Well, it's been a while since I made one of these public introduction things. My communication skills are a bit... crusty.
I'm likely to make my way round the forum by battering my wings against the walls, avoiding sudden movements and always turning left, until I'm lost. 'tis a labyrinthine edifice you've constructed here, much like the walls of the mind. One may contend that such implicate folds could envelop the seeker, subsuming them, making them over into some grotesquerie of being. Or! It could pull one in with hands like water, soothing, playing to, tending the bruises; cooling the itches... filling the lungs until, like an amniotic sac, it has one imprisoned in an embrace as total and vital as life - all life; feeding one, defining the limits of one's world! Oh terrible babies, waiting to be born!! Waiting, and cogitating, and rolling within the muscle of the great mater. Orrr... it could be the outside-in of a new universe, full of stars! Ready to launch the supplicant into a novel realm of inner skies, all thunderous energy, jack-knifing flocks of notions, swooping errrr.... owls.
Oh my. This could be dangerous for a moth in the moonlight.
I see you're quite the poet.. 'tis nice to have you here, welcome welcome ^^
Your words bring to mind different symbolic manifestations of the soul - labyrinth, womb, a sky full of stars.. are you learned in Jungian theory mayhaps?
I think I'd be misguided to call myself learned in anything. I like to get the gist of things then run away with the idea. I wing it. Though, seeing as these things are native to the soul, it'd be odd to not have a personal sense of cosmic symbologies. When my private interpretations resonate for others I'm happy to have conveyed truth/meaning and I absolutely love it if another enjoys the flight words can bring. Though at times I may get a little loose with facts in favour of fantasy.... At other times I become pedantic, hah. *sigh*
But yes, I have visited Jungian concepts before, briefly. And classical mythology. In no way could my dalliance be considered a thorough study. Always much to learn. I suppose it could be said that one has most to learn from one's own soul, or is this only a Ji perspective?
Thanks ^^ she seems like a dark philosophical fairy to me, the way she's contemplating mortality.
I can relate with what you say about just getting the gist of things. Ne is interested in the possibilities of an idea, and Ji likes to figure things out for itself. Most of what I've learned about Jungian theory came originally from the experiences I had through my individuation journey. Then I'd go looking for an explanation in Jung's works, and often find things that matched precisely!
Isn't it quite the balance between the artful, impressionistic life of the soul and the drive of the logical mind for accuracy? Both are vital to the human being, both are truth, but we are such finite vessels, and so it's only in those golden moments of epiphany where these synchronize in a beautiful yet accurate expression of reality. I love Carl Sagan for his ability to poetically convey scientific concepts <3
I suppose it could be said that one has most to learn from one's own soul, or is this only a Ji perspective?
^ Agreed! Though you may be right that this is a particularly Ji perspective. But I think true wisdom comes from knowing one's soul (defining wisdom here as an understanding of the deep natural meanings and an intelligent sense of how to be human).
Thanks ^^ she seems like a dark philosophical fairy to me, the way she's contemplating mortality.
I can relate with what you say about just getting the gist of things. Ne is interested in the possibilities of an idea, and Ji likes to figure things out for itself. Most of what I've learned about Jungian theory came originally from the experiences I had through my individuation journey. Then I'd go looking for an explanation in Jung's works, and often find things that matched precisely!
^ Agreed! Though you may be right that this is a particularly Ji perspective. But I think true wisdom comes from knowing one's soul (defining wisdom here as an understanding of the deep natural meanings and an intelligent sense of how to be human).
I relate to this mode of learning too: Stumble upon a truth, insight, phenomenon, then seek out sources to describe, explain, confirm, give it a language.
It happens for me too. Does a concordance of 3 make for something significant?
Well said, Alerith, thanks for the insight!
Ahh... Carl Sagan was/is a dream... but since he's a trifle decomposed, Brian Cox has become the intellectual crush. <3
Is there a typing vid anywhere here for Brian? I haven't fully explored the site.
Authenticity, are you uncertain of being Ti or Fi lead? From descriptions I couldn't tell how Ti differed from my experience, but I'm gradually settling into the idea of being an Fi lead. I'm here to find out more about being a realised human with a particular set of innate cognitive processes, who I am and where I belong. In the physical world, the metaphorical and the virtual, I'm looking for a place and a home.
Authenticity, are you uncertain of being Ti or Fi lead? From descriptions I couldn't tell how Ti differed from my experience, but I'm gradually settling into the idea of being an Fi lead. I'm here to find out more about being a realised human with a particular set of innate cognitive processes, who I am and where I belong. In the physical world, the metaphorical and the virtual, I'm looking for a place and a home.
I am sure I'm neither, actually! I am not a Ji-lead. I do feel conflicted as to which of the two Ji functions I do use, though. Been thinking about it a lot lately and can't absolutely decide. I am very sensitive emotionally but I am not sure if an Fe user wouldn't be. I relate a lot to the notion of internally self-consistent Ji structures. I don't see myself going along with self-contradictory ideas, I just don't. I think it's hard to tell how I'm determining this internal inconsistency, though.
-There is something rather objective about how I do my logic that makes me think it might be Te but it could also be Ti. It may be the case that the Ji-Je F/T oscillation is so unified that I can't tell which between Feeling and Thinking is the self-consistent, systemic part and which is the objective, factual, practical bit.
I was thinking about it today and I sort of realized that when I have done my T/logic-ing in the past, it has been rather blunt and super objective and detached in a Ben-Shapiro (TeNi) facts-don't-care-about-your-feelings kind of way, which earned me a bad name and did a number on my self-esteem (my femininity). In those modes, I have been sharply aware and insistent that demolishing that claim/idea then under discussion could not be the same as demolishing the person who posited them and have found it easy not to be personally offended if my ideas were shredded, as long as I felt that "I" wasn't under attack, just a claim I made. For me, in that mode, my ideas and myself are so different that I feel it a form of emotional blackmail if someone tries to "win" through taking offence. These are only modes or phases for me, though, and I do wonder if my profession has greatly forced these modes of thinking higher up in my psyche.
BUT, watching Ti-leads in vids here, I have noticed none of that bluntness even for the most J (rigid) of Ti-leads (ie. TiPe-Ti's and TiPe-Fe's). They actually seem kinda lady-like and demure, even the guys. It's quite delicate how they do their "rigidity" and firmness, doesn't seem all that rigid from the outside, more like integral, principled in a self-contained way.
-This is what made me think what I've said above ^^...My logic mode is not lady-like, it's rather man-like and a source of shame for me. I've been wondering this morning if I developed it as a defense mechanism. I was thoroughly argumentative in my teens and early twenties. But it could be Fe that's not done very elegantly, maybe bitter Fe. Or a haughty, self-assured though under-developed, Te...I'm not sure...still looking.
PS: You should submit your video and maybe we can help you decide while we wait for the readers to do their thing.
oh my yes, Brian Cox is amazing! He was typed as FiNe actually, physicist shade.
I wonder if it's simply part of being human to search for home? Is home something found or made? Perhaps we Ji+Ne types need to get together and build a castle on top of a hill! A castle with a telescope ^^
Aqua - From what I've seen, I think you're NeFi. But, no need to fear seeming manly, you seem quite lady-like to me!
Thanks, Alerith ! I think the look I call manly shows up in (some) debates, not regular conversations. It may be unskilled wielding of Te. It takes one of two forms I dislike: either too SJW/passionate/stubborn or too straightforward, almost fearless.
Ayaan Hiirsi Ali in her most passionate in debates still manages to not do that either rude/dismissive or overly passionate thing, even while being very firm. You guys, (you and Auburn) look rather gentle, delicate, careful, I guess the word you chose for Ji "meticulous" is the right one to use, like someone handling a precious and delicate substance. Like any carelessness in a voice raised a tad too high at the wrong point or a hand moved too much or too fast will smudge a small but all-important point.
Even the quality of your voices is this way. There is something rather careful in your voices and kinda careless in the voices of people like Ben Shapiro. This latter crude thing comes out in me during some interactions. Or speaking too loudly or excitedly for the environment (at least I've been shushed quite a bit) or reacting too much to small things like when you suddenly realize you forgot something and act suddenly in a way that freaks everyone out. I have a hard time picturing either of you speaking too suddenly or too loudly somewhere.
If I understand Fi, as opposed to just my emotions (been trying to) I think the meticulousness of that, as opposed to Ti, is a struggle to separate the feelings or entangled emotions from each other so that there's something like a clear passageway from the core throughout, like you feel when you breathe fresh air and easily. That's peace. I don't know if that is Fi but I do that kind of thing a lot. And for me, it's the difference between well-being and the road to perdition. Peace vs Darkness.
When they, the emotions/feelings, are entangled, I want to burst open out of the discomfort. Another is like being twisted up inside and wanting to unravel the twists. I don't know why I feel this way but stillness, meditating through asking myself direct questions and answering honestly or actively expressing it without barriers in writing can disentangle that jumbled up feeling as long as I don't try to manipulate the writing through the "head". Then I know what to do. I wrote a blog post sometime back explaining this excruciating, dummed up, stifled feeling but I can't locate it now.
If Fi is that disentangling process, then it's a different kind of careful I guess, it's less deliberate, more blind and wordless, it's seeking, sorting, discovering, finding out. For me, when that state enters the head and things are understood, that also helps clarify. Or, if things in the head (understanding) matches the experience (feeling) that match feels like a relief, like disentanglement like a tight balloon that was about to burst opening and releasing the air. If I do things according to what is practical but not according to this feeling of clear passage, I get twisted up again. But, unfortunately, it's not always clear the point at which I veered off and may have to do this discovery thing to find my way back to peace. Perhaps fi leads don't veer off so much or don't take as long to realize when they have.
Woohoo!! If Brian Cox is FiNe then it's totally fine to be 'feeler'-geek!! (Really, I want to avoid terms like 'feeler' and 'thinker', because I've let them taint my view of processes and types. Coming from an MBTI background where 'feeler' was a derogatory term, it seemed like being typed with a lead feeling process was akin to being branded a leper, so I have my own prejudice to overcome in understanding and appreciating Fi.)
I think I'm relating to a lot of what you have to say, Authenticity.
"-There is something rather objective about how I do my logic that makes me think it might be Te but it could also be Ti. It may be the case that the Ji-Je F/T oscillation is so unified that I can't tell which between Feeling and Thinking is the self-consistent, systemic part and which is the objective, factual, practical bit. "
This is a really interesting concept. From another angle, can the F/T relationship become so "unified" that it is hard to discern the difference between thinking and feeling? I'm asking because I'm not sure any longer if I can/could tell the difference. I spent years believing I was a Ti lead, because (I presume) I have an internalised 'consistency' system, (and because I couldn't be vulnerable in my social environment) but didn't recognise it as 'feeling' based rather than logic-based. Is this just a flaw of perception? What are the real differences between thought and feeling?
Having spent most of my life under greater or lesser degrees of stress, I think it has a big impact on how we type when we discover MBTI, and how we understand ourselves. Family, school, jobs, relationships, bleh - the ways we behave to survive! I recognise that clumsy, blunt, objective, factual response. I've only just learned that it's grip behaviour for me. It's clumsy Te. But it feels second nature.... Maybe the thinking/feeling confusion I mentioned comes from spending so much time in the grip. What if I grew up leading with my tail, but knew my self as introverted, so mistook Te for Ti? I feel clumsy just trying to put these words together! ha.
Oh, the disentangling bit and the bursting bit! I get that. I feel paralysed to make any decision or take action; I feel twisted and ill, until I can get that clear path through the internal morass. And trying to sort the mess out traditional ways (making a pros and cons list? hahahahahha - yeah I can do it, but I have no relationship to the outcome. It just sits there like a frog on a log, rolling its eyes at me and burping - so, Logical Conclusion, what am I meant to do with you? Kiss you and suddenly it will all become clear; you'll turn into the Right Decision and I can see again? Breathe again? pffftttt!)...yeah, forget it. There has to be that moment of clarity. Well, preferably it would be a great protraction of clarity from super clear, to super-super clear, all the time... but so much of the time it's like being lost in a boiling bog in the fog (I'm not trying to -og rhyme I swear!), while some kind of mud and lava concoction is roiling in the lungs, choking the airways, and I don't know if I'm going to spew or burst into bloody tears, or both simultaneously.
I find there's too much pressure in the world to reach decisions quickly and it's hard to allow oneself the time to disentangle and find the right path. Sometimes though, just sometimes, the right thing comes through as a kind of sudden, undeniable brilliance - follow that star! kind of thing - conviction, apparently But if I don't act on it, real world crap clouds and confuses it. So easy to lose the way. I used to think that being an Fi lead gave one an unshakable sense of moral conviction - life-long campaigners for justice! - which I didn't have/wasn't, so I didn't really relate to pop psychology presentations of Fi. I'm not the kind of person to chain myself to a bulldozer. Heck, I'm not even vegan I always just wanted to be that hermit on the hill with just plants and animals and sky and earth for company. They don't demand that one ties oneself in knots trying to meet their expectations.
Woohoo!! If Brian Cox is FiNe then it's totally fine to be 'feeler'-geek!! (Really, I want to avoid terms like 'feeler' and 'thinker', because I've let them taint my view of processes and types. Coming from an MBTI background where 'feeler' was a derogatory term, it seemed like being typed with a lead feeling process was akin to being branded a leper, so I have my own prejudice to overcome in understanding and appreciating Fi.)
Right. Really threw me for a loop too, when I realized that FiNe's (and Fi/Te users in general) dominate the science field, with Fi-leads highly represented among theoretical physicists. Just a few I remember..
FiNe Brian Cox / Professor of Particle Physics FiNe Edward Witten / Nobel Prize Winning Theoretical Physicist FiNe Eric Cornell / Nobel Prize Winning Physicist FiNe Drew Endy / Professor of Bioengineering FiNe Terence Tao / Mathematician FiNe Linus Torvalds / Programmer of Linux NeFi Albert Einstein / Theoretical Physicist
Yes, the beloved INTP mascot "Einstein" was an NeFi... There goes everything ya know about "INTP" and "INFP" from the MBTI! It's actually backwards. Oddly enough, the TiNe samples thus far have almost no people ( ) in the above mentioned fields. The whole MBTI's INTP stereotype is instead overlapped more to Delta (Ne+Si / Fi+Te) introvert.
FiNe's lack no capacity to create 'consistent' and objective systems. But they do it through Te, which is more objective/empirical. I should note that no type is technically incapable of doing any specific behavior, as we're all capable of all acts, but there's tendencies. MBTI misunderstands the differences between Ti and Te, and basically restricts Te to the physical rearrangement of reality, when Te is better seen as an understanding of the mechanistic causality of objects and 'processes'. Engineering, programming, biology, etc. Anything that has cause-effect relationships of an impersonal sort, is something Te thrives in. And having 'consistency' is actually a trait of "J" in general - applying to Te, Ti, Fe, Fi all the same.
This nerdy tendency is also why misassigned "INTP's" (which are delta introverts) have this aspie stereotype to them, but that actually comes from Te/Fi and their lack of Fe altogether -- not an inferior Fe. Because Fe, even in the Ti-lead like the TiNe, still creates a level of coordination and social navigation that, while uncomforable, can still charm its way through social terrain without too many idiosyncracies. FiNe's on the other hand tend to be idiosyncratic, especially if Te is more valued. This idiosyncracy can be quite peculiar and cute sometimes (the fairy-like energy), blunt/matter-of-fact (Te) at other times, or a march to the beat of one's own drum.
But for all their ability to be objective and empirical, Deltas have a rougher time objectively delineating internal experiences. It can be mirky in there.. from what I gather. Like Ti, FiNe's obsess over questions of "being" and "essence" and "value", but Ti evaluates the inner landscape as if to discover the nature of oneself by removing oneself from the equation. Ti seeks a sort of sterile ontology that is true in a universal sense, and which only by extension happens to also be true for them. Fi users instead try to work out who they are from the inside-out. Michael Pierce says it best in this vid.
Oh and I think teatime (NeFi) has also described this "get it done" (Te) impulse too, in stress. And coming out a bit too blunt.
Hi, MothGirl ! Welcome! I laughed at your "He's a trifle decomposed." Here's a funny Hugh Laurie song I always think of when I think of my dead crushes:
Yes, Auburn , you see a lot deltas on INTPforum who strike me as SiTe. Coming across too blunt, etc. Alphas don't do that.
Fi-Te types are often *surprised* that people could possibly misunderstand them because they aren't aware of how they come off. They understand their internal attitudes, so it should be just as obvious to others. They do value authenticity (each type does, really) and being understood. But I think the second part takes more work, which makes Fi-Te a bit more picky due to the resource expenditure required.
Authenticity, that's the only way I learn! I have a harder time doing things top down. I seem to learn best bottom up, and I think that's a revisor thing. I always say (to myself) "I suspected, I Googled, I confirmed." I like to discovera thing myself for it to be "real." And then Google gives me existing terminology for it. Which I'll soon forget anyway. :/ Hey, what's your type, btw?