They won't talk to me about interesting subjects. they keep withholding interesting thoughts because they don't automatically want to lay out their theories and thoughts to people.You know those on the edge theories that you find with either really rare people or on their blogs on the internet? INTJs are that and much more and they keep it all to themselves. pricks.
You're just gonna give me the fluoride stare if I talk to you about yaldabaoth and energy parasites and thought entities though
>muh acronym personalityWhy can't you just get a real personality?
>/mbti/I'd unironically delete this thread and make it again without putting that.
i dont waste time on talking to retards about logic and data to get a response of "but everyone does it" or about their feefees being hurt
>>85083748>TheyWho? On what occasion? What do you want to know
>>85083748I feel personally attacked. But that's a valid complaint. Carry on
>>85083748Read Jung's definition of Introverted Intuitive dominants and he will tell you they are not always some sort of organized mastermind. To think they are is an MBTI lie. Sometimes they are just like a super dissociated INxP. The "strategic thinker" label you put in your pic belongs to the ISTJ, ESTJ, and ENTJ normie. Basically any Te type BUT the INTJ. So basically you're asking normies and wondering why you're not getting an interesting answer, because you're confused.
>>85083748Hey, look, its me!In all seriousness we just dont find our own thoughts that interesting or worthy, in fact were afraid people will think theyre lame if we share them. So we prefer to just let others talk to us and hear what they have to say.
>>85084444Wait, so as an INTJ im just a dumb normie? ):
>>85084494No, I'm saying normies like Ben Shapiro get mistyped as INTJs because people think Ni means predicting shit instead of just being in conceptual la-la land (again, read Jung to see what Ni actually is). Because normies think they are intelligent. I have no idea what you are.
>>85083748>nooooooo share with me do it do it DO IT NOWWWWWWWNo wonder, shut the hell up you bpdemon extrovert parasite
>>85084444Based Jung rea->any Te type>ISTJUh, you need to read it better.Jung doesn't use IEIE alternating stacks, in fact he doesn't use stacks at all because it's not his own perspective.
>>85084710But didn't Jung say that auxiliary functions are real? In the sense one needs a function of the opposite nature and orientation in every way, to assist the dominant. So Ni/Si would either have Te or Fe assisting it, corresponding to IxTJ or IxFJ.So if I understood him correctly, he didn't spell out the stack in the same rigid way that the MBTI did, but he essentially implied it.Which part of this is incorrect?
>>85084735>But didn't Jung say that auxiliary functions are real?He did> In the sense one needs a function of the opposite nature and orientation in every way, to assist the dominant.But if you read psychological types, you will find he types Nietzsche for instance as an introverted intuitive while also using him as example of introverted thinking.Eventually I decided to dig into the Zarathustra's seminar, and there he confirms his higher functions, intuition and thinking would be associated with introversion, while his lower feeling and sensation with extraversion. So if you want to do stacks at all costs(even if again, it's more systematic than his actual system) it's closer to IIEE. ISTJ would be seen as a Ti type.
>>85084763Honestly it's confirmation bias, I was just trying to cram Jung to fit MBTI so I could actually interact with the rest of the typology community. But it sounds like Jung never settled on a super fixed theory about how the functions worked, so sometimes he thought IIEE rather than IEIE. He was definitely a lot more vague than MBTI. Do you think he ever settled on IIEE vs IEIE or did he just keep going back and forth on them?Part of it is also my own observations that dominant Si does tend to go with auxiliary Te often in real life. Having a mind that's naturally connected to the senses makes it easier to use Te. Essentially I believe most real life masterminds are Si-Te, they're just not portrayed in fiction because they're boring compared to a Ni mastermind stereotype. Like for example Putin, I think he is Si-Te but tries to cultivate a Ti-Se badass image for propaganda. He's a bureaucratic and socially awkward mastermind, and in my opinion his paranoia towards other people is more inferior Ne than inferior Fi. Whereas Stalin was Te-dominant and had inferior Fi paranoia, I think.
>>85084829>But it sounds like Jung never settled on a super fixed theory about how the functions workedHe doesn't really do that with his stuff, but he did have some theories about the functions. > Do you think he ever settled on IIEE vs IEIE or did he just keep going back and forth on them?He never really made a stack because again, this isn't his perspective. Functions in themselves aren't automatically attached to introversion or extraversion.>Part of it is also my own observations that dominant Si does tend to go with auxiliary Te often in real lifePretty sure those are just extraverted thinking types who fit Jung's definition rather than the MBTI one.
>>85085021Okay, yeah, you're right. Si-dominants are not masterminds either. It's just the Te-dominants. I just kept trying to force Jung to work in MBTI because I don't want to be alienated from the rest of the typology community, but this introduced errors into my reasoning.
>>85084829I was always under the impression Jung truthers claimed IEEE
>>85085235If they claim that it's because they didn't read beyond PT Ch.X and laser-focused one sentence from the introverted thinking type iirc.
I asked chatGPT to help me type myself objectively and it gave me INTJ as a strong option because I allegedly have strong Ni. The issue is that my Te is pathetic or nonexistent (I have been unable to get my shit together for 10 years and can never follow through on projects) and my Fe seems pretty low as wellWhat should I make of this? Can Ti appear as Ni sometimes? I'm deep into schizo shit and have a genuine obsession with symbols and overarching systems but that alone seems like a meme understanding of NiPretty sure I'm not INFP because I don't really have any strong values.
>>85086576>my Fe seems pretty low as wellSaid this to imply I couldn't be INFJ, not because I think Fe is part of the INTJ stack
Stack brainrot be like
>>85086659I use the stack because I like objective categories and don't want to make up my own shit by saying "well I'm an Ni dom but the other functions I use are Ne and Ti so I'm don't belong to any type", at that point why even use an externally designed system, just make up your own.
>>85086676You have to determine exactly 3 things:Are you introverted or extraverted?What's the most differentiated function between Thinking, Feeling, Sensation or Intuition?(or the least differentiated function)Do you know what those terms even mean? As in, their original definitions?For funsies, you might also grade your auxiliary functions and maybe say you have a secondary type of some sort if one of them is highly differentiated too, but those aren't actually too important. Everything else is brainrot.
>>85086710I'm definitely introvertedI'm not sure about the most or least differentiated function because they don't correspond to empirically observable behaviors or discrete indices so it's very largely open to interpretation. I would spontaneously say either Thinking or Intuition, but I believed I was a feeler for four straight years so distorted self-perception surely contaminates assessments>their original definitionsYeah i've read the Psychological Types definitions by Jung and I've also read how the more modern theory of cognitive functions differ from the original definitions. The way Jung defines things is even more vague and unclear and I can recognize parts of my cognitive processes in pretty much every introverted function, so it didn't help. As for the more modern theory I know for a fact that I use intuition to a high degree but whether it's Ne or Ni is unclear. Same for thinking. Used to believe I used Fi but I realized that aesthetic preferences aren't a sign of Fi and that I had few if any internally derived moral principles (I mostly base myself on external ethical frameworks) so I dropped that hypothesis.
>>85086754Introversion and Thinking+Intuition are good enough data for typing.It sounds like you might be more aware of Feeling, so I'd argue that might say something about having it more differentiated than Sensation - which implies Intuition is the actual primary function, and you were simply developing auxiliary Feeling in a certain period of your life.>I can recognize parts of my cognitive processes in pretty much every introverted functionThat's not a bug, it's a feature. It means you can see yourself as introverted easily enough. Introverts will consciously use their functions along with introversion, while their extraversion is relatively more unconscious.
>>85086806>It sounds like you might be more aware of FeelingMight be, but I didn't mention sensation because it seemed obvious to me that I wasn't sensation-dominant. Even as per Jung's own definition, Si is about the feeling elicited from the sensory experience in itself, and not any kind of meaning or abstraction derived from it, so the aesthetic experience itself can't be distilled to an Si phenomenon. I suck at tasks that require me to be here in the present moment and I often become dissociated, so I would wager that my Se is nonexistent while my Si might be a bit stronger since I have relatively good sensory memory, tend to link sensory events to specific thoughts and feelings, and have a decent awareness of what's going on inside my body.>It means you can see yourself as introverted easily enoughAh, I understand. What would this say about introverted vs. extraverted intuition, though, of which I can identify both uses in my case?
>>85086841>so the aesthetic experience itself can't be distilled to an Si phenomenonAbstract sensation is a thing. The word can be confusing here though, because it can mean both differentiated(doesn't imply introversion), or not attached to an external object(implies introversion).> I suck at tasks that require me to be here in the present moment and I often become dissociated, so I would wager that my Se is nonexistent while my Si might be a bit stronger since I have relatively good sensory memory, tend to link sensory events to specific thoughts and feelings, and have a decent awareness of what's going on inside my body.Most of this is only vaguely related to typing, other than a hint to introversion due to supposedly withdrawing from external things. Body awareness is more or less related to sensation, but I wouldn't take it too far.>What would this say about introverted vs. extraverted intuition, though, of which I can identify both uses in my case?You have to see it this way: you can "use" everything all ways, what matters is what's directed, what's accidental, what's considered a primary orientation and what's only secondary or an afterthought.
>>85086891>Abstract sensation is a thingRight, but I was under the impression that the endpoint of the aesthetic experience and the way it is contextualized is what defined function use. If the experience is stopped at the point of remembrance (evokes a past feeling) then that's sensing, but if it's abstracted away into an idea, that's probably intuition, no? Basically one has the sensation itself as the endpoint while the other uses the sensation as a pointer to a symbol or concept.>vaguely related to typingThis is pretty elusive. Also the reason why I generally stuck to the Myers-Briggs theory rather than Jung's writings. It seems like the framework itself works completely differently and that it's not even really about typing as the determination of a category one belongs to.>what matters is what's directed, what's accidental, what's considered a primary orientation and what's only secondary or an afterthought.Yeah, I get that. I'm uncertain. Jung himself had a very weird way of typing people, iirc he considered himself an introverted thinker.
>>85086676Because the Jungian system is the one that actually makes sense, and you don't need stacks for that. The stacks are made up. You pick one of 8 objective Jungian categories, and read Jung to figure out what to do about it. And you can add an auxiliary to make it 16 just like MBTI. Just don't take advice from MBTI resources because they are made up nonsense compared to Jung.
>>85086947>f the experience is stopped at the point of remembrance (evokes a past feeling) then that's sensingThat has nothing to do much with any function.>but if it's abstracted away into an idea, that's probably intuition, no?If anything that would be Thinking.>It seems like the framework itself works completely differently and that it's not even really about typing as the determination of a category one belongs to.It's indeed very different, but explaining how is trickier than it sounds like.See it's less of an issue with the scheme itself(which is different still, since Jung doesn't use stacks), and more about having to apply a perspective that doesn't exist in MBTI(conscious, unconscious, differentiation in consciousness, orientation rather than usage, etc.).>Jung himself had a very weird way of typing people, iirc he considered himself an introverted thinker.Yea, no real issue with that.
>>85086988I guess nobody will really do this at a large scale because MBTI is way more identifiable as a categorization tool for placing oneself within a recognizable archetype. Which is a shame if as you say Jung's theory is objectively superior>>85086995>If anything that would be Thinking.Then how do you set introverted intuition apart? The description from the book seems to me like it places a lot of value on the inner impression.>a perspective that doesn't exist in MBTIMuch like the big 5, even though it's different, systems that use continuous/spectrum "orientation" rather than discrete classification are always less popular
>>85086995>See it's less of an issue with the scheme itself(which is different still, since Jung doesn't use stacks), and more about having to apply a perspective that doesn't exist in MBTI(conscious, unconscious, differentiation in consciousness, orientation rather than usage, etc.).nta but the problem is that MBTI feels too rigid and arbitrary to me compared to Jung. Meanwhile, Jung seems to be working based off first principles. if anything, if I overthink MBTI, I end up in the same place Jung originally was!
>>85087055>Meanwhile, Jung seems to be working based off first principles. if anything, if I overthink MBTI, I end up in the same place Jung originally was!Could you elaborate on this?
>>85087044>MBTI is way more identifiable as a categorization tool for placing oneself within a recognizable archetype.How so? It feels the opposite for me. Jung's system is way more identifiable as a categorization tool because I just deal with the dichotomies of the dominant and inferior functions as a primary determining factor, rather than relying on stereotypes.
>>85087073I meant outwardly identifiable. Among people who care a bit about personality classification, if you tell someone "I'm INTP and my friend is INTJ" they'll immediately jump to certain conclusions and assumptions. But as you said, it's a reliance on stereotypes, which might be inaccurate but is always the best way for a system to become widely adopted. A system that doesn't provide stereotypes doesn't gain much traction outside of niche/specialist circles because people can't easily identify with core assumptions. I didn't say it was good or bad, if anything I prefer more streamlined systems too
When you start discussing functions MBTI goes from descriptive to prescriptive and fully retarded.Though I understand why it would appeal to autists categorizing people like pokemon where everyone gets their special ability and corresponding weakness.
>>85087100How is MBTI prescriptive? Nobody says "if you're INTP you must behave or think X"
>>85087064>Could you elaborate on this?For example, if you see someone who is a disorganized and daydreamy introvert who has a firm grasp on both logic and emotion, MBTI struggles to categorize them between INTP and INFP, because it depends on surface stereotypes. However, if you consider how they actually think, Jungian theory clearly describes it because they are obviously an introverted intuitive type, who has ok access to thinking and feeling, but is constantly daydreaming so they are out of touch with sensation.MBTI tries to do mental gymnastics to force people into a nonsensical archetype. It doesn't accept that such disorganized daydreamers are "INTJ"s or "INFJ"s because it already assumed that such people are organized. While Jung is based on cognition and it makes sense that Ni-dominance works that way. If anything, MBTI's definition of Ni-dominance contradicts Jung's writings to the point of breaking their whole system.Anyways, the point is that in order to fix MBTI, you just end up going back to Jung's theories.
>>85087117That was very clear, thanks. Now I get what you mean. So if we were to redesign MBTI basing ourselves on jungian theory, instead of stacks we'd have something resembling a compass, with a dominant function at the top, an inferior function at the bottom, and two axes/quadrants in between that can be alternatively used and developed as a spectrum rather than discretely?This makes it way easier to type oneself too. From this I can pretty easily deduce that according to the system I'd be Ni-dominant. But as you said MBTI fails because there's no transversal access to functions that aren't explicitly in the stack which results in introverted intuitives needing to be efficient/organized, feelers needing to be shit tier at reasoning, thinkers needing to be autists, etc.
>>85087115That's exactly what it does though.You scored INTP because you enjoy memorizing 1921 bus schedules from Amsterdam or some shit.Fair enough, now you can be grouped with people who act and think similarily to you.But also! This means you are Ti dom and interpret information like so, and you demon function is Fi which means you aren't in touch with your emotions and blah blah.Horoscope crap.
>>85087180>you enjoy memorizing 1921 bus schedules from AmsterdamThat's ISTJ
>>85087180Which is why the solution is to observe the person holistically. What are they naturally focusing the majority of their attention on, and what is getting repressed as a result? Real inferior feeling is about people who have overly rigid thinking that represses the subjectivity of feeling. While inferior thinking is the opposite, someone who is so subjective in their reasoning that they become out of touch with hard facts and logic. Inferior sensation is someone who is out of touch with physical reality because they daydream all the time, and inferior intuition is paying so much attention to physical reality that you ignore abstract hypotheticals most of the time.Typing the person by individual trivia like>enjoys memorizing 1921 bus schedules from Amsterdamis always going to go wrong.
>>85083748>They won't talk to me about interesting subjectsEither because you aren't worthy of these thoughts or because they care enough about you to not expose you what might hurt the relationship they hold dearly.>they keep withholding interesting thoughts because they don't automatically want to lay out their theories and thoughts to peopleor because they probably already imaged this exchange with you and know the outcome won't any better than what they had in their head.
>>85087168Yes, and also I think our inferior function is where we are supposed to seek help. If we ignore it, we end up in a state of imbalance, and if we work too hard at it, we end up in a state of frustrated failure. The problem is that who is going to help us with sensing?
>>85087235Except there is jack shit evidence at all that the human mind acts according to eight functions stacked on top of each other like in some fucking RPG.
>>85087260Correct, like I said, MBTI adds nonsense to Jung's original theories.
>>85087235Nta, is it as simple as you're describing? Your description makes it much clearer and unambiguous compared to Jung's own spiral-like and sometimes very opaque reasoning.>>85087248>The problem is that who is going to help us with sensing?Probably ourselves via conscious exposure. I don't know if it's the kind of thing you're talking about but going to the gym regularly helps especially when I'm macerating in my own imagination for days on end and drowning in my own imagination. Hiking too but if you live somewhere ugly it doesn't work.
>>85087235https://youtu.be/zCKxgx0T_s4
>>85087279>Nta, is it as simple as you're describing? Your description makes it much clearer and unambiguous compared to Jung's own spiral-like and sometimes very opaque reasoning.Thank you. I mean, I guess it's as simple or as complex as you want it to be. I'm just running with Jung's idea of dichotomies and trying to make it make more sense.>Probably ourselves via conscious exposure. I don't know if it's the kind of thing you're talking about but going to the gym regularly helps especially when I'm macerating in my own imagination for days on end and drowning in my own imagination. Hiking too but if you live somewhere ugly it doesn't work.The problem is that the senses are anti-memetic to me. Even if I do things like hiking, I still zone out. And if I force myself into sensing, like splashing myself with cold water, it's brief and doesn't accomplish much.
>>85087299>I guess it's as simple or as complex as you want it to be.I guess I tend to over-interpret things and fixate on details that could suggest exceptions or deeper implications. Especially since MBTI (not Jung's theory) has so many caveats, quirks and typing subtleties that make you go "oh what appears as a cognitive process or behavior attributable to Ti+Ne is actually just Ni" or whatever.>Even if I do things like hiking, I still zone out. Yeah I know what you mean. I often take walks that are several hours long and just get my thoughts running the whole time. I'm not sure what to suggest but activities that are genuinely physically intense might help mitigate this, I know that last time I hiked up a rocky, slippery path that required being genuinely careful, I wasn't as lost in thought as usual because I had to focus on not splitting my skull open on a rock
>>85087044>Then how do you set introverted intuition apart?A good way to separate Thinking and Intuition is remembering that you don't "think" about the latter. As in, it won't feel like an idea deduced by logical thought, rather something that has come to you somehow. You can, after the fact, begin to consider whether it was a good intuition or not, but that's where you are switching to a rational function(which could also include Feeling)
>>85087417Eh it's impossible to evaluate my own mind from an objective vantage point but the best way I can describe it is, ideas usually come from associative branching, generating concepts and abstractions, and using symbolic compression to get a better overarching view of things. That's a hugely pedantic definition, and doesn't map to every situation, but it's hard to describe.
>>85087282oh shit I'm not only autistic but have adhd too?
