An Ni subtype INTp/INFp Profile

[Jonathan]

@GillySaysGoodbye:

The idea of Ni types as followers is a myth and contradicts most historical and famous-person typings of ILI, as well as most descriptions.

Every type is a follower in the areas in which it is weak.

@Expat:

There is one other way one might consider distinguishing NF from NT types. In my experience, pure, prototypical NF types generally associate T with S and N with F. When they talk about what they value regarding T, they usually talk about the importance of practical things, stuff getting done, stuff actually working the way it's supposed to. To fully exercise their intuition, they usually move away from T: "I don't let logic get in the way of my creativity." NTs are the opposite; when they think of F, it turns their thoughts to S also. To fully exercise N, they depersonalize; hence, to get into a fully functioning state where they feel most capable and most creative, they become even more depersonalized, more fully analytical.

However, some people (such as what I was mentioning before) may be in between these extremes and not fit this pattern, so it may be of limited usefulness for them.

[Expat]

@Expat:

There is one other way one might consider distinguishing NF from NT types. In my experience, pure, prototypical NF types generally associate T with S and N with F. When they talk about what they value regarding T, they usually talk about the importance of practical things, stuff getting done, stuff actually working the way it's supposed to. To fully exercise their intuition, they usually move away from T: "I don't let logic get in the way of my creativity."

I think only someone who already has a self-perception of being more "intuitive" than "logical" would say such a thing -- "I'm more intuitive than logical and proud of it". That's just typical of ENFps. I don't think even INFjs are likely to have such a self-perception, and definitely not ENFjs or INFps. On the contrary, ENFjs and INFps, with Ni (rather than Ne) as ego function and Ti in the super-id, often see themselves as quite logical.

NTs are the opposite; when they think of F, it turns their thoughts to S also. To fully exercise N, they depersonalize; hence, to get into a fully functioning state where they feel most capable and most creative, they become even more depersonalized, more fully analytical.

Perhaps you can give some examples illustrating what you mean, that is too vague.

[Gilly]

@GillySaysGoodbye:

The idea of Ni types as followers is a myth and contradicts most historical and famous-person typings of ILI, as well as most descriptions.

Every type is a follower in the areas in which it is weak.

This last part is an excellent observation.

However, your first part needs some work. First off, your historical typings mean nothing: they VERY easily be WAY off the mark (and, in some cases, by no fault of your own). Secondly, descriptions are written by people, and everyone works his/her own individual twist into them; one or two people talking about Ni dominants "going against the grain" does not make it a fact and, in addition, I doubt much is said about Ni dominants having a specific need for autonomy or independance. Thirdly, when most people think of the term "follower" today, they think of someone who goes where someone else goes, does what they do, etc; basically, [b]depending on another for action[b]. Now, is this kind of thing not what Ni dominants get from Se dominants? Granted, not all IEIs are tagging along on the coattails of SLEs, but this kind of behavior does occur more often with Ni dominants than any other type.

[Jonathan]

@GillySaysGoodbye:

The idea of Ni types as followers is a myth and contradicts most historical and famous-person typings of ILI, as well as most descriptions.

Every type is a follower in the areas in which it is weak.

This last part is an excellent observation.

Thanks.

However, your first part needs some work. First off, your historical typings mean nothing: they VERY easily be WAY off the mark (and, in some cases, by no fault of your own). Secondly, descriptions are written by people, and everyone works his/her own individual twist into them; one or two people talking about Ni dominants "going against the grain" does not make it a fact and, in addition, I doubt much is said about Ni dominants having a specific need for autonomy or independance. Thirdly, when most people think of the term "follower" today, they think of someone who goes where someone else goes, does what they do, etc; basically, [b]depending on another for action[b]. Now, is this kind of thing not what Ni dominants get from Se dominants? Granted, not all IEIs are tagging along on the coattails of SLEs, but this kind of behavior does occur more often with Ni dominants than any other type.

Well, individual historical typings and descriptions may be wrong. However, collectivelly, these are key sources of data of what Socionists mean by the functions and types, since their definitions for the functions are imprecise. Without that data, it is next to impossible to distinguish between how a Socionist views the functions and types as opposed to other Jung-based typologists.

And yes, descriptions as well observations do make clear that acc-Ni types have a need for autonomy and independence. How does this fit with and Se personality? Think (by way of analogy) of two people in a car. The Se type is driving the car. The Ni type is glad to focus on his/her own imagination because he/she doesn't have to drive the car. Who's the leader and who's the follower in that case? The Se type think he's leading, because he's driving the car and taking charge of the visible actions. The Ni type think he's leading, because he doesn't have to drive the car, and can focus on his own thoughts.

(This is just an analogy; it applies on a lot of levels.)

If I had to pick a type that would most likely fit the "perfect follower" description, it would be SEI. Perhaps there's an SEI you know who you think is acc-Ni? Or maybe you just know some pretty docile acc-Ni types.

[Gilly]

Well, individual historical typings and descriptions may be wrong. However, collectivelly, these are key sources of data of what Socionists mean by the functions and types, since their definitions for the functions are imprecise. Without that data, it is next to impossible to distinguish between how a Socionist views the functions and types as opposed to other Jung-based typologists.

Well, the problem is that sets of accurately typed people are not often used, as you say, "collectively;" most often, people will choose one or maybe two examples that share whatever resemblance they want to use to prove their point/validate their typing.

In addition, I personally don't trust very many peoples' typings

And yes, descriptions as well observations do make clear that acc-Ni types have a need for autonomy and independence. How does this fit with and Se personality? Think (by way of analogy) of two people in a car. The Se type is driving the car. The Ni type is glad to focus on his/her own imagination because he/she doesn't have to drive the car. Who's the leader and who's the follower in that case? The Se type think he's leading, because he's driving the car and taking charge of the visible actions. The Ni type think he's leading, because he doesn't have to drive the car, and can focus on his own thoughts.

(This is just an analogy; it applies on a lot of levels.)

If I had to pick a type that would most likely fit the "perfect follower" description, it would be SEI. Perhaps there's an SEI you know who you think is acc-Ni? Or maybe you just know some pretty docile acc-Ni types.

Sure, that's a kind of autonomy, but like I said, in the way that people think of "follower" in today's language, it fits perfectly. Obviously the relationships between partners are not one way; I'm not saying that Ni types are just the bitches of Se types The point of every relationship is that some rights or powers are given up, or responsibilities are taken on, in such a way that the strengths of both partners are used to their full capacity. No one type is just a complete "follower" in every sense of the world (and I don't think that SEIs come any closer than most of the types; ILEs certainly aren't the ideal "leader" in the popular sense of the word).

[misutii]

I think only someone who already has a self-perception of being more "intuitive" than "logical" would say such a thing -- "I'm more intuitive than logical and proud of it". That's just typical of ENFps. I don't think even INFjs are likely to have such a self-perception, and definitely not ENFjs or INFps. On the contrary, ENFjs and INFps, with Ni (rather than Ne) as ego function and Ti in the super-id, often see themselves as quite logical.

For what it's worth you seem right on the target, at least in my case. When I first tested myself with MBTI I consistently tested as INTP and it barely even crossed my mind that I could be INFP until I switched over to socionics, and even then I was in denial for a time. I suppose I defined "logical" as having the ability to think through things... or something... and since highschool was really like a joke to me I assumed that I must be more logical than the people that obtained lower grades than me.... indeed I'm still able to 'fake' logic well enough that other people often assume I'm more logical/less emotional than I really am - by this I mean that sometimes when I debate with someone I imitate the structure of their logic except replace their argument with my own and use this method as a means to win the debate... this offers others the impression that I've logically thought through everything when in reality I haven't, lol