CT's labels will have to correspond to psychoanalysis again

Nexet Thanks for your insight!


Could you please explain what you mean with:
Wouldn't others trigger the Fe?

Ah, oke. My recorded smile probably started out of self-consciousness as well, developing into self-depreciating humor (laughing about my emotions).
Yes, but I meant that Fe outbursts of laughter in Ti-leads could be actually encouraged in public. But shyness could take preference as well.



Nexet as Ni-lead, what is your experience communicating with Ne's? Do you feel you talk past each other a lot?

This is a wonderful way of wording this phenomenon. I'd like to take a moment to talk about my own impression of Ne/Ni communication compatibility (speaking from the Ne point-of-view). (I'll be sure to comment on your type after I've reviewed your video further, spent some time away from it, and then watched it again with fresh eyes.)

Ne/Ni communication! As you say, Xander, if we could imagine the Ne-user as (abstractly) holding the topic of their conversation before him in his hand, the Ni-user's response would, in this sense of things, concern something laying beyond and behind Ne-user; he'd have to look over his shoulder, do a double-take to track down the Ni-user's response. It would seem to the Ni-user a suitably apt response to the Ne-user's utterance, but would seem completely beside the point (and baffling) to the Ne-user. And vice-versa (though I should imagine the Ni-user would conceptualize the nature of the misunderstanding in much different terms (correspondingly incompatible terms, really ). But that is just my elaborating on your turn of a phrase, Sander. As I myself intend to publish on these matters some day but haven't got an adequate handle yet on the terms in which I will ultimately render all things cognitive function related, let me just point out one peculiar discrepancy characteristic of the Ne/Ni dichotomy:

Derivative vs. Unique - It seems to me that Ne user's are much more inclined to experience a novel object in terms (and as an extension) of all previously experienced objects that exist within similar categories as that object; the Ni-user, in juxtaposition, will experience a novel object not in terms of previously experienced, similarly-categorized objects, but rather as a unique occurrence in the universe, a constellation of points of data necessarily incomparable to any other constellation of points of data to be found within the universe; to consider a thing in only these terms or those terms (as I propose the Ne-user is predisposed to) and not all terms simultaneous would be aberrant to the Ni-user; it doesn't consider the object as it actually is in the universe, within its full context. (Tied up in all this also is the relation of Ne to Si and Ni to Se, but I really don't feel like pounding the keys any more about this just now.)

So far as this one discrepancy concerns the medium of communication between Ne and Ni users? Ne users are always speaking of a specific thing from the context of their (unavoidably) limited life experiences (hence, the naivete of Ne), whereas the Ni user is always speaking generally of a thing as being a thing within the context of the spatial and temporal entirety of the universe. To the Ni user, the Ne user is always missing something which invalidates his or her (the Ne user's) sense of things; to the Ne user, the Ni user is always missing the thing, which thus invalidates his or her (the Ni user's) sense of things.

Or so my sense of it is. Would love to her anyone and everyone's thoughts on my thoughts and/or their own thoughts on this subject Sander has brought up. Maybe this sort of discussion should be in its own thread. Bah. If anyone wants to discuss it more than just in passing, I'll throw up a topic on the Community - Psychological Discussion board.

Sanders, My best guess from your eyes is Ne considering their softness, gentle toggles, and frequent blinks. The only thing that throws me off is that you blink slowly which is usually more characteristic of Ni/Se, but seeing as how it is an outlier amidst all the other Ne signals i'll go with Ne.

Lots of Ti speech halting. Ti neutralizations. Fe smiles.

Ji posture, face centricity.

TiNe

The way I see it, I suspect the cause of this phenomenon is Ne's nature that involves referencing Si for associations. However, I could be wrong.

I'm inclined toward TiNe as well.

Predominately rigid posture and body-centric say J-lead. What movement you have out of that rigidity is largely buoyant, not viscous, pointing toward JiPe over JePi, and the copious Ti > Fe cues corroborate that. So, including now the Ti/Fe cues, being the Ti pauses, Fe-polar smile, a few brief looks at your seemingly Ti hands, and Ti neutralizing (it's as though your momentum hits a wall and slides to the floor at a few points in the video ), we're at TiPe. I like Ne over Se, but I'm pretty terrible at pinpointing the Ne cues, so I typically rely more on the Si cues, even for Ne > Si folks; for the Si cues, I see the blinks and maybe some Si scowling (I am having trouble pinpointing them in reviewing your video just now, though. Bergh.). That said, I could make an argument for a certain sleepiness to your eyes as well, suggesting Ni/Se (though there are aren't the Se brims or other Ni/Se cues, so far as I can tell). The overall vibe certainly strikes me more as Ne than Se. Yeah.

TiNe (alt. TiSe).


Edit: Ooh, also!: you strike me as a 5w6 enneatype, or at least for the head fix.