Hey there Starlings.
So, I’ve been thinking about this concept I came up with known as aperture.
Aperture indicates the degree of openness to an entity of perception.
I suppose the best way to think about perception is to use the analogy of the human eye or the lens of a camera. For some reason, the process of perception seems inescapably visual in nature.
The aperture indicates how wide or narrow the opening is into the perceiving mechanism – the pupil of the eye or the lens of a camera.
The Basic Way I Define The Perceiving Functions
As you may know, I like to keep things as simple as possible in these perilous waters of Myers-Briggs definitions.
The reason for this is because if you don’t, then, it is hard to talk about any of the things of the Myers-Briggs world without utter confusion and miscommunication (people talking at cross-purposes to each other).
I like to link the cognitive functions (for example) with some very basic geometric and physics concepts.
It is very clear to me that physics and psychology are really one and the same.
So, picture a circle if you will.
Because that is the basis for which I will define all the perceiving functions quite simply, efficiently, and I daresay, accurately.
Ready?
OK, call in the Perceiving Functions!
Ni = center point of circle
Ne = circumference of circle opening out towards infinite space
Se = circumference of circle closing in towards center of circle
Si = any given point on circumference of circle
So, there it is.
That’s about the simplest and stable definitions I can give for the four perceiving functions.
Any further description of these functions will always go back to the basic logic of the circle with its three parts (central point, circumference, circumferential point) and its two motions (opening out towards infinite space and closing in towards center).
You can also visualize this circle to be like the human eye or the lens of a camera because there is a lot of similarity obviously.
I’m going to say that the circumference of the circle indicates primal objectivity.
The center point of the circle indicates primal subjectivity.
As we can see, both of the introverted perceiving functions, Ni and Si, have been assigned to the geometrical reality of THE POINT.
And, both of the extraverted perceiving functions, Ne and Se, have been assigned to the geometrical reality of THE CIRCUMFERENCE.
If for some reason you cannot bring yourself to agree with these basic definitions of the perceiving functions, then, there is no point in going any further on this journey with me.
And where there is no point, there is only circumferential space, so… I don’t know…deal with it.
Anyway, back in the land of KEEPING THINGS SIMPLE.
So, in line (don’t get me started on lines) with how physics (or geometry) is basically one and the same with psychology I will show how the basic geometrical reality of these various points of the circle relates to the behavior, motivation, and character of people that have a dominance of one or the other of these particular functions.
And I’ll be confining the discussion of this to the concept I call aperture, which basically amounts to the degree of openness to the perception of subjective or objective reality.
It is obvious to me that extraverted intuition (Ne) is the most perceptive of all functions. It just keeps going and going and going in the world of perception. Geometrically, this means that it keeps opening out in wider and wider arcs to encompass more and more objective space. Obviously, if this process goes on indefinitely, we come to the concept known as infinity – infinite space.
Ne just wants to see what is out there. And it wants to see more and more of what is out there. No objective or closure. Ne is the least judgmental of any function.
What does this physical action amount to psychologically?
Well, the search for freedom and space. Expansion. To travel far and wide. To understand the cosmos. To see the big picture. Big picture thinking. Thinking outside the box. Generating as many options as possible.
Then, on the other side of this axis, we have introverted sensation (Si).
Si is the exact opposite to Ne. Where Ne wants infinite space and perspective, Si wants to isolate a definite point in space and pay attention to that one thing TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERYTHING ELSE.
Now, Ne doesn’t really have a concept of a particular thing. It just all is. There is no separation. All is one big thing that keeps expanding out to encompass more and more.
But, here comes Si to halt the whole process and go “Yeah, yeah, yeah, but, what about this here thingie?”
And you gotta understand to Ne that one little thingie that Si is pointing out looks cosmically ridiculous in the whole scheme of things.
Well, that is because of the scope of their respective perceptions. Or the aperture of their respective perceptions.
Neither one is really wrong or right. Si can’t see (or won’t see) the big picture unity of everything and Ne can’t see that one particular thing (try getting an ENTP to locate their shoes sometime – it’s nearly impossible).
And so, I call this axis (Ne-Si) The Axis of Objective Perception.
What’s that you say? Si is an introverted perceiving function? Therefore, how can you say that it deals with objective (extraverted) perception?
OK, yes, to be fair, Si does have a subjective bias built into it, but, that bias operates in (or in reaction to) an Ne context.
If you stop and think about it, you will realize this makes sense. I mean, Si dominant people do not really focus on people (subjects) so much as they focus on things. Si is really “the thing” function. And things are objects. Psychologically, Si often treats people as things. Themselves too. I know an ISFJ woman who thinks of herself as an appliance waiting to be used and made useful.
And don’t get me started on ISTJs.
So, the way I see it, the basic action of introverted sensation is to balance the action of extraverted intuition by providing localization of objective reality. In physics, Si would represent the smallest unit of matter possible – the atom, or psychologically speaking, atomistic thinking and perception. Si sizes up aspects of the environment – flower, person, car, garden hose, etc. It does not size up people in that subjective sense that many have come to think of subjective sense. Si sees people as just another aspect of the environment to notice and detail like an object. In its basic act of localization of some aspect of the infinite it is performing a subjective task by the simple act of splitting off some entity from the whole.
Si is the microscope to Ne’s telescope. The microcosm to the macrocosm.
But, both deal with the perception of objective reality. Ne has the widest aperture here. Si has the smallest aperture here.
Now, Onto The Axis of Subjective Perception (Ni-Se)
I know what you’re thinking. How in the hell does Se (extraverted sensation) have anything to do with subjective reality?
Bear with me!
Se doesn’t seem particularly interested in objects for their own sake (whereas Si does). Psychologically, Se is motivated by/interested in subjects. That is its end point (the center point).
Now, remember, I have defined Se as the circumference of a circle closing in towards the center point (Ni).
I guess you could see Ni as THE ONE REALITY. I see the center point of a circle representing the concept of self. The “I am” principle. Without this center, nothing else really makes sense.
So, where Si closes in on aspects of the objective world to localize them, Se closes in on subjects to size them up. Se is pretty concerned with two things – competing for resources and mating opportunities. These two things involve the perception of the subjective reality of…uh…subjects.
Psychologically, Se wants to know who you are to them in this natural world. Are you a competitor? Are you an ally? Are you prey? Are you big? Are you small? Do you have childbearing hips? Etc.
I think of Se as the natural world (Will) converging on the subject.
Se dominant people are out looking for other people, not out looking for the nature of the world. They have subjective perception.
Yeah, I guess you could say they are object-oriented in the sense that a mechanic who works on a car has to be.
But, I maintain, that psychologically (and physics-wise) the Se type’s perception is closing towards subjects more than objects.
Se is not interested in the objective world except as the setting for which subjects may operate within. Ne, on the other hand, is much more interested in the objective world than in any of the subjects who may be inhabiting it. Actually, Ne is most interested in space, if I may put it down to one word. Si, too, is often oblivious towards subjective reality of people.
But, Se. No, Se is actually quite people- savvy and people-focused. Yeah, Se people may like to work on cars, work out, and do all these nifty things with the physical (objective environment) but, it is all for a subjective focus – getting laid and being a better competitor/combatant and essentially this involves being able to perceive and size up other subjects.
OK, now onto introverted intuition.
And back to apertures. Fuck, see how ADD I am?
So, whereas, Ne has the widest aperture in objective reality, Ni has the widest aperture in subjective reality.
Ni = widening aperture for subjective possibilities, what the self (subjective entity) could be. Picture a circumference widening forever inward (if you can).
Se, on the other end of this axis, is the limiting perception for what a self could be. Se tends to come to a narrow perception of what the possibilities for self are. And they are generally dictated by the exigencies of the natural world. If you are born small and defenseless, then you are prey. If you are born big and strong, you are a predator.
Meanwhile, Ni is seeing itself as an artist or philosopher that sits aside from that whole contest of life and mirrors it back in some way.
Se is closing in on Ni (circumferentially) to make it aware of the pressing realities of the natural world.
Then, when the (gravitational) pressure from the tightening arcs of Se circumferential activity become too great it causes nuclear fission in the Ni nucleus.
Remind you of anything?
I basically just described solar physics right there. That’s what is happening on the sun right now.
Anyway, I’m getting tired, so I’ll just wrap this up and leave you with a little chart of apertures for each of the perceiving functions towards the subject and object. Yawn.
Perceiving Function Apertures Toward Object
Ne = wide
Se = normal
Si = narrow
Ni = non-existent
Perceiving Function Apertures Toward Subject
Ni = wide
Ne = normal
Se = narrow
Si = non-existent
Thus, Ne wins the contest for having the widest general perception and Si loses the contest by having the narrowest general perception.
However, Si wins for having the most inbuilt judgment of the perceiving functions and Ne would of course lose on this account.
Hell, why don’t we just make Si an honorary judging function.
Well, let’s sleep on it.
Better not to rush to any rash judgments in matters of such global import.
Featured Photo Credit: Woodwalker, with a retouche by Poxnar (Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License”)
This is fucking brilliant. Thank goodness for that ADD.
Now go bust out those Pee Wee platforms and sing Connect the Dots.
La
La
La.
Refreshing you are.
Okay: the usual “oh my god I love it so much” comment.
Serendipity as 2 hrs ago I was reading about Ne Si Ni Se and musing on the “optical” analogy. But more along fuzzy large versus clear narrow vision that kind of thing.
I like your point thing. Circle narrows in and then it is like an unfolding into other interior universe. Also singular vision. But flip side of point is infinite.
And Ne does feeling like an outer edge kind of thing….”ranging”.
Btw Si being an arbitrary point on the circumference cracked me up. And yes istj can confuse people with vases sometimes 🙂 in extreme cases.
I picture that while Si is making sure some random point is on the circumference Ne is tied in to help with that by looking around a little to see if the point has ways to slide off.
I don’t know I have seen two istjs take 10000 photos (which look nearly all the same) of one flower and really want to share the 10000 photos and it is clearly a tremendous joy and seems insanely rigorous. It makes me wonder how the experience is on the inside. It appears some effort to absorb the flower fully, like “burn” it in on the inside. Pin it.
And I’m currently obsessed with how Ne, Si, Se, Ni can be observed in action by noticing subtle shifts in eye movements and focus of attention, so this couldn’t be more timely and useful for me!
@Stewart
What have you noticed so far? Are eye movements also related to the judging functions or not really?
Back in high school, I had a masterclass with the stereotypical scary, temperamental but magnificent-to-behold ENFJ flute professor, and she deduced straight away that I over-obsess with my sound because I’d often look up as I’d play a long tone. The remedy? Look down; imagination will follow…And it worked. Once you picture something (and it doesn’t even really have to be a “picture” – just something else, maybe a feeling), the sound follows.
I wonder if looking down is an Ni thing. I remember she suggested another eye movement to let Ni flow, but I forgot.
And maybe a brief engagement in Si leads to upward eye movement? e.g. Recalling details.
Hi Schlopadoo,
Brief answer right now as I’m at work:
Eye movements are related to the perceiving functions, which makes sense when you realise how central the visual system is to human perception. When a perceiving process is active, it is as though the eyes are the focal point of the body. The eyes tend to move first and the rest of the body follows, trailing behind by only a fraction of a second; and movements may have a loose, fluid or even rhythmic quality.
In contrast, when a person is using judgment in real-time, the body may appear stiffer and the movements of the hands and head more straight and linear; directional and sharp with well-defined halts.
The muscles become tense, primarily around the head and neck, but this may extend to the entire body. Movements are no longer lead by the eyes – if the eyes move to the sides the whole head will feel no obligation to follow them.
When introverted Judging is engaged, the eyes as well as the individual’s facial expressions can appear flat, flaccid, and expressionless (especially with Ti); the body freezes and the eyes appear disconnected and irrelevant.
Extraverted judgments are more likely to be expressed through accentuated and decisive linear movements of the face, head, and hands; and movements may convey an attitude of confidence and certainty.
There’s a lot more to it than that, of course (and I’m far from being an expert on the subject) but I have had some success in accurately identifying type functions using these signals.
Check out this website for more info:
http://personalityjunkie.com/06/cognitive-type-functions-eye-movements-ni-ne-fi-ti-se-si-fe-te/
Ooo, I remember briefly skimming through that article a year ago. I think the suggestions laid out within the article definitely makes sense now that I look back upon my previous interpersonal interactions.
I think the rapid left-right pacing of the eye definitely correlates to Ne (likely Ne-dominance). As far as I can remember, my Ne-dom friends seem to give off that weird frenetic vibe as they look at me while I’m speaking (especially when I’m describing something of interest, e.g. something science-y). I’ve never seen the actual side-to-side eye movements myself but it’s the overall “vibe” I get from the way they look at me. And this is accompanied by a sense of half-listening. Agh, goddammit these ENTPs.
I’m not sure about Ni eye movements. I’ve seen some (gasp! scary!) e8 ENFJs that momentarily suck the soul out of me as their eyes briefly laser-scan through my soul. This is accompanied by a brief tension throughout their body – maybe that’s Ni aux + Ti inferior? In any case, the outcome is that they would have read and understand everything about me in a few seconds. Goddammit, I don’t want to be read. Hate that.
As far as Se eye movements go, I don’t really bump into many Se-dominants because I’m a nerd closeting myself in nerd life devoid of partying and drinking (blame it on Asian genes). But I’ve had a brief encounter with a really friendly ESTP forensic engineer, who seemed to literally lock his eyes onto mine. Now that’s really fucking hard to do, so kudos to him, as I never reveal my eyes to anyone really. There is something very forceful with the overall vibe of Se-dom eyes, but it’s not the kind of blazing intense soul-sucking gaze ENFJs can do sometimes. It just locks onto you in a steady gaze, aware of any and every little movement you make. But I’m not sure about ESFPs, lmao, I just never really bump into them in real life, but for some reason I feel as if it would be a little different for them?
The freezing thing you just ascribed to introverted judging seems to make a lot of sense. There are times when I engage in a lot of Ni-Ti, and the feeling can be so damn miserable at times. My entire body becomes rigid and my head would begin to build up a lot of pressure as if it would eventually explode…Hate that. I would also lose track of my surroundings, disappearing into another land. Funny how I would always engage in this weird Ni-Ti tension-thing despite the fact that my physical body simply cannot tolerate it in the long run. And also, I think my eyes drift a lot while listening or speaking; I might look past the other person, maybe their chair or window (as if they were the other person) and that leads to a lot of misgivings about my interest in them 🙁
“try getting an ENTP to locate their shoes sometime – it’s nearly impossible”
🙂 Or keys, or wallet, or cellphone, or ipad, or car keys, or watch, or credit cards, or just about any small (but important or valuable) object…………
What? Do you mean to imply there are people who can keep track of such invisible objects? How strange of them. 😉
Is anyone else finding it impossible to keep this circle flat? Mine popped immediately into 4D… Nevertheless, the article resonated beautifully.
hmm and what did it look like Four-d?
Planetary, space, an energy shape, just not flat like paper or even condensed flat like a lens. And with another unseen dimension where Ni is vast and ongoing like Ne is spaceward. If Ni is a point, it is a tunnel to otherspace.
Just popped up with his words, like when you open one of those fold out books, but you could see beyond the pages to the fey side of the book, like seeing if you could walk through a mirror of space.
I got the same image of the point unfolding to other (inner symbolic universe) for Ni:)
The inward falling circle also helps me to imagine how Ni might be like for an Se dominant. Maybe it gives the sense of quest.
Also many circles share a center, but each circle has only one center. And you don’t need the complete circle to determine the center. So that works well as analogy of Ni:)
Killed it, great post. Totally agree on the subjective/ objective nature of each axis. Si’s perception is so narrow its like they’re habitually squinting as they look out at the world. But whatever tiny, minuscule, often irrelevant object that gains their objective focus, look out. Their eyes will become wide very quick as they study that object with a magnifying glass, not seeing through it to anything subjective but purely at its painstaking objective details. They’re going to know it inside and out, and stay so painfully boxed into whatever it is that they can’t possibly fathom opening themselves up to the vulnerability of looking up and out at the world and having multiple options for how to live or what to perceive. That’s a very scary concept to Si dom’s, and as a result they typically build up a comfortable little Si life that protects them from ever having to open themselves up to the frightening unpredictability of the Ne or Ni world.
“Their eyes will become wide very quick as they study that object with a magnifying glass, not seeing through it to anything subjective but purely at its painstaking objective details. They’re going to know it inside and out, and stay so painfully boxed into whatever it is that they can’t possibly fathom opening themselves up to the vulnerability of looking up and out at the world and having multiple options for how to live or what to perceive.”
^ Except for the last half of the last sentence, why does this sound so much like Ti Gemini? >.< It sounds like Si too…but…dunno, very strangely reminiscent of the sort of reductive thinking that dominated the boom of molecular biology since the '60s. Almost INTPesque. You can call me out on my bullshit.
I’m new to all this stuff, and will need to read this again
but just an off the cuff reaction/question
Would, for example, Ni think in a similar way to how fractal geometry works?
I’m not sure. Elaborate more on how you see this possibility.
Yes, Xijack, I would love for you to explain how you see that.
I’m loving the circle point analogy so much. Se could be passively or actively absorbing pieces of data that assemble sparsely along the circle. The shape becomes highly suggested before it fills in (especially if you’ve been musing on which direction each point might be falling towards). And even a sparsely filled in circle reveals a center. If you are looking for the centers you can see them way ahead of what makes sense to someone focused on the points on the circumference. I’m sure this post sounds like when people explain punch lines lol. Just thinking “out loud”.
This analogy is oh so good.
The fractal thingy I also want to know! Fractals can be generated from any piece (just magnify). Ni kind of magnifies detail by musing over even sparse detail as if giving them almost undue importance. But how can you relate the internal webbing that must happen with Ni to fractals…. that is really interesting……and sounds like a mind trip……
The pattern is so complex that the brain may be apprehending it in a blurry fashion. When it sees a piece it won’t know it is seeing something significant (i.e. close to something unifying) until it magnifies it and some kind of resonance happens due to previously laid webbing (previous rumination) at a “different level of magnification” (resonance is piece=whole?)…
Now THAT is bullshit on my part as I don’t even know what Ni is except that I can’t Ni for the life of me. Unless Ni is a function for bullshit.
anyhow …. speaking of…. look at the leaf and tree mathematically generated, shown at this link….
https://georgemdallas.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/what-are-fractals-and-why-should-i-care/
how moving and insanely beautiful
wouldn’t it be interesting to link the iteration process to a thinking process…
Si is like myelination on the details/facts/imaging. Ni is like myelination on the subjective webbings/imaging.
everything you do can be found out in each of your cells… all of humanity is discoverable in each individual. all these seem true in a way. trees can be generated by a math rule. this is all so nuts.
Could this be related? I recently commented in another thread about noticing fractal patterns in a lucid dream I once had:
https://www.stellarmaze.com/introverted-thinking-id-intj/#comment-17565
Oh God, no! Fractals…..Perception……Ni……Geometry…….Complex Patterns – must resist….. falling into yet another Ni rabbit hole (fails saving throw) ….. too late……..I’m doomed!!!
I was thinking about fractal art, it’s very stimulating to look at, and the animated type is a trip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jGaio87u3A
I’m a keen gardener and sometimes find myself staring at a flower or leaves for a long time, (especially after a few) most people would find this a very boring thing to do
would it be possible that someone with Ni is more likely drawn in by the underlying geometry of nature
“would it be possible that someone with Ni is more likely drawn in by the underlying geometry of nature”
your question makes one want to see the mbti type of this dude:)
intj?
or entj;)
Or INTP.
I think fractals has the most to do with Ne. And noticing patterns in any aspect of the natural world is really the Ne forte. Combine it with Ti and you get mathematical formulations to formally define the patterns/relationships etc.
Crystallography would be another Ne type study, for example.
Ne is on the axis of Objective Perception. It wants to notice the overall pattern, whereas Si, on the other end of this axis, wants to notice each instantiation as a thing in itself. It lack pattern recognition to the greatest degree.
I like the snowflake analogy for the Ne-Si axis.
Si would see each snowflake as wholly individual, never to repeated again in exactly that way.
Ne would ignore the unique aspects of each snowflake and focus on how each snowflake is similar to every other snowflake. What is the pattern common to all snowflakes? That is what is interesting to Ne. That is also why Ne can learn nothing for a long period of time and then all of a sudden grasp the basic pattern at play beneath all the apparently disparate phenomena. Once it has done that, it has little interest in going over that material again. Not true for Si. Si enjoys repetition and slow and steady buildup of information. It also enjoys going over old things again and again. It has a retrospective penchant. That is why Si types are very committed to observing holidays, birthdays and the like. Commemorating, re-observing.
Ne just wants the pattern. It enjoys the abstraction behind all those observances. Intuition, in general is an abstracting function. The general concept.
Or you know the classic “can’t see the forest for the trees” saying. That’s all about the Ne-Si axis.
Si will focus at the tree level. It sees the tree as a thing in itself. Each tree is different.
Ne comes in and goes “No, they fucking aren’t.” Don’t you see that this is a whole (a forest) composed of mostly similar objects (trees)? You see a pattern here?”
So, Si notices the differences between objects and Ne notices the similarities (this latter of which could be called the general pattern or gist).
Psychologically speaking too, Si likes to multiply the aspects of any given entity, to find and to notice as many little deviations it can. This gives them great pleasure.
This is agony to an extraverted intuitive.
Yet, the extraverted intuitive’s attitude is scary and uncertain to the introverted sensor. The Si type thinks “how could you know that without actually having seen and experienced it?”
And this is why there is so much misunderstanding in the world. Well, one of the reasons. Or one axis of misunderstanding.
“And this is why there is so much misunderstanding in the world. Well, one of the reasons. Or one axis of misunderstanding.”
Misunderstanding is a real theme at the moment, as we are just emerging from a Mercury Retrograde cycle.
At least Ne/Si share a common focus on objective data, and can eventually reach some kind of common ground (if both parties are willing to be patient). Ne/Ni don’t even have that in common, so misunderstandings are almost inevitable.
My ENTP partner and myself have acquired vast stores of general knowledge across a broad range of subjects, as dominant N’s are wont to do. We both appreciate the other’s expertise, but trying to share some of that knowledge with each other leads to much hilarity (not!).
Both Ne and Ni are big picture functions, so communication is easy when we both understand the topic in question – a few words is all it usually takes, or sometimes just a glance. Occasionally it’s almost telepathic – we’re both thinking about the same thing at the same time and suddenly start talking about it.
But it all goes horribly pear-shaped when only one of us has knowledge of a particular subject and the other partner wants to have it explained to them.
From my perspective it can be incredibly frustrating:
ENTP will say something like “What is xxxxx all about?” to me.
I try to sum it up in as few words as possible, as I know he can’t tolerate too many details, but my Ni typically uses too much technical jargon to make any sense to him at this level. Sensing his frustration, I try to translate the jargon into plain English, but usually go way too far into the details and this just makes it even harder for him. By now, we are both starting to get drained and annoyed, and teetering on the edges of an argument.
Eventually, (if I’m lucky) I get an intuitive flash and sum it up in a sentence or two that actually makes sense to him, though I have no idea why that worked when nothing else did!
It is no easier in the other direction, when I need to draw upon his technical expertise for something practical . He’s more than willing to share, but it’s at such a high level of abstraction as to be essentially useless to me. All the necessary details and stepwise instructions are bundled up into a short sentence of ten words or less:
“You need to reverse the polarity of the flux capacitor.”
WTF! Trying to chunk down from this high-level technobabble to anything vaguely resembling useful concrete instructions is so excruciatingly painful that I usually give up before we lose the plot and start hurling insults around!
There is something very agile about the way he hopped around in his career. And the title for his memoir calls him a maverick. Could he be an extrovert?
Entp
Could be ENTP. That would be my second guess based on the video of him you linked to. But, Mandelbrot’s vibe and work smacks much more of xNTP than xNTJ.
The basic difference between xNTP and xNTJ is one of relative softness/laxity/roundness vs. hardness/severity/angularity. I feel the former rather than the latter coming from him.
He kind of hopped from field to field so that made me wonder about the extroversion. He worked on financial math, in lots of branches, and is known for sometimes proving results by showing images (like instead of another style of proof… ). He has said he never wanted to work on math that is divorced from the outer world and had that notion early on.
And yeah I don’t think he is intj, saw more videos.
“hardness/severity/angularity”
that would be more this type of look? ?
Yeah. Prominent brow. Prominent nose. Sort of sharp and angular. Yep.
Robert Oppenheimer (father of the atomic bomb) is kind of my go-to example for that hard/severe/angular INTJ ideal look:
https://youtu.be/t9bu3WLwAx4
And here is a great example of an ENTJ – the actor Christopher Plummer. Look at that command and presence. That’s Ni in the aux.(projective position) So, when this guy who is interviewing Plummer asks what makes for that star quality and presence in an actor, I would say Ni in the aux. is what most makes for that quality. Plummer says that it is difficult to say what makes for that star quality and then concludes that one is born with that certain something that makes for a desire to command. Yes, that would be correct.
Check it out: https://youtu.be/AnWUTgZrdcE
“I think fractals has the most to do with Ne”
INTP and ENTJ
makes me wonder how the other dominant and auxiliary users relate to fractals
ENFP loves to wear paisley and INFP has a pajama face
“Yes, that would be correct.” funny:)
Blake,
I’ve read and re-read this material and find your descriptions absolutely mesmerizing and have spent days in happy reflection of these concepts entering into and mixing with my psyche like the best literature can. I sound so sappy, ugh. So sorry for that. It is just this dimensional conceptual perspective is highly unique to describe focus in world of type and very refreshing and original.
The clip included of Oppenheimer as an INTJ, which of course he is and there was no doubt in my mind, but this clip just brought out the humanity of the “mastermind” type that I detect and admire in them. It struck me that strangely, another YouTube clip that showed as waiting in the wings of him and in this he looked a lot like Jimmy Page. Again, Jimmy Page was a brilliant control freak who may have played with things more powerful than he and became imprisoned by them (e.g., the alleged black magic and heroin). Robert Oppenheimer was made quite vulnerable by the power of destruction of his invention. Well, there is some overlap here as I see it.
Do you ever sometimes want to throw away all type knowledge and find yourself coming back to it again almost in protest paired with a rush? Sometimes it seems so boggy and confining and contradictory and at others, like with your post here, it seems expansive and embracing. I wish I could have all perceptive goggles that I could trade out for any given task or need, but just not all at once because then it would melt the brain. I guess we do, but some are so dusty and just poorly fitting and have one lens missing or something or distorts the color, exaggerates or flattens the nuance of the scene somehow.
Anyway, today is a day for serene Se lenses. No madness, no frenzy, just calm and free. Well, I declare it so for me. “It’s a beautiful day, don’t let it slip away” is going through my mind as nature’s charms call my very soul and I’m heeding her siren’s call which doesn’t sound a thing like U2. Sorry cousin Bono. 🙂
Do you ever sometimes want to throw away all type knowledge and find yourself coming back to it again almost in protest paired with a rush?
Yes, I sometimes wish I didn’t know that much about type so I wouldn’t get into the habit of typing everyone and everything. I type the universe.
But, I think the thing is to learn to switch between modes. I see the tendency to type things as only one of many modes that humans have and so I have learned the limits of that sort of activity. Sometimes, it is hard to shut that mode off, especially since I write about it and have it as significant part of my career path, but, nonetheless, I have learned how to do it. Also, I have been doing it for so long that I have reached a point with it where I just don’t care anymore. Like, it’s fun and entertaining and cosmic and all that, but, when it becomes too nitty-gritty or reductionist, I just drop it due to absurdity.
But, I always come back to it because it’s obviously important to me. And it’s still pretty fresh to me despite about 20 years of studying it. I always have new insights and exciting rushes and all that. If I didn’t, I doubt I would do it anymore.
But, it’s just one of those fields where I think there is still so much left to say that hasn’t been said and there are so many different ways you can apply this system. To me, it isn’t just about typing people, it’s about understanding how the universe works. It’s philosophical.
I do understand why people get sucked into the whole Myers-Briggs typing frenzy thing and then get kind of crazy and burnt out and need to take a sabbatical from that whole world. Sometimes I feel that way and I have definitely done that at different junctures in the past.
But, no, to me this whole endeavor is extremely fascinating and I feel challenged to keep seeing it anew. I’m still learning and am willing to admit when I think I’m wrong. And I have changed my mind quite a few times on famous people’s types. So, that means I do see new things in people and the system.
I also like it when people have good arguments against a typing I might have come to. I find that invigorating and exciting.
It’s really the process of discourse that I like more than the static knowledge itself. It’s like “OK, I have everyone all figured out according to Myers-Briggs, now what?” If it was strictly like that then I would find this whole business depressing.
Ya know, it’s like playing a game. That’s how I look at it sometimes. And it’s fun to keep coming back to play a game that you find highly engaging and interesting. But, it is just a game in one sense. I don’t want to play the game all the time. To do anything all the time, even the things you love the most, will cause you to burn out on it.
So, I have things that balance that out – music, meditation, relationships, exercise and so on. Yes, I do often type people unconsciously, but, I’m aware that I do that as a matter of course and I allow that to be part of the picture. But, then there is always this aspect of people that is utterly unspeakable and mysterious and that is also interesting. I enjoy not knowing too.
@Rita
Oppenheimer said I have become death destroyer of worlds as soon as the experiment succeeded before the bomb was used to kill. Then he endured the Mc Carthy trials. Lost the ability to do science due to restrictions placed on him. He endured an unimaginable burden. I cannot even comprehend how it must have been for him. He ended up scapegoated in the political climate which was injury added upon burden. He always knew the significance of where the scientific challenge to them was going all along. But it still changes in that one moment it becomes reality. To live with that then be witch-hunted. I always found him fascinating in his humanity long before knowing mbti as a teenager. Interesting to now know that intjs tend to be interesting to me and that was one reason why. Their version of being human you refer to. Their something so epic about it. But I am bad at expressing it so this sounds like garbage and type-worshipping which is a sorta icky to do.
“And it’s still pretty fresh to me despite about 20 years of studying it.”
Happy for ya! 😉
Blake,
Thank you for that very honest, open, and human reply. Everything you said made complete and total sense. Absolutely understood.
As for, “Yes, I do often type people unconsciously, but, I’m aware that I do that as a matter of course and I allow that to be part of the picture. ”
It would be true even if you did not use your particular methodologies, wouldn’t it? The difference between you and many others (outside of the methods you use) is that you are conscious and aware of the background operating system. I think most of your Starlings share that aspect to varying degrees.
“I enjoy not knowing too.” Yes, getting to the point where you can purposely embrace the ambiguity and delight in the mystery is a lovely thing. With life and practice it becomes possible even for those of us who once determined they need to know.
Thank you for sharing and developing your well honed insights of the past 20 years in the way you do. Selfishly unselfish? I hope so. < that is my favorite human system exchange.
It would be true even if you did not use your particular methodologies, wouldn’t it?
Yeah, I think everyone types others because it is basically built into the human species to do so.
For example, some people will meet a person and they say this is a “good” person out of the either/or category of good/bad. That’s a very basic system of categorizing people. Or someone else will meet a person and think “this is a smart person” out of the category smart/dumb.
People do it all the time and they have to in order to survive (and thrive) socially, politically, biologically, economically and so on.
Anybody who denied that they did this I would tend to distrust or think that they weren’t very self-aware.
So, yes, people might not use Myers-Briggs/astrological system to make these assessments, but, I personally think they are the most accurate and elegant systems for doing so.
I think both these systems mirror how the universe is really constructed, whereas, The Big 5 Personality Inventory, for example, doesn’t.
So, color me fascinated!
Blake said: “Anybody who denied that they did this I would tend to distrust or think that they weren’t very self-aware.”
Absolutely! I think it would be a very very rare person who must have some part of their brain missing that could honestly say they don’t categorize and make judgments about others. Probably only those with only the brain stem in operation (brain dead) could really be said not to make a judgment about their perception. It seems clear that the brain stem only folks do perceive because their eyes follow a person or object moving in their field of vision, but no areas of the brain that make sense of the stimulus are in tact. So, my conclusions about the person who claims not to do this are the same as yours, because brain dead individuals could not say that, since they don’t and can’t speak. 🙂
“Color me fascinated.” 🙂 I guess that is why we all collect here to this lovely site. It is colorful and fascinating to delve into issues of individuals, collectives, the mind, soul, morality, judgment, values, focus, energy flow, life, death, the micro/macro, the universe, philosophies, and such. It is more interesting than the Big Five, because it is more multi-dimensional in application.
“There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy” comes to mind. Stellar Maze is a place for those who know this is so and want to expand and explore this because there is always more to know in order to learn and grow. Maybe moving from surviving to thriving even. 🙂 Shall we dare to dream?
“But, then there is always this aspect of people that is utterly unspeakable and mysterious and that is also interesting.”
I noticed that some people that come up here, they just settle somewhere in my head. Others never seem to settle. For example, Taylor Swift just ended up somewhere and it just settled in my head. Russel Brand seems to have settled somewhere. But a couple of people that have come up here like Obama, Colbert, even Roger Waters, they don’t settle anywhere… oh and Louis CK. Something about each of these people that remains a mystery to me. It is really REALLY REALLY seriously really fun.
I love/hate typing because one detail can just stand out and completely confuse me. For example, Stephen Colbert’s beady eyes and the fact that he mentioned building a boat for his kids (he mentioned it as if it were no big deal–on Oprah) confuse the enfp image for him in my mind.
Details drive me nuts…. like literally hurts.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
Here is someone who is kind of severe or brusque. Not sure what word to use. But you have him typed entp somewhere. This is where I get lost using appearance or aura. Boo. Either way, interesting fellow to listen to.
Lunar,
Thanks for the video. I am pretty darn sure that Feynman was an ENTP. His brusqueness was a set up to explain a very important concept. He was illustrating the importance of asking an important question and brilliantly set it all up. Notice his increasing animation? Then he is charming. See, ENTPs get away with things most of us couldn’t. Well, I think so.
Here is another video and look at that face as he talks. He does not seem brusque at all. The man is in love with science!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qhh32JYkQPk
Lunar,
Is it hard for you to imagine Feynman had quite a way with the ladies after his wife died? He had a reputation for moving in and out of many beds with ease and did not seem to be resented by his lovers., who mostly called him a gentleman. Keep in mind the time frame: late 40s to the 80s. For a good 20 years of that time, unexpected pregnancies made casual sex somewhat risky and even afterwards there were so many gender specific attitudes that would make it likely that women were a whole lot less amenable to such arrangements. Yet, he is said to have made that work quite well for himself.
Anyway, I see as a potential gift of an ENTP to be able to be somewhat challenging and even obnoxious in interaction at times, but somehow ingenious and oddly charming, that they get by with what others can’t. Their presence and energy is quite different than an SP type who also get by with a lot, but the way they do it is quite different somehow. See Blake’s article about ENTPs. It is spot on brilliant! And exactly as I see them. Not that I know a lot of them at all, but I am a fan of these “least likely to be a ninja” types. I even believe they could pull off ninjaesque espionage by looking so obviously buffoonish no one would take them seriously and then bam!…. They’ve collected the intelligence necessary to bring down an empire or emperor! And it was all done in their face. Kind of like Colombo got his criminals by looking like a clueless hack. 😉
They are not altogether magic by any means but I have an affinity for them. When they are on a roll with a subject they love, just try to get a word in edgewise. They are so animated and lit up by their concepts and ideas. LOL I am curious what you think about them? How did you see Feynman in the video you posted as different from what you expected of an ENTP? Do you notice his attachment to the underlying and connecting principal of the external and material universe that Blake mentions? It is there in a big way as I see it in those videos, although I once read a thread where people insisted he was an ENTJ. Go figure!
I agree that he is entp. I get to entp by his zest for uncovering the mysteries out there. His intense curiosity, his openness of thinking etc. A flavor. Don’t know how to put it into words. He is so charmed by the world and thinking about the world. There is some kind of bravery of diving in to the essence and tinkering with it and solving it. He reminds me of someone I know who actually is a physicist. They both have very smiling eyes too. Well if the guy I know is entp so is Feynman.
Sometimes putting a label on someone makes me see them less. Like Feynman… I see a forcefulness with him that makes him unlike some entps I know. But I also see him as entp. I wonder if I think too much of him as entp then I won’t see the forcefulness anymore. Etc. Because it is there and is a very interesting aspect of his personality.
Guess his forcefulness is trying to convey all the wonderful stuff he sees and conveying what it means to think about phenomena etc (even I don’t understand it he likes to say).
I sometimes wonder what Tyson the astrophysict’s type is. That guy does all he can to convey the wonder and value of science. He goes “all out” with effect. But he has a more teachy vibe than Feynman. Feynman is more ________. Ah the joys of not being able to express anything in words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI
So fun to listen to.
Well Feynman was said to be a very very beloved professor and I can see that students of physics would be completely in love with his style. He likely adapted to the necessities of the role and needs of his students while maintaining his unique own style.
One thing about the forcefulness is probably less a product of his ENTP nature (although I think they definitely have that to a great degree at various times)but rather his Jewish Brooklyn upbringing. I’ve known some non-ENTPs who were from Jewish families and raised in Brooklyn and they all have a slight edgy gritty scrappy communication style to them. So, it makes sense to combine colloquial/family/religious norms, and add no small measure of their unique areas of expertise and life experiences along with their type. You can hold these all simultaneously and meld them together to see a unique individual. For me, adding any of these things or considering them does not take away from their overall aspect, but just adds a nuance, layers, and spice. It is not either/or, less than/more than, but rather: yes ENTP, and yes physicist, and yes from Brooklyn, and yes born Jewish, and yes widowed, and yes sexual opportunist, and yes Feynman. Of course, he was far more than all of these little collections, but then aren’t we all?
I guess what I mean is that I don’t see you lose anything by typing people. I don’t think it makes them any less human or remarkable to do so, unless we decide the label itself is dehumanizing. Some people do use negative labels or ascribe certain labels in dehumanizing terms, but MBTI, Socionics, or cognitive functions are not in my mind intended to be at all dehumanizing. Unless people ascribe negative overall meaning to various types, which of course they do. I suppose we all do to a degree, but I don’t believe that is inherent in the system but rather the negative evaluation and interpretation of the person using the system.
Is what you are saying is that if you focus on something like, “Feynman is an ENTP” then you lose something of his other aspects or his essence becomes dimmed by the label? Maybe I don’t quite follow.
I don’t think calling someone a xxxx type is dehumanizing to them. It’s more that I think it can be self-blinding to me as to how I SEE them (perhaps other people are better at this).
Once a person is a xxxx type in my mind, I think that sometimes this colors how I see them. I might see into them traits of the other people of the same type that I know for example even if the people are actually quite varied. It’s like seeing a person through a filter of what entp stands for or something like that. It can be enlightening and blinding I guess is what I am trying to say.
I catch myself collapsing impressions instead of keeping them like nuances and layers as you mention. For example with Feynman, I caught myself wondering whether he is very forceful or not because many entps I know are not nearly as forceful. It’s like collapsing the variations in the entps. But YES. Feynman is forceful. No need to unsee that to get a kind of consistent entp image.
So basically…. these messages is me thinking out loud… lol… not much of a point I am afraid. I have no idea if that made more sense finally.
“They are so animated and lit up by their concepts and ideas. LOL I am curious what you think about them?”
I have no idea when you wrote that I only now saw it! I love entps… I have no idea why but they are just so entertaining. Well actually some can get tiring to me. I know one who has a problem with blabbing at all moments of social gatherings in an imposing sort of way (but I still love her)…. But I know a few in my life that I really enjoy. I know one who is so OPEN, brilliant, can talk about anything and is always wanting a challenge. I know another who is a bit of a space cadette who always has projects lying around that she is working on. Her home always looks like um a workshop…… of the mind. Everything she does appears to be happening by accident lol. Can’t quite describe it. But there is a high element of random and incongruous:)
Feynman surprised me in how testosterony and wiry and strong he comes off. Forceful too in just how he presents. Hmmm. So single-mindedly wedded to science.
“Do you notice his attachment to the underlying and connecting principal of the external and material universe that Blake mentions?”
Oh yes, very much. He says it himself: he doesn’t care much for names, names don’t tell you anything, it’s like knowing nothing about how this universe works. (well I think choosing the right name or picking the right thing to be named can be very significant:) but that’s a digression). I love that. He says he was raised to inquire in this way by his father. Anyhow I think this is kind of like Ne. Si can pick up something and say this is this way. Ne comes along and is like that’s like knowing nothing lol:) There is something deeper there to discover and examine that is unseen but could well be here in operation.
I guess to me that matches Blake’s entp description. I myself would never know that this is NOT Te and Ni or something. What was Newton? I guess Te can have to do with laws of nature? Ni the workings of the universe. I stop seeing where one function ends the other starts:)
I saw somewhere you mentioned people typing him as entj. He seems very free-spirited for entj, but on the other hand, I can see why some people would think that. You have to watch lots of video to get a clearer idea unless you are very intuitive and *just know*. I personally never know…Ni id lol.
Re: Feynman (and other ENTPs)
ENTPs have Te as their Id function, so it would make sense to occasionally see a certain amount of Te forcefulness in their external presentation. They usually manage to keep this side fairly well hidden from others, but IMHO it is still be a powerful motivating factor for an ENTP’s hallmark inquisitive and questioning nature (a bit like a back-seat driver, if you will).
ENTPs are actually quite an assertive type, but prefer to use indirect methods to achieve their goals. Because ENTP’s prefer an informative communication style, it can be hard to pick up when they’re actually trying to direct other people to do something.
For example, my ENTP partner may say something like “The kitchen is a bit of a mess”, which my INFJ brain hears as a simple observation, so I’ll usually reply with “Yes, it is a mess” and carrying on reading my book. But what he really wants is for me to help tidy up; he’s just incapable of saying it directly. So when I fail to leap into action, he’ll simply repeat “The kitchen is a bit of a mess” several times hoping that I’ll catch his intent.
After about 6 or 7 unsuccessful attempts, he’s so frustrated that he’s practically screaming “The kitchen is a [expletive deleted] mess!!!” before I finally wake up and politely ask “Oh! Do you want me to help clean up?”……
Blake described the dynamics of the ENTP Id function in an earlier post:
“Te id gives ENTPs a natural understanding from a young age of rules and regulations of society. It also gives them an innate sense of organization and scheduling. For example, when at school at a young age they know what is appropriate and not appropriate. They know what is expected of them by authorities.
They may choose to challenge these rules and regulations but they have a firm grasp of what they are. If they choose to rebel, for example, they will do it by the book, so to speak. This is one of the reasons they make excellent lawyers. They have an innate respect and understanding of the necessity of the legal process and they know how to use the extant rules to get what they want. Or get what their client wants.
Essentially, ENTPs believe in the system and know how to maneuver effectively and instinctively within it.
They will not be a type who resents the system and silently rebels at it by some form of non-compliance for example.
But, they do love to test the system and reality to see what they can get away with. They want to know what the boundaries and limits are. They want to see how much they can push the rules and limits to see what the reaction will be. That’s due to their Te id in large part.”
“Yes, it is a mess”
Here is a confession. I have the informing style. So when my informing style partner says “it’s a mess” I feel the push the subtle request but I have been guilty of pretending I don’t hear the request…. confessions of a sinner!!
Blake, I noticed your use of the word “primal” and was just wondering if it means something to you.
Blake, I noticed your use of the word “primal” and was just wondering if it means something to you.
No, it doesn’t mean anything to me. I just needed a word to put there and “primal” was the first word to pop into my head.
hahaha:)
Just a thought about the viability of all points of view: I was visiting with two surgeons with a family member who is undergoing cancer surgery and I was awed by the level of detail they looked at the life threatening tumor and the figured out in detail the best way to go about excising the cancer and maintaining the integrity of the healthy flesh to maintain both form and function. I couldn’t help but think no matter how much training I had, I could not do this as well. Sometimes the Si lens can be awesome. Especially when it matters to someone who really has a love of life and desire for lack of disfigurement. Sometimes total focus on an object with 10,000 pictures of it may be important for some people. I love this person with all of my heart, however, I am better at helping people live and die with integrity and a view to meaning than I am with the details of a tumor. I’d make a terrible nurse, m.d. , or surgeon. I’d forget the syringe or i.v. or which leg or breast or whatever but be waylaid by their personal battle with the eternal struggle that is life and try to help them find some perspective as they find themselves approaching mortality. I could look in their eyes and heart, but I’d suck at the details of all the objects of modern “science.” As long as they want to battle, there are better people for that than I. Si skill may be what I cannot offer. Just a thought on the various lenses of humanity and their particular value.
Si-dominants can be completely immersed thorough masters of their trades that can be counted on to do quality work. Admirable.
Lunar,
Indeed they can. It is pretty awesome the way they can attend to detail and consistency based on past experience and knowledge.
As a biologist it’s so cool to see the rush of Ne-doms (ex-physicists) infiltrate the field and provide new perspectives to biological problems. I had a former ENTP boss who switched fields from applied physics to molecular/cell biology, and his approach totally changed my mind how science should be done. I mean, it is often the case that these days (although it is doomed to eventually go out of fashion in a few decades), much of biological work focuses on studying individual parts out of a whole. We want to know what this gene does at the molecular level, and then we pick this system (this particular type of cell, this particular type of animal), we trial-and-error and do shit. Once we find something interesting, we formulate a question about X gene in X system and go from there…
But how my former boss does it, is to find a good question first. Ne-doms are so fucking good at this. They don’t really have to know much about anything (and my boss forgets important gene names and details all the time during meetings, as he hungrily munches on half a loaf of bread). They just detect a general pattern (as said above), and ask a very high-level question. Then we start the science from there. So in the end, we come to a very conceptual notion implicated in a basic biological process – it’s not one of those same obscure, eyebrow-scratching, uninspired kind of results that flood the field these days. And another cool thing is that if we choose to study something in X organism, we end up exploiting that poor animal like a toy to uncover interesting conceptual truths. We just basically…fuck it up…That Ne-irreverence.
And the best thing is that we can have fun and relax. No nose-diving in work (unless you want to!). No micromanaging. Just play around and do high-risk, fucked up experiments! I don’t remember being “taught” particularly anything during that time, but being taught nothing paradoxically worked wonders for me.
And speaking of misunderstandings…Ne and Ni-doms seem to have great chemistry, but I wonder if it is common for Ne-doms to mistake Ni-doms as Si-users or to even accuse them of “not seeing the bigger picture.”
This may happen sometimes in a conversation, if I am describing a process mentioning all the details or gene names. Sorry? I just remember them uncannily. And often it’s because, as Lunar suggested, I mull over and think about the meaning of every detail in my head. I think and think and think as if I’m digging a fucking ditch in la-la land, until I deeply understand and have my own map of connections or a big picture in my head. After that, the knowledge is crystallized in my head for good. When Ne-doms catch me doing this weird over-thinking trance thing by myself, they scratch their heads.
I also noticed that they’re spooked out by Ni-drive – like it literally disgusts them. It’s really funny actually. I recall the time my ENTP boss mocked a bigshot American (those ‘Muricans!) scientist who arrogantly admitted that he just KNEW that he will be working in science since the age of 15, and that from that moment on, he dedicated his basement to his own personal laboratory for dissecting mice (sounds pretty Ni to me). Ne-users seem to HATE the idea of having some kind of mission/vision to spread in this world, or to innately KNOW what you want to be. It seems close-minded to them, and in fact, silly if you look at the reality objectively. They seem to happily accept uncertainty and draw out various plan As, Bs, and Cs based on objective chances of failure or success in the objective world.
Sometimes I feel like I’m falling in an endless tunnel of intensity. The Ne-perspective on life and all things is like a breath of fresh air. But sometimes I find Ne just as foreign, odd, or scary as Ne finds Ni. Ne loves to NOT KNOW. But me, I HAVE to know. To accept being part of this objective world, just a thing in this vast infinite land of space, is like telling myself to go fuck myself. But I would gladly come as a visitor.
(It’s 3 AM and I just typed so so much. Sorry.)
Oh God this is so true!
And it’s most acute when Ni actually DOES know something with 100% percent certainty (or believes it does) 🙂
Ne-types simply can’t cope with the concept of “certainty” – it so alien to their worldview as to be essentially meaningless. Any attempt on my part to defend my position will be met with a barrage of relentless Ne-counter arguments until I either collapse and admit defeat, or they get bored and lose interest:
“How can you possibly know that?”
“What about this or that alternative?”
“I don’t believe you!”
“I’ll prove otherwise!”
“You’re so pig-headed and stubborn!”
“I don’t want to talk about this anymore”
“La, la, la not listening…”
I feel like we are all thinking on the same page here, even when we’re offline. I’m scared.
When Rita posted about her appreciation for the Si lens, I was mulling over the benefits of Si and the multitude of Si-doms in the medical field. Then I was thinking about INTPs vs ISTJs and the Ti-Si loop, and then relevant posts come up in the INTP vs. ISTP post. And lately I was worrying about whether I was thinking too much about MBTI and categorizing people in general, and again relevant posts come up… lol…
Schlopodoo, yes I KNOW I am thinking too much about MBTI and get determined to throw my hands up and turn away and leave this maze for good, but then Blake will dangle a carrot that will spark the wheels turning or you or others in the maze will say something that is spot on with something I’d been thinking and darn if one of you won’t say it better or add an unexpected twist.
Tomorrow is the first day of October and in that large middle area of the U.S. that most people would simply fly over to get to more sparkling regions, I know people living in that blank space will be enjoying the autumn weather and leaf changes and will be visiting pumpkin patches, enjoying hayrides, and trapsing through corn mazes. However, the most interesting maze these days is this stellar one with all you fellow obsessors of all things type and the maze that springs forth in my head from the words that Blake writes and the discussions that always result. For all that, I do vow to roll in some leaves though and wander through parks just for balance and to fully embrace my favorite season to fuel me through the other hideous three! I look forward to morning mist on the river on a morning walk that will soon make its annual appearance, so I will most definitely live up to my recent mantra: balance Rita Balance!!!!
Back to the stellar subject matter: I would like to request that Blake (if he is so inclined and others are also interested) would put together a stand alone article with a list of famous people he has already typed by 4 letter code category. I sometimes get curious and know he wrote or mentioned this person or that person but cannot remember later when it is more relevant. The articles that were all about a particular celebrity or all about a type is one thing and these do not necessarily need to be listed, because those are easy to find. However, he has typed people per request or used famous examples of a type in the comments; these are the hard ones to find when needed. It would be great to see a document that stands by itself with some famous examples of each type all together. Just a starter page that he could add people to as he thinks of it would be awesome. If no one else would be interested in this or Blake says to “fuggedabout it,” that would be fine too because it isn’t that serious even if I would like it. 🙂
Directive/informing divide that is so often talked about on MBTI sites to discuss J vs P, how does this fit in to type as you (Stellar Blake and Mazians) as you see it? I mean we can certainly see it in extreme cases, but most people are not extreme. I find most of us do a little bit of both. For instance, I will often set a situation up by informing about some concrete truth (e.g., “we are out of groceries, so how about let’s go to _________, and then we can can stop by the store afterwards. Does that work?”) This is usually in response to my husband’s open ended question about, “what are we going to do for dinner?” He might then say, “well, I guess so,” or “sure, sounds great,” or “I don’t want to do that, where else could we go?” It feels like a game show sometimes because I have to guess at what he wants with that last one.” If I ask directly, “what do you want to do?” He will say, “I don’t know. What do you want?” He wants me to brain storm and offer tons of options and somewhere inside he has some preference. With any decided plan, the plan may change on the spur of the moment on the way to said place if something catches his eye. His eyes light up and he’ll say, “oooh, let’s try this. Is that okay?” The answer better be yes or I get the pout. LOL Options open or up for change in a heartbeat seems to be the way. Random and indirect but some kind of stubbornness? With food it is not a big deal to me, but planning a trip motivated by him? What day are we leaving and when does the event end so I know when we are traveling back? “I don’t know yet” Hotel? “Haven’t looked yet” I need dates for the kennel, for client schedules, etc…. If it were my event, I’d get it all arranged and on a calendar so he could make arrangements with work, etc… I’d also be okay with going alone or have him go alone, but he wants me to go with him.
I am really curious about other’s experiences with J/P informative/directive experiences. Blake, I’d really be interested in your thoughts on such a thing. Not my specific experience of course, but rather what role you believe J/P directive/informative communication (if any) play in MBTI types. Is there a simple difference with J/P or does it vary more with NF/ST/NT/SF?
Yeah, my thoughts on J/P informative/directive dynamic is the classical one – P wants to keep perception open indefinitely and J wants to move to closure on perception so as to make decisions and act.
Actually, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. But, isn’t everything.
I only became aware of how directing I actually am after attending some MBTI workshops run by Linda Berens, when she visited New Zealand a few years ago. She gently pointed out to me how I used politeness and diplomatic language to soften my directions (in classic INFJ fashion) but that didn’t mean they weren’t present!
Before then I honestly believed that I only ever provided information and would have denied being pushy or directive in anyway whatsoever (Oh, how we like to delude ourselves!) 🙂
Since then, I’ve owned this side of myself and now am much more comfortable with issuing directives. I’ve also learned to appreciate how my friends and work colleagues actually value my NJ ability to see the big picture, and will often seek me out for a firm decision or suggested course of action when they’re feeling overwhelmed by too many options.
Ne feels like looking to the horizon. So to make it match eye analogy, the peripheral.
Se is more ignoring the peripheral. To make the dart land on the bull’s eye, to reach the goal, make the win.
Actually, I think Se (and Ni) may be more aware of the peripheral than they appear.
If you stare straight ahead and defocus the eyes (as if looking at the horizon), peripheral vision can be enhanced to an extraordinary degree of clarity. It’s a different, more holistic way of seeing the big picture than the darting eyes of Ne, but no less effective.
It also makes it easier to keep track of moving objects and (with practice) can improve coordination and balance. It’s partly why some Se-users are good at physical activities such as dancing or sports. Next time you see a juggler or tightrope walker in action you may notice that they seem to be keeping their heads very still while staring straight ahead into the far distance.
I only learned how to do this fairly late in life, but with a lot of practice I now habitually switch to “peripheral vision” mode whenever I’m outdoors.
Ni also makes frequent use of this visual mode, but with an internal focus. It’s why Ni-users often seem to be looking right through objects as if staring into the far distance.
So, Ni types are the mirrors to life. Maybe they’re like a translator. All of this information and energy is translated or released into another format, mirroring in an encrypted format the meaning of life. Se or the effects and affects of Se close in on Ni. And when the pressure becomes too great – fission, not fusion. So when Ni types receive too much information from Se, the energy is diffused by fission, not greatly released as by fusion. This is a defense mechanism or a survival technique? I use the word diffuse because the process releases less energy than that of fusion. So, yes, question – When the world becomes too much for a tortured artist like the Ni types, is the reaction a defense mechanism or survival technique? I suppose both are one in the same, but right at the time you got sleepy writing this, is exactly where I wanted more information. Please at some point in time or space, extend the thoughts on Se closing in on Ni causing fission, please.
Who tell you all these things my man??
It makes perfect sense.
*Initiates eternalite echo of infinite applause*