which is where I acutely feel the ethical battleground taking place--it is in essence their role to arbitrate... when delta NFs oppose me it really hurts)

[2] it is really interesting that Jewish culture has been said to be SEI and that I identify so strongly with the lessons of the bible originating as the product of a culture aimed at transforming itself (I had a really hellfire and brimstone, "old testament", upbringing)... I feel like the IEE lesson here is likely to be all "don't let your kids get hooked on religion" I had an IEE say the second she saw my face she knew something like this was going on

[3] this is a whole other thing but its the idea the things I subconsciously value most, i.e.: view as beautiful and redemptive in the pre-unified state, are those that could, taken together with my own strengths, carve out a path to victory in spite of all opposition, i.e.: invincible and just Fi Se. the things when you see them in a woman you can't not love. the hands untied


it is interesting that the quasi of your dual seems so bad but so similar. I already said as much when I characterized ESI as invincible and just, whereas SEI is more like "undying evil" --the zombified warmed over contagious plague of undeath version of what you value so highly. a cruel mockery of life, I guess you could say. probably the origin of so many vampire tales. i wonder what it says about those who identify vampire women with ESI (or gamma in general) imagery? I am sure the perpetual confict with an undying foe is rooted in these unconscious archetypes because that is precisely what engaging your conflictor feels like given imaginative form. that video of SEI ILE posted a while back of those two gross people is exactly how I see them and they give me that "pox" vibe. it becomes a chicken or egg thing, perhaps I view them as SEI because of the vibe, or do they give me the vibe because the girl is SEI..? either way to me that is what the vibe is defined as, so the causality is really a moot point. people could say "wow you're really going hard on alpha" but what they dont realize is that every cheap stereotype of Jack as moneyed is the Fe/Si version of a "backhanded" compliment. It deprives him of his spirituality and misleads people from identifying with it. Its an Fe gloss on an insult to a Te mindset that doesn't even give the privilege of being allowed offense. Its precisely this corruption of the system that is so pernicious and drives away real understanding as I see it. Fe/Si is close to destroying socionics as far as I can tell. you can already see beta starting to take up the cause as the whole thing being meaningless, after alpha did its job



...i still intend to talk about Dostoevsky when I can, who is in some ways I think of special interest to me. also talking about your dual in NT terms always comes off slightly (or really, excessively) clinical and I hate that. I feel like I implied they were useful like some kind of instrument. the truth is every type sees in their dual the potential realization of their goals. but the truth is I feel like I have already treaded too close to the sappy and mawkish ground of my personal sentiments... I don't really think I can do ESI justice, except to say that I sincerely wish I was strong enough to be one

[Singu]

Really interesting when people go on with their insane ramblings when discussing Socionics.

A good example is exactly why Socionics doesn't work. It allows any random insane idiot to go off with their random and incoherent ramblings, mistaking it for some great insight and wisdom.

[Bertrand]

that's interesting, is it fair to say my personal sanity is questionable from your point of view?

[Shytan]

Do EII Ni @Bertrand

[Bertrand]

I see what you mean, but you're judging it from the point of view of the social manifestation which is how you personally define harm from the point of view of Fe, so when you talk about Ni polr not hurting LSE you're not talking about the subjective experience of pain which is by definition the "painful function" but the cause of disruption from the point of view of your valued functions. In other words, I intentionally picked a type that had a "painful function" from the point of view of my ego. It is not the same to assess according to Fe if it is not their painful function and call it the source of their pain. You point would be most appropriate in regards to Balzac, for whom being offensive really does constitute "the source of their pain"

in a certain sense lapses in Fe is the source of all pain, just like Ti is, just like Te is, just like Fi is, the point here is that all pain can be traced back to a judging function when viewed from the egos of that kind because one's primary judging function is the scheme by which pain is understood by definition. there are of course many different ways to understand the same phenomenon which I think is your deeper point, and well made, I'm just making a nit pick here

It is true that LSE can hurt their relationship via excessive Te regardless of Ni polr, but Ni polr is what kicks off instances of that happening in an unintentional and hence painful way. Excessive Te alone is intentional and wouldn't constitute "harm" from their own point of view, only that from an Fe perspective, which they don't share

in any case, very insightful post. thank you

[Bertrand]

i've been accused of IEI for sure, but I identify with LIE

i definitely think my love of ESI comes across as benefactor-love, but I also think the sentiments of an LIE are similar to those of IEI towards SLE, just much more rarely stated, so I do think a pattern exists there when talking about writing with passion towards the dual-ideal

I also think IEIs are good writers, so it is a compliment to be thought of similar to one

off the top of my head I've heard Viktor Frankl called IEI and I really admire him, his work, and his writing

from my own point of view I personally think I read kind of like expat, who did the famous Fe and Fi as lazers thing... maybe I'm wrong

I would also say that creative Ni is about states of mind and when blocked with Te, from my point of view IEI represents a certain social ideal which I try my best to put on in order to maintain cordiality... my inner feelings are still my own but rarely expressed. Its an attempt to purposefully channel role Fe as exemplified by IEI the ideal (called the mirage of the entire socion--in other words, if you want to be heard by the broadest possible audience...). I feel like sufficiently sophisticated LIEs will do this because they will have likewise discovered the usefulness of doing so. I'm aware this sounds kind of nuts, but I think the "refinement" certain highly sophisticated thinkers exhibit is something like this

[Bertrand]

my gut reaction is that Te recedes from the view of Ti valuing ethicals by its very nature. I feel like they essentially pick up on the Ti only, especially when you're talking about Te blocked with inuition which I feel like is invisible in some respects in the same way Fe + Si is to me. I can understand an abstract description of it in practice, and I can kind of sort of see it in action but only in its most highly stereotypical forms. I also feel this is precisely the reason the prevailing social perception of LIE is more LSE than LIE, from my point of view. To me LIE is nerdier and more scattered than the CEO 10k/day stereotype, which seems (the nerd, that is) to have been fully co opted by ILE/LII because that is what said social perception understands. I've said before gamma has been squeezed out, in a lot of ways. you have to remember, LIE is quasi to ILE not LSE. In other words they either understand the presence of thinking with Si or thinking with Ne so either LSE or ILE (or LII or SLI). LIE gets pushed out (less so ILI because someones got to be the intuitive Fe polr waste valve). You manifest Ni too strongly without Fe polr and now you're IEI. No room for LIE. the fact no one thinks I'm LIE and I think most people thinking this are alpha militates precisely towards me being LIE because such a thing is imperceptible to them and thus perfectly consistent with the idea of this place typing people anything but LIE. anyway that's my ker azy mostly indefensible intuition of this place. I attribute a lot of my misunderstanding from the beginning as caused by a degree of inordinate trust in the outer situation being more together than it is (well that and a lot of my own stupidity), so it took a lot of trial and error to figure out where I really stand...

I also intentionally make it a point to consciously try to look and edit for Ti as a product of education and a long time of being critiqued along those lines. my entire education in philosophy was basically the process of translating myself into Ti. I was considered a horrible mostly incoherent writer. So I guess nothings really changed, but at least the Ti is coming across better

Im guilty of rationalizing type a lot, and I think one has to think about what the unifying principle is behind all that, and to me what stands out underlying it all is Te style reasoning, "rationalizing from an endstate" (but consciously--this is something everyone does, but rarely with such pizazz), with creative Ni "experiments" meant to "test" the "idea." Once I feel like I finally understood Reinin, it began to click for me... this is precisely what Jack does.. I would just like to emphasize how weird and alien Te + Ni goes about doing things (from the point of view of alpha specifically) but in a way that ends up being very similar in result to Ne + Ti. I really think almost no one truly understand this... and I've said this before, this is why gamma is stereotyped into the ground and socionics has integrated them the least successfully, as far as I can tell (Strat being the superstar [1])

this stuff (rationalizing) gets a bad wrap because people usually do it shoddily, unconsciously, and towards unproductive ends, whereas I really feel like I use it as a productive method not a mere cop out, which is what it is from the Ti valuing perspective, rooted in some kind of emotional impulse directed at one-self (Fe)... which is what a "cop out" is--a facile non genuine attempt (Fe) to found a thinking principle.. a house on sand so to speak [2]. I feel like all my writing and attempts at understanding are founded on %100 good faith and sincerity inasmuch as I'm feebly capable of such a thing. My hope is this is insightful into the workings of Te Ni... I feel like if people understand this even a little it should be fascinating, because its kind of a real novelty in the community

I do think the vortical and Ti aspects of my post align with what an IEI would produce, but I think its a perceptual selection effect, essentially. They're both in there, but there's also a lot more (and a lot less, I'm no true IEI)

[1] who, predictably, gets shit all over

[2] I've been building houses and then abandoning them when they fail, in order to detect what the subsurface conditions are in lieu of being able to measure them directly. this is different than building a house on sand and sticking to it come hell or high water, because I want to believe my house is on rock, and I believe by sticking to it makes it true i.e.: "name it and claim it" which I do see around here, but accusations directed at me towards that end are projection, guilty consciences perhaps... that is not me, I will abandon LIE if it ceases to make sense. my first sentence in this paragraph is a description of Te/Ni v Ne/Ti (consciously using Ne would be to "detect" the conditions and build appropriately [Ti]).

this is precisely the kind of low information environment where hopefully LIE can make something happen where other methods have begun to stall

[Aylen]

Bertrand, your writing style is similar to an IEI. What's your type? I thought you were an ESI? Your profile says you are a LIE.
No LIE writes like this

I should note, I do not mean content at all. I have an "eye" for the details of writing style and this is very IEI.

Actually his writing style reminded me a bit of @Avalonia's (LII, Ava is probably a genius) which got me curious because while I was reading his use of Ti was just jumping out at me. I do not get a sense of strong Te from it which is what I would expect from an LIE. Adam uses Te far more than Bertrand. It is rare when a forum members puts forth this much text in one place where you can see their processes unfold. I read every word so far. Whatever type he is, I would say he has 4d Ti. I had already considered IEI for him awhile ago... I think you can relax. All he will do is hug you.

My "guess" for his type is INTx.

Here is a bit from Jung on Te and Ti.

But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life. What sort of a causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results?


This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being 'merely' symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts. [p. 483]


Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says 'Est, ergo est' ('It is ; therefore it is') ; while the latter says 'Cogito, ergo cogito' (' I think ; therefore I think'). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact. For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence. In both cases the further development of life is crowded out of the domain of thought into the region of other psychic functions which had hitherto existed in relative unconsciousness. The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts. Whenever consciousness, wedded to the function of thought, confines itself within the smallest and emptiest circle possible -- though seeming to contain the plenitude of divinity -- unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life. If this should be the intuitive function, the 'other side' will be viewed with the eyes of a Kubin or a Meyrink. If it is the feeling-function, [p. 484] there arise quite unheard of and fantastic feeling-relations, coupled with feeling-judgments of a quite contradictory and unintelligible character. If the sensation-function, then the senses discover some new and never-before-experienced possibility, both within and without the body. A closer investigation of such changes can easily demonstrate the reappearance of primitive psychology with all its characteristic features. Naturally, the thing experienced is not merely primitive but also symbolic; in fact, the older and more primeval it appears, the more does it represent the future truth: since everything ancient in our unconscious means the coming possibility.


Under ordinary circumstances, not even the transition to the 'other side' succeeds -- still less the redeeming journey through the unconscious. The passage across is chiefly prevented by conscious resistance to any subjection of the ego to the unconscious reality and to the determining reality of the unconscious object. The condition is a dissociation-in other words, a neurosis having the character of an inner wastage with increasing brain-exhaustion -- a psychoasthenia, in fact.

2. The Introverted Thinking Type


Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.


The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486]


disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the [p. 488] better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.


With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.


The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.

[ooo]

Ah! I was thinking the same thing... not an expert on Te, as I think I tend to supply myself with it enough by my own, and I was really wondering after reading the last comments on here "oh so this is Te? Infos, infos, infos?". The thing is that all these infos are processed, there's lots of insight from Bertrand's part, and a lot of personal experience that backs up his selective approach.. Is this Te? Looks like Ti.

[Slade]

I re-read this a few times and it's still hard for me to understand. It touches on interesting points, but it goes in too many different directions for me to be able to grasp properly. This might just be my own shortcomings in being unable to fully understand this. It's language I've seen before and my problems with it are the same, it's too vague for me. These words in particular used in this context:

Consciousness
Inner State

The connection between this and time is unclear. The connection you made was that the self is a snapshot of yourself in time. Earlier though, there was an idea that Ni is about an internal state that is free from contradictions, and these seem like 2 concepts that are more parts of a whole than the same exact thing.

There are certain aspects here that touch on Ni as a set of ideological beliefs, related to consciousness, mood management, and time. All functions have several aspects that it encompasses, but this is the one where I can't see how any of this is related to each other, except on a very rudimentary basis. Mostly all of them except time I can draw a relation to.

I think some more examples of Ni working in real life situations helpful. I find that the Beta NFs frequently seem unable to split Ni from Fe and so the descriptions are tinged with both those functions. It's difficult to isolate functions, but I want to know what it is at its core.

If it's core is time, how does that tie into belief systems? If it's belief systems, what does time have to do with it? If its just awareness of self, or consciousness, that makes even less sense to the relation of any of this. etc etc.

[Chae]

Mind my PoLR but there's so much information in the OP, is it possible to make it concise and applicable @Bertrand?

[wasp]

bertrand has been my (supposed) "dual" this whole time?

[ooo]

I've never found the definition of time as a good description too. The aspect of "integrity with the internal situation" is what helped me made understand it better, but it's as well a bit restricting. Integrity is a thing you'll notice in Ni ego types anyway, they give out a sort of uncompromising nature, they maintain the promise they made to themselves. Integrity to their ideas. But that's actually the last part that shows outside, from their constant busy internal dialogue. Ni is different from Ne, because it works inside, but the push is kind of the same: a dialogue with all the internal ideas/inspirations/memories, and when Ni person picks one out of the flow, you can tell there's so much they're not showing out of what they display, which will keep playing inside their busy minds. Although they'll be committed to the picked one.

[Aylen]

Mind my PoLR but there's so much information in the OP, is it possible to make it concise and applicable @Bertrand?

This might be helpful for you.

http://freesummarizer.com/

I actually read it all because of fascination but the summarizer works pretty well. I only found out about it yesterday.

[Grendel]

If is about consistency in the inner world, could that be what I've mistaken for this whole time? Is this the element that actually abhors embracing contradiction?

[Chae]

This might be helpful for you.

http://freesummarizer.com/

I actually read it all because of fascination but the summarizer works pretty well. I only found out about it yesterday.

Wow Aylen you never fail to surprise me. It actually kinda works!


Ni is the "integrity of the inner situation", which does not necessarily mean a placid and balanced inner situation in the sense of Si, which would be like actual physical calmness (or more abstractly a "positive"--whatever that may be-- inner physical state).

To contrast Ni with Si one must understand that while Si and Ni are linked in that a tumultuous state in one can very easily influence the other it is not necessarily the case, and that, further, "integrity in the inner state" in terms of Si does mean a consistent, non contradictory, physical state, which is most often seen as levels of physical states that are "sustainable" and either "productive" in the case of creative Si (LSE adjusting his inner state in order to achieve a task) or "healthy" (in terms of SLI which is aimed at ultimate health for its own sake, not task-oriented) or "epicurean" (in the case of SEI--maximal overall production of pleasure, not aimed at Te practical ends) or to "put on the party" (in the case of ESE--maximize Fe via adjustment of ones own physical states and to spread positive physical states to others).

It is because their internal state of mind is so out of control that such reactions flow from the, at that time, internal picture of the world which concludes that "shits all wrong and I'm in "hulk mode" in order to correct it" the irony is what they see as internal consistency "hulk mode -- to correct" is actually out of step and thus counter productive to the real situation at hand (Ne), thus their lack of control is about to lead to negative consequences--damage to their relationships--precisely because they cannot see that their inner state is inappropriate and out of balance.

[Bertrand]

bertrand has been my (supposed) "dual" this whole time?

I'm bad at typing people but for what its worth I feel like you're probably Dostoevsky

[Hope]

Actually I think it's possible for you being LIE-Ni. LIE-Ni would be more similar to ILIs on expression I think.
Adam is LIE-Te, btw.
Anyway all the LIEs I know ramble a lot if they have the opportunity.

[Bertrand]

the way I look at ILI v LIE is the same way I conceive of SLI v ESE or LSE which is to say the introvert wants to perfect the introverted perception and stay in the best singular mode they can with only slight deviations as needed. In other words, they "live" in their IP and they only come out of it in order to use their creative (Te) as needed. This is why Balzac is less "active", because he doesn't "try on" different Ni's, and doesn't think in terms of life as jockeying in regards to his objective place in the world (Xe), he is content to be static as long as he is accounting for what he needs to. They can come to terms with inaction and lack of achievement or change for the better because those things are seen as disruptions, they would rather adapt their own attitude than seek them out in an objective sense. In the same way SLI is primarily interested in perfecting and sustaining the best version of Si and not really interested in being "all over the place" thus the choices they make in their life reflect that. They gravitate away from Si disruptions, they don't allow themselves to be caught up in things the way ESE or LSE does and they're definitely not using Si like some kind of fuel source willy nilly except when they get a return on it that justifies the expenditure.

at its simpliest i'd equate Si and Ni in introverts as being more "self preservation" whereas in LIE and LSE or ESE its "social"

its interesting that IEI has the reputation for being super nice, because IEI doesn't "believe in" Fe the way Hamlet or Hugo does. To IEI, Fe is a means to an end, whereas for Hamlet its the reason for doing anything. Hamlet adjusts his inner state to promote Fe states, in other words he moves himself for the sake of others, whereas Yesenin moves others with Fe "products" in order to maintain positive Ni states. In a lot of ways IEI and SEI's "niceness" is just their face to the world, but its used in general to support internal stability. 4d Ni or Si is simply the ability to develop "the one" superior mode of introverted perception, which means they don't have to switch between 3d versions as the situation requires. The flipside to this is they do need to develop strong unconscious introverted rationality (balzac too, their demonstrative) in order to keep things on the rails. This is the real source of IEI's "goodness" but it is not aimed at maximizing positive emotions but rather maximizing positive relationships, and unconsciously realized via the quest to maintain their "perfect inner state" via " creative manipulation of emotions."

the creative function can produce radically new and highly refined "products" however, hence IEI's reputation as the lyricist. Their "Fe products" become so well crafted that it pushes the boundaries of Fe in a way that Fe base doesn't because Fe base is more the lens the world is viewed through, not creations that get served up. For Hamlet his product is Ni, which is why Hamlet is a "new man" he lives, he tests out Ni, judges it according to Fe base lens, and is the living prototype. These inner states that get put on display are "examples of how to be"... this is leadership in a nutshell. Jack does the same thing but the difference between Fe and Te is the difference between ethics and logic. Hamlet produces ways of being oriented at maximization of positive emotions, Jack oriented at practical results. The deal is they each also have a role function which is how they can do what they do. Jack's new man is aimed at creating a product that accords with the ethics of emotions in the normative sense, Hamlets in the sense of "business logic". Thus Hamlet has a reputation for excess or even atrocity because it can come down to "sometimes you must break a few eggs."--how's that for some business logic? [1] Jack is a radical moderate in that sense. He sees the new man as not needing to redefine man in terms of his ethics but to perfect the existing ethic and to achieve progress via setting the physical conditions consistent with maximal positive emotion in terms of norms. What this means is offering up an image of man that conquers his environment, and thinks in terms of efficacy in regards to physical realities and metrics. In other words, Jack's ethos is that the superior Ni vision of the world is the one in which man thinks and acts in such a way that an ethical summersault is not necessary but rather logical rationality and command over the self and environment in accordance with existing ethical norms is the answer to present problems and the basis for future development. In other words its the idea that you don't need to redefine good and evil you just need to make sure people have enough and you do that by producing things of real value and not doing things that would be wasteful (hence their reputation for concern with money, because it is the commonly understood measure of this). You can do this by using your brain to analyze phenomena and by exercising the will and fortitude to see it though, regardless of momentary discomfort

honestly Hamlet and Jack are not that different because they both essentially want the same thing, they are just pushing different aspects in order to develop it, but they agree that there needs to be a mix of both. they just have a different preference on what needs to be developed. Jack can force himself to do things he doesn't want to, whereas Hamlet tends to struggle more with that. Jack in turn has a hard time with relationships. I admire Hamlet. When Hamlet is healthy, and I know at least one, he radiates true goodness and self sacrifice. The problem with Hamlet is he often gets in his own way in the sphere of logic. Its why he needs his dual. Hamlet's vision is twisted if it entails a contradiction and it often does. Jack can fall prey to the same fault but in the realm of ethics. They are two sides of the same coin, honestly. Every Hamlet I've ever met has always admired my ability to discipline myself and do things other people wont, and I in turn have admired their real goodness (their sincere concern for "the least of these"). I feel like in the final analysis (Ni) Te and Fe base want basically the same things

you have to be "loose" in order to do this (Si PoLR), if you were more "grounded" it would be impossible

also, its not about "money." Te is "shit that works" think about Te as "shit that works v shit that doesnt work"--in the end that's the basis for a new man rooted in Te. Shits gotta work, feelings take a back seat. but that doesn't mean gassing the jews; not gassing the jews is an implicit condition in "shit working" (role Fe).. its actually Hamlet that has made exceptions that allow for such things, in the past... although in the very bygone days a Jack could also have done things we now judge to be bad because role Fe would have been different (think ancient greece or ancient israel, where God commanded the deaths of opposing people groups). Hamlet and Jack actually need eachother to develop those aspects over time because they both subconsciously use them at the role level, and someone has got to push those (in other words exceptions can be good or evil, and the possibility must exist for either outcome so that they have meaning). It is why the villian and hero are not that different, in that they each comprise a certain common base virtue in order to even take the stage...


i also want to say your creative is at odds with polr in such a way that its hard or impossible to use them at the same time, so balzac can create great technical descriptions of relations but with poor attention to emotional impact (Fe). in the same way Yesinin comes off as slightly scattered in regards to emotional expressions that lack a kind of "working sense" to them (Te), which is how they excel at poetry. It doesn't need to track moving parts the way a novel might. since Balzac has a hard time integrating ethics into their analysis they tend more towards dry topics like purely scientific or technical ones, just like yesenin drifts towards abstract statements of feelings. both jack and hamlet are philosophical because they can dispense with all the Si in novels and stories. the best novel writers are often sensors because a novel is very much a Si experience (it depends if you're judging it from is formal content, which is an entire aspect of writing, the Si piece, or its narrative), and you do not need advanced Ni to tell a story the way you would need to advance a truly new philosophical concept. The best stories are in many ways vivid portraits of a already existing philosophy not the expression of a new one as such. dostoyeski is probably the single best writer because Se polr impacts their writing the least. they can integrate Si Ni Ne Fe Te Fi and Ti all at once in a way no one else can... obviously any type with experience can write well, but we're talking about pushing creative boundaries here

the fundamental problem I see is people associating "the product" only with the base function and that's wrong as far as I can tell. the best way to identify a product is 1) creative 2) minus polr 3) in terms of base "values"

thus "money uber alles" can be understood as 1) Si creative-- in terms of what it can buy, what comfort it can provide. the physical possession of the thing. 2) minus Ni-- concern for the inner situation, the counter balancing factors in time and where they're headed in light of deeper goals 3) Te-- result oriented. truth is any type can become money obsessed my only point is the most basic stereotype is LSE not LIE. LIE is just not understood, thus feared, thus hated, thus maligned, thus stereotyped, thus "understood", thus "erased", thus no longer feared

Jack can integrate ethics and logic in a way balzac can't, which makes his expressions livelier. In the same way Hamlet can order their writing with care for Te that Yesinin lacks. Their ability to do both Fe and Te and Ni at the same time is what distinguishes them from their introverted counter parts, but their weakness at Si means they are precisely more philosophical and less concrete for that reason. People think Yesenin is abstract, yesenin is not so much more abstract as lacking Te which is different, because high levels of abstraction actually need both Te and Fe if you're talking logically about ethics and not "purely emoting." Not to mention that an Fe expression of an intuition is different than a Ni expression of a Fe ideal, something people forget. A creative expression from balzac is going to ooze more Te than one from Jack because it is going to exclude Fe and is a Te product with intuition in the backround, whereas Jack expresses an intuition with a Te background and integrates Fe in a role capacity rather than excluding it. What is excluded is Si. How much Si is in this post?

Jack's ultimate achievement would be to make an omelette while breaking no eggs... the more that "vision" of the world is realized the more the "product" is shown to be superior, perfect even. all the "business" activity is a method to get feedback on the true "product" which is the man, the Ni. the difference between LSE and LIE is that money is "the thing" for LSE that gives feedback whereas for LIE it is what the money represents. LIE can start over from zero, willingly, in order to further test the idea (sometimes the idea needs to be "thrust into the wild"), because its not about the absolute amount in terms of accumulation when testing the idea, its ability to generate money in time. Whereas LSE would not take a "step back" like that (unless there was a guaranteed short term return), because money is the forward progress for LSE (the idea of "giving it all up" is an "evil temptation" in the mind of LSE, which comes on while hes "raging" [2]). LSE is linear in that sense, LIE is non linear. evolutionary v involutionary

Jack could die penniless but have perfected his ideal (although this is unlikely), to die without tangible resources stored up would be tantamount to failure to LSE

""Naked I came into the world, and naked I will depart. The lord gave and the lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the lord." - Job.

"Very true, and I'm not worried about money; I'll probably die rich anyway, but what's more important is that I tried my best" - Jack


[1] the things ive heard unhealthy alpha and beta ethicals justify in the name of "just business" is truly astounding

[2] this is another manifestation of creative v polr Ni, their views on "what's worth holding on to" (for Jack the "evil temptation" is to not risk, not be willing to give it up, to stop being creative) Each constitutes a different way they "give into fear" LSE by wiping the reserves out, LIE by not willing to risk them. LSE manifests their polr as vice in the form of recklesness (counterproductive internal situation, or intuition of time, Ni), LIE as cowardice (counter productive pleasant subjective sensation Si).. cowardliness is just self preservation that is self defeating, moving away from negative sensations at the expense of positive ones, on balance. its why it feels bad even if you "saved yourself"

[Bertrand]

I feel like my portrait of evil is dispositive in the sense that I can imagine Hamlet feeling almost exactly the same way, except towards a Te antagonist (Gaben).

The feeling of loss of (unselfish) control with dire consequences in the face of an implacable foe is like the EJ nightmare

I've actually seen this play out but I was more on team Gaben, but it was only circumstantial. I can easily understand the deeper archetypal horror that one day it wont be some petty dispute and the Gabens will be the death of us all. But it gives me hope because if I can see that Gaben terrifies Hamlet but really isn't so bad, the same thing is probably true in regards to my own feelings towards Dumas

[Stellafera]

Now, finally, perhaps we can get to Ni. Most people are not Ni egos, hence their internal situation is not something they consciously monitor and even less consciously manipulate (as is the case with Ni creative). The consequence of this is they fall into one or two habitual "states of mind"--they don't need more, nor do they know what such a thing would even be like, in principle.

This seems to be a point of confusion between me and most other people I interact with. Of course I know my own mental patterns, it's an essential part of keeping track of what I'm thinking and where my thoughts are heading.

I think some more examples of Ni working in real life situations helpful. I find that the Beta NFs frequently seem unable to split Ni from Fe and so the descriptions are tinged with both those functions. It's difficult to isolate functions, but I want to know what it is at its core.

I'm not sure how to describe the difference but I agree with your observation. Any way I try to think of Ni has Fe involved too. I think the best bet is to ask Gamma NT's how they see Ni and note the similarities/differences.

My best attempt:

Ni is the "gist" of a situation and its essential qualities that make it, well, it. Ni operates on a deterministic view of the world; X is like blah blah blah, so if you put it in Y situation, which is like blah blah blah, Z will be the result. Why? Because of the essential qualities of X are going to naturally lead to a certain outcome when they interact with the essential qualities of Y. That's just how things work.

In regards to time, Ni sees the future state of something as an evolution of its past status. Accordingly, Ni can draw conclusions about the past by trying to determine where the current situation evolved from.

In regards to mood management, your mood = the (current) actionable, essential qualities of you, as a person. You are angry, so you will be short tempered, impatient, and rude in situations that are not relaxing to you. Therefore, if you're thinking while angry, it's important to keep that in mind. Otherwise you could inaccurately read the situation you're in, and then you'll make really poor conclusions.

[Bertrand]

I realize in my post about the differences between IP and EJ in regards to Ni I talked in terms of "perfecting" the IP element as a project of all 4types and it may have been unclear how that can be and not be a contradiction or inconsistency of some sort.

So the first thing I thought of was about the M4 assault rifle I was issued in the Army. Its got a modular rail system that allows for all sorts of attachments and customization. I would analogize dominant IP as the project of having the "perfect" custom set up. All the bells and whistles that work, tailored to that individual user. Something they'd never have to switch out for a different model because it does absolutely everything they want it to.

IP as creative is more about prototyping entirely new models. I.e.: a P90 or a Kalashnikov.

Thus what xIE does is try out entirely new ways of being, and switch back and forth, as required in order to meet the base goals set by extroverted judgement. Their "product" in the case of an entirely new "model" of a way of being is thus vetted by the process of being in the world and the pragmatic ability to meet its goals. When people look at Ni products they are ideas that if adopted, say at their core, "you must change the way you live" they are ontological "threats" to the status quo, which is why Jack and Hamlet are probably playing the most dangerous game of all. When society rejects Ni products the sentence is usually death, imprisonment, exile, or commitment. You have to be Si PoLR to be onboard with this. The flipside is, when successful, these people revolutionize culture. Hence the reputation for gambling. Its go big or go home. ILI goes home. He doesn't give a fuck. This is what distinguishes Balzac from Jack. Jack is a tryhard.

Base IP rather uses techniques rooted in Fe or Te in order to "customize" their preferred "one way of being" which they do not like to be drawn out of. Thus it tends to integrate every situation as it develops and learns "methods" (Te, Fe) in order to preserve itself and not have to move. Thus all the bells and whistles which get used as needed so that an entirely new model is never required. Their "product" to the world are these "methods", i.e.: to continue the gun analogy: they are the m68 optic or the gangster grip or the extended mag. They are the particular modular innovations that get passed on as "tactics, techniques, and procedures" that others can likewise adopt and integrate into their lifestyle in order to derive the same benefit. We call these things innovations in terms of "concrete methods" such as all the "life hacks" you see in delta threads. In terms of ILI it is often termed "strategies" or even abstract scientific principles. These things do not demand a shift in being they are thinking products and limited to that domain. They allow one to preserve their preferred mode of being without having to change it, rather they are aimed at manipulating the environment. Thus they create tools for beings to use, not adjustments to being itself.

Balzac's serenity in the face of life, which borders on total apathy, is based on a philosophical "tool" that he's developed for himself in order to justify his own inertia. He might share it with you if you ask. Likewise Niehls Bohr took a more subtle route, instead of attacking things on the level of meaning, he sought to understand the world scientifically in terms of quantum probability which created a product (a theory) that provided a rationale for the inherent unavoidable irreducible chaotic nature of the universe at its core that likewise substantiated the underlying futility of ever really being able to master the flow thus the conclusion that we are all subject to the flow whether we like it or not (so we might as well get comfortable with it--which is exactly what Balzac does--hence his paradoxical indifference to outcomes). Going with the flow whether we like it or not is simply another expression of suggestive Se. Products of Ni doms can be thought of attempts to at once submit to but also corral, and thus insulate themselves from, Se all at the same time. Thus outlooks on life, scientific theories, etc can be understood analogically as psychological statements of type. By coming to terms with Se in this way Balzac preserves his own way of being while accounting for "reality" via some kind of "tool." (albeit a very abstract one). Gaben is more likely to get comfy via other methods.

the definition of a "product" derived from Fe or Te creative is one that anyone can utilize without having to move themselves (thus any asshole can use a hammer, even a bad person can receive the energy from sufficiently well crafted flattery [1]). Inventions from Gaben, Balzac, Dumas, and Yesinin are "objective" in that sense (xE creative). "products" of creative Ni are calls to move oneself--to adjust oneself on a deeper level--to get out of a mindset or comfort zone.. or to get in one, but always a different one

people often type Jesus as IEI because they view "the gospel" as an Fe product, which is sadly what it has become. A way for a myriad of different and opposing groups to all feel better about themselves but never actually come into harmony or actually change anything. Jesus was more EIE, he wanted to hit at a deeper level, but over time the message was corrupted into its pure "instrumentality" because as powers came and went they each treated it as such (Fe creative not Ni) in order to refuse to adapt and instead require others to adapt to them. The best way for them to do that was reduce what was an Ni message into a Fe one and use it for their own ends, meanwhile retaining all the rights to sculpt and propagate Ni as they saw fit. This is the history of the slow corruption of the Christian ideal. The true battleground is over Ni and it has now progressed into the thinking sphere


[1] in fact isn't that the point?

[Bertrand]

what is that, cherry pie?

[Bertrand]

@Slugabed

I have a hypothesis about writing style and Ni v Si valuing, which is this: I believe Ni creatives, when writing, are trying primarily to convey an Ni flow state, that they want to "catch on." Its almost a hypnotic alignment of brain waves that allows another person to perceive and understand the underlying Ni state of mind that is being conveyed along with all the other more direct (Te or Fe) information. Thus the Ni ego may "ramble" because they're writing in order to convey not merely "the facts" in their most concise form, but selling something a little bit more which is an acompanying state of mind.

Si ego really doesn't want to be pulled out of their state of mind and thus is paying attention to the formal qualities of the post first and foremost, hence they tend to notice stuff like unnecessary words, overly complex phrasing, repetition, things of that nature. To them they want to get in and out quickly if the topic is abstract in nature. Topics with complex descriptions of sensuous objects the reverse holds true. Its also why detailed descriptions of objects can bore the Ni ego, who likewise wish the author would "get to the point"

the actual funniest manifestation is to watch an ESI go on and on and on about certain scenarios because they're desperately trying to get that Ni to catch on, they will say but "do you feel me?" over and over when you make Te comments or some such. I had a coworker like this and I could listen to her for days, and everyone was like "how can you tolerate that?" and I love it, because for whatever reason they were so earnest I just liked to listen cause i figured they were working it out in real time and I get that and thats a good thing

meanwhile ESE rambles in a way that is based on irrelevant physical details (my common question is, what does this have to do with anything?) and is the Si equivalent of this and it feels like torture to have to sit there and listen to them never get to the point when describing their personal drama in terms of copious non sequitur details

which really sucks cause all of this just means that SLI views me this way and I'm sorry to have put my ex through that (and now I regret summoning you, because this is tedious, but confirm/deny)

my ex even got me a legal writing book hint hint

[Hope]

@Bertrand

I don't think that they are defined writing styles for functions or types, tbh.
What we can see however, are the interests or topics and similar ways in communication. A few ppl on the forum have remarked that Te egos tend to be direct even rough, and somehow domineering. I know that Ni and Ne egos can ramble. Ne egos tend to ramble more when talking in person, and their ramblings are about possibilities -and all kind of stuff, tbh-, while Ni tend to ramble when writing but not so much when talking (because introverted function).


On the other hand, I've not so much experience in written communication with Ni egos or their preferences as readers.
The LIE I know personally is Te subtype, so he ramble inside his own head about improvement, achievements, judging others and that kind of things. He would talk for hours about that stuff if you let him. He's very impatient when having to listen to others and usually won't let you even finish. To me is ok, since I don't like to talk so much either. Honestly thats how extroverts acts with me almost all the time… they just talk and talk (some of them are more impatient and less interested in you than others, though).
Probably the most comfortable, economical and effective (straightforward) communication that I have with extroverts is with LSEs. The most satisfactory and honest is with ILE-Ti (the only extrovert who actually let me talk, I bet he's more or less ambivert too). And then with LIIs.

BTW, have you ever consider ILE? your eyes shape remind me a little of Ti egos. How about your dual being SEI at the end?


On the other hand I don't have experience with ESI either (or at least nothing meaningful that I can recall).
But totally got you on ESE, they usually provide meaningless endless details before saying the important things or real topic.

[Bertrand]

i've definitely considered ILE but it doesn't make any sense in terms of quadral complex, cognitive style, polr, or erotic attitudes, etc

i do definitely think like your LIE where like if you get me going in terms of improvements and stuff I could talk at length, if its near to me, and I trust you... most the time I'll just spout off some empty platitude and move on (the stereotype is ILE willing to opine on basically anything and everything. truth is socionics is near to me, I don't actually share that trait with ILE but I can see how it may appear that way)

i like certain ILEs a lot though cause I think I "get them" and vice versa, most of the time. SEIs in real life tend to love me, but I definitely know something is off... interestingly ESI can occasionally give me that vibe as well, but getting close to them always removes it rather than confirms it, whereas with SEI the more I see the less I like. ESIs have bitch shields or whatever, which is cool cause I do the same thing in a different way (which is what I'm alluding to in second paragraph)

some people do find me really domineering, which I think surprises them cause its not apparent at first I'm like that.. I try to tone it down, but sometimes I guess it just comes out

How about your dual being SEI at the end?

I do sort of love the idea that upon reading this thread the conclusion is "maybe Ni ignoring"

[The Reality Denialist]

My attitude towards : you can represnet things simply and coherently to others. So why not.

Even EIIs find this relaxing (when it is totally divorced from human element). Point got driven home efficiently... good job. Have a
.
Outgoing ILIs will ramble with terminology and confuse others. types might ramble about their day. It can happen even with HA. I don't do either.

Static vs dynamic.

Bertrand is either dynamic type or at least has introverted dynamic element in his HA.

[Bertrand]

I never doubted you! UA

it was obvious to me by that initial joke you made earlier on in the thread that you were totally tracking everything

even though the way I go about it was not at all how you'd go about it

static v dynamic is precisely how alpha NTs and gamma NTs vibe differently, its not based on what they're talking about its based on how

they can each Ti and they can each Te, its way more than that

thank you for bringing that up, I would have totally overlooked that

I actually think you and I might be a good case study in quasi identical, I don't feel like we extinguish one another (and the idea of mirror is even lower on the list) but correct me if Im wrong

edit: i wish we had an active LII on here because I think it would make things much clearer in watching interactions unfold

I also want to say Ni ignoring can be aggressive when they're upset, for me I'm the opposite, I get less aggressive because the fact that I'm upset gets the Ni working at the expense of Se. I'm most aggressive when I'm the opposite of upset: integrated, serene, happy etc [1]... people often take this as a sign of weakness or even worse, being wrong and thus lacking confidence, which is very annoying. I have learned to try and push through in those moments. conflict with alpha tends to escalate though because they're expecting don and they get jack. also i have a reputation for being overexcitable when happy, which is really just a manifestation of poorly calibrated "positive" aggression. for example I knocked a huge hole in my friends wall while partying, stuff like that. it sounds like Se polr sometimes but its different, its actually how Si polr manifests. stuff like this is always the basis for Si polr hits, I can "scare people"... se polr is more like being a rooster. this goes to Se HA and trying to look cool. its going 0 to 100 real fast. robespierre fights when cornered, jack thinks. robespierre thinks when happy, jack goes hard.. their duals balance these tendencies, ESI doesn't let things get too out of hand, and will kill someone if they have to. ESE pulls LII into the merryment but shuts down when threatened with real danger [2]

[1] careful observation of my posting habits should validate this. gamma will stomp someone while they're down (if they must), alpha backs off

[2] serious danger, like being mugged, not social drama

[wasp]

gamma will stomp someone while they're down (if they must), alpha backs off

you sure about that? gamma can be pretty brutal but at least their contempt remains personal. it's just you vs them, whereas alpha seems to want to make it everyone else's problem, too, plus they don't really know how to handle 1v1 conflict without panicking and crying to their moms (ESE, SEI)

obviously i'm exaggerating for humor's sake but the extroverted representatives of the alpha quadra have surprised me on more than one occasion