So happy and excited to see a Michael Pierce video! In years to come Michael you will be looked back on as one of the most valuable and important figures in this space of psychology. Mark my words.
I'm an ISTJ but I don't perceive Ne having precedence on what shouldn't be ignored, at least not naturally. If I become capable to see this I will gladly come back and share in this comment section. More over, I would say that at 20:38 the key for Si is not that specific moment but what experience that was. It was a reflection of some aspect of reality that you tasted, it happend through you. Going see the sea is one my favorite memories but it isn't about a given day but rather the experience of reflecting while I was seeing the sea. The major problem is it is easier to give an example of an experience so that your listener may taste it as well then having all the work to conceptualize it and explain. That is the main reason why strong Si users telll their stories, because it is easier to deliver.
One way to think of how Ne's "abstraction is more real than physical reality" is the notion of things like parallel dimensions. The rules that continuously apply between parallel dimensions are what are given thought; entertaining this system might be more interesting than distinct played out simulations. If we could go back in time and exert our will to make different decisions, it is still confined to the same universal truths/ axims. You can't go back in time and decide that the speed of light is now different or that the relation of circumference and radius are different than pi.
Interesting how Ne's "abstraction is more real than physical reality" strikes for me different as Ne-dom. I always interpret physical reality as reality that you need to be and work within, but ideas and relations about reality are far more interesting and playing around gives more satisfaction and rewarding. It's like real thing is important, but examining all abstract possibilities and limits about this thing is more important and helpful when it comes to use. And this approach comes very handy when it comes about solving problems or exploring hobby and trying to see relations with what I already experienced and due these relations form important rules and patterns for later functioning.
As a divergent TiNi ENFJ subtype in CPT I completely agree. It's the Ni vision (the authority function) underpinned by Ne possibilities (the sub authority) that is real. Luckily I work in psychiatry where there's very little in the way of 'hard facts' your working with phenomenology a lot of the time & extrapolate from there on out it that makes sense. I even have trouble accepting 'diagnoses' as they are because nothing is a foregone conclusion, there's so much potentiality. I constantly find that my TiNi is synthesising new possibilities & 'combinations' all the time; it's quite ironic for a type that does look for hard coded truths that I'm so 'up in the air' all the time but I wouldn't have it any other way.
@@Tified967 it could be ironic, or it could simply be that you are mistyped? I mean, based on all your comments so far that I've read from you in different typology channels you comment on, it comes across as you're 200% sold on the idea of being that type and 200% sold on CPT being accurate. Howeer, I'm so surprised why you are typed as an ENFJ and even more what makes you believe it. I mean, I'm sure Harry has some reasoning that you can likely literally tell me, but I am curious what makes _you_ sold on indeed being that type using your own reasoning, as your writing style seems so opposite of ENFJ? You typically write dry, specific, data orientated, detailed manner that does not leave out any information out, that it makes me think it more sounds like you are on the Si/Ne axis. Also, today you now also mention that you see new possibilities and 'combinations' all the time, which again seems to suggest the Ne/Si axis rather than the Ni/Se axis. What makes you not a thinker, in your your own thoughts? It would surprise me if you thought you were a feeler before being typed by Harry?
@@PowerRedBullTypology I think I can provide some better context to this discussion. The flexibility and variety of Ni/Se is understated. 2nd slot Ni provides an emergent directional idea for every Se perception. Their thought process is ideational. Ni authority with an Se focus tends to rhyme with Ne but is innately more "rational." they call it a sub-authority... or something that is seemingly adhered to while remaining predominantely unconcious. Ex. of Ni 2 slot = go go gadget or swiss army man. It's unlike Se/Ni which renders Ni more constrained toward the singular moment or goal and unlike Ne/Si which forgoes the immediacy or integration with the moment in favor of cross-context utility.
It's quite difficult to differentiate between enfj and enfp on ideation alone. Context and manner are more important than percieved relevance of ideas or resolution of details.
I wonder if a good example of “abstract is more real than reality” is like when Jordan Peterson talks about archetypes, god the father for example, as real because they transcend time. Glad to see content from the greatest neo jungian typologist there is. Good luck with grad school Michael!
He's alive I think that defines Ne pretty well- the exact thing that happens is not that important, what's more important is that the reaction one gave to the situation was the best possible response, or best response to the many things that could have happened. The many possible ways the situation could go are more real than how things are, to an extent.
This is why I've taken to thinking of the universal axes as "rule-oriented" rather than fair-minded (well, that and I just like the complementarity of goal- and rule-oriented). It's an idea I partially got from your ESTP revisited video, where you mention at one point that, contrary to stereotypes, the type does in fact believe that reality can be effectively modelled via metaphysical principles (Ti-Fe, in other words). Of course, if we shift this concept to perception, then what we get is a type that perceives reality in terms of metaphysical "rules", from which all manner of things can be derived from a given object in an a priori, Ne fashion, with Si then determining which ruleset is the actual one over time, as the subject familiarizes itself with the object. That last bit is conjecture though, so I'll leave it to actual Ne/Si types to sign off on it or not.
Well, maybe I shouldn't say the "actual ruleset", because that's presupposing that there is in fact, an actual one. At this point, it probably makes more sense to start thinking about the attitudes of the functions, and how Ne being an extroverted perception and Si being an introverted perception function play into things. Pe wants to perceive the object as directly as possible, without any biases, prejudices, or filters mediating or "getting in the way" of their relationship with the object. When people lead with these functions (as the Se and Ne-doms do), then you often get someone who is very novelty seeking, because unfamiliar objects have not had the time to become contaminated with the subject's own preconceptions about it. Of course, this can cause problems when ExxPs refuse to sit with an object even after it has lost its novelty, and they are simply flitting from new thing to new thing without any commitment to anything, but that is neither here nor there. Pi wants the exact opposite of Pe, to perceive with as many filters as possible between their subject and the object, though of course Pi-dominant types see this as bringing their wisdom and experience to bear. Those who lead with Si and Ni are often much more cautious and deliberating as a result- they more often than not prefer the familiar over the novel, because these objects can be more effectively modelled by their Pi. Introverted perception is often most active in the aftermath of an interaction, when the dust has settled and the resulting patterns can be studied to determine the "real" essences of things. The trouble comes when their filters are not properly calibrated with Pe input, and then IxxJs really do become biased and prejudiced. Now, back to the start of all this. Extroverted perception represents the first guard in the perception axis, the "ingestion" portion which is then followed by the Pi "digestion" process. So this implies that NPs and SJs experience objects first in terms of the Ne possibilities that could make them up, before eventually resolving or settling these down into particular Si conceptions, with the NPs preferring to spend their time in the initial, excited state, while SJs prefer the later, settled state, an analogous process taking place with the SPs and NJs through their Se/Ni.
Very interesting! Linda Berens and Chris Montoya were developing a new lens called “Intentional Styles”, which are basically the full common function groups (like the quadras), but at one point, had named the tandems as well. Se/Ni is “Realizing Awareness“, and Ne/Si are “Inquiring Awareness”. In made perfect sense. Both Se and Ni are immediate, with Se picking up whatever is there in the moment, and Ni from the unconscious with its sudden “aha!” Ne and Si have to basically “inquire“ or seek out the information to COMPARE it, with Ne comparing objects, and Si comparing experience to memorized fact. So that would seem to go along with Ne and Si having the “relationship” (which is basically what you're “inquiring”) give meaning to the object, and Se and Ni having the “object” (that you “realize”) give meaning to the relationship!
Wow, had no idea about their work. It's interesting to see an understanding of the quadras being applied to the career/organizational psychology field.
And if I may add, as I've observed in some Si dominant friends, it's like Si instead sees the rulebook, and prioritizes it to the point it is extremely reluctant to play around with it.
It seems to me you tend to see the "malleability" of intuition as what frees you from "pre-stablished criteria". Ne, on the other hand, sees all possibilities as a natural necessity, which negates the "malleability" it could have, as an intuitive function. I (ISTJ) tend to see that "malleability" as what demands the consideration of all possibilities. Like a flat tire behaves randomly because its content is malleable; but when filled it can finally reflect its true nature.
Very nice idea/ way of looking at it, it made some sense right away. In a way it's like Se-Ni users put objective and subjective (E-I) in their "proper place where it belongs" while Ne-Si types flip it around and see relations (N) as the actual real thing over S.
that makes sense as se ni users usually use things to the breaking point and take the idea as far as it can go but the ne si is usually very methodical and careful with the sensory details as it is personal to them.
This stuff makes a lot more sense now that I have rea some books on neuroscience and philosophy of mind. It clicked together once I reached the conclusion that all thought is based on the comparison/contrasting of information.
You might be interested in some areas of the philosophy of psychiatry also particularly phenomenology & Hegelian thought around how psychiatric formulations are conducted (and their limitations thereof)...as you can tell I'm quite a disallusioned mental health nurse! 😅
@@Tified967 A good book from a neuroscientific perspectives is Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will by Kevin J. Mitchell. It taught me quite a bit. It's one of those books that helped bring everything else I had been reading on the subject into a coherent whole.
Nice to hear from you. Particularity is a good word for the Ne/Si + Te/Fi types (me lol). Whereas from my perspective and prejudice, Se/Ni + Fe/Ti types can sometimes come across as reductionist. It reminds me of something you said in your book, where the Theocratic types 'take the transcendent and make it mundane,' whereas the Anarchic types 'take the mundane and make it transcendent.' Almost as if for the Theocratic types, the noumena must be translated and codified into a shared reality. But for the Anarchic types, they impress their own noumena onto a more personalized and 'particularized' aspect of shared reality.
Hey Michael, this is unhinged and parasocial of me but I am extremely drunk and just finished your book and am reading the book of Thoth by Crowley and the parallels between their theory of the elements and how they proceed from one another in the Kabbalah has so many parallels to yours. I gotta push you in the direction of golden dawn tarot and western esotericism if you haven't already gotten into it. I feel like my mind is being reshaped. Yours is absolutely the best MBTI book I've read after Jung himself and von Franz's lectures and it's not even close. But this may be my ENFP bias.
The meaning of a thing is in the mind, it's subjective and therefore the way an individual is incentivised to behave if they look at the world through their own eyes
Michael it's great to see you back! I've noticed that there's only yourself & Harry Murrell from CPT who are actual INFJs that make typology content. I'm wandering if you've checked out CPT & what your impressions are of it as a convergent NiTi user? 😊. Ps re Te, Fi & Se as that which can 'punch me in the face' lol luckily I rarely experience this - I'm too far future focused with my TiNi abstractions that the future possibilities always seem more tangible that the present concrete which is paradoxical I know. I think with your bowling ball analogy re INFJ/ESTP Vs say ENTP/ISFJ you're hitting on an important point in CPT re holistic abstract thinking re NiTi Vs SiTi analytical thought processes...I could be way off the mark here but it seemed to hit a cord with me as a TiNi user (I'm an ENFJ on the ISTP end of spectrum in CPT). I think what you're referring to re the INFP & as it pertains to CPT is Si is their agency function which is something I also find very foreign albeit I find Si as an authority function much more difficult to relate to as an ENFJ.
The question of what Si as opposed to Se finds real is to beg the question, especially re Sensation. Se users find objects outside of themselves as Reals. Si users don't see these objects as necessarily Reals. Reals for them are processes of Relations. They can be eternal types for which every example is a token (Si + Ti) or particular manifestion of an experience (Si + Fi) but the actual objects are arbitrary and unreal to the Si User. There are no objects, only processes.
Great concept! Interesting that you say "Objects deduced from relations". Even for me as an INFP it sounds a bit odd at first because, of course, objects are the real part. (Maybe it has to do with the more balanced Perceiving? Dunno.) Anyway, I'd throw in induction as a concept. Si-Ne axis as: Relations induced from objects. Because Si is about singularities, about few but certain facts. Maybe connected: Si-Ne falsification vs. Se-Ni verification. I get what you mean though and I agree. I tried documentary film as a metaphor for Se-Ni vs. the Si-Ne fiction book. Si would be like the letters in the book, which are the only thing I can measure objectively and therefore the objects. But they are just symbols and in a way less real than the story that emerges from them.
The specificity of your example necessitates the assignment of a judgment axis. From an infp pespective, the object is predicated as an "object" with the infp percieving more of what an "object" generally represents relative to meta-personal meaning. Life for an infp is imbude with a deeper sense of the meaning of things and this meaning is more real than than the object itself. ISFP sees the object as a real object and what that object can mechanically do for them in that moment. There is no broad view by which to assign plethoric meaning. Meaning is immediately assigned relative to the ISFPs deep desire to become/create a future version of themselves. Se-Ni: immediate self-expression/action. Ne-Si: immediate meta-observation.
Happy Thanksgiving, Michael. Bit late, but okay, always great to have your content First time commenting on your channel I believe, found it interesting the way you put Ne and Si here, especially Si's 'fetishization' - as an INTP I can most definitely relate, sometimes getting weirdly attached to details that I want to explore or explain (maybe just rationally or irrationally ramble on about) about. I've done this at least once in many different areas of interest. On a different topic, there's always been an idea knocking at the back of my mind, and that's the fact that in 'Psychological Types', when Jung writes of the Auxiliary, it is translated as being 'relatively unconscious', but that ends up in fact a mistranslation, and ends up being 'relatively conscious'. Combined with the fact that Jung generally believes the conscious attitude of an introvert to be, well, obviously introversion, and the unconscious attitude to be extraversion, vice-versa for an extravert, then the function stack's middle two functions would flip - the INTP would be Ti-Si-Ne-Fe. I say the INTP and not ISTP because, while I originally thought this meant the correct stack would end up being I/I/E/E or E/E/I/I instead of what we commonly know (and as an INTP my thought system almost exploded and I genuinely entered a crisis for a bit there since I was so hyperfocused on this), in "Introduction to Jungian Psychology", Jung writes that, summarized very basically, so long as one is not fanatic over their Auxiliary, it does not exclude its opposite, and that if the Dominant has "failed", so as he puts it, and the psyche is forced to choose between the auxiliary and its opposite (or in our words, Tertiary and Auxiliary, respectively), it cannot make a choice and the type will end up being forced to directly engage their Inferior. I read from that and believe that that the psyche cannot choose between tertiary and auxiliary if they're both in conflict, and also believe he's implied that if the two functions are 'in conflict' and the Dominant hasn't failed, there will be no need to engage the inferior so actively and the Dominant will just 'overrule' both, so to speak. This is very interesting to me, because it implies that the two middle functions don't interfere or exclude each other all the time, so long as one is not fanatic about their 'auxiliary', namely the Tertiary. He also refers to the fact that the Inferior has its own auxiliary, just as the Dominant does, and this gives weight to your own interpretation that the auxiliary is just an 'adaptation against that part of existence, objective or subjective, which the personality is not as interested in", as what we refer to the Tertiary would be the first of two Auxiliaries, the one preferred by the ego, and the other Auxiliary that we actually refer as Auxiliary would be a sort of 'auxiliary' for the Inferior, an easier manner to engage with Inferior's aspect of reality, so long as one is not fanatic about their Tertiary (AKA Looping, which is even explained by that interpretation!) Neither Auxiliary would exclude each other though, so long as one wasn't fanatic over the tertiary. I'd love to share more of these ideas and especially hear your opinions, but i've rambled on enough in a single RU-vid comment
On top of my previous comment about Ne, within the "simulation/ parallel universe" analogy, would you say that the Ni way of thinking about "rules of the universe" are more that they almost SPAWN as it goes along? Kind of akin to a DnD session where the dungeon master bends the rules for a particular play session off the basis of what the die rolls (Se)
Huh! An interesting approach... I'll need to think on that because I think you might be on to something there. Certainly it reminds me of how I've talked about ESTPs (and INFJs).
Hi Michael, long time fan of your work and glad to see you back! Just a minor suggestion: as someone who has Ne-Si, I find that calling both Si and Se as the object might lead to confusion down the line. I think I can what you are saying, Si doesn't have quite the same sense as being an object as Se does. (although, I guess this is exactly what you're trying to say!). I think most Si-Ne do have a good sense that the "object" is out there, e.g. the extroverted functions, Ne. Maybe something like the "substance itself" might be more accurate, although this is a mouthful and has it's own issues. A strong Ne user might see the Ne connections as being the real substance. Also, I'm wondering if John also has Ti-Fe along with his Ne-Si axes. Cos that might explain his desire for the theory to really be objectively true in the world
{! Disclaimer: I am a hobbyist hypothetical physicist, an amateur conjectural theologian, and an aspiring philosophical sci-fi/fantasy author. The ideas posited and owned by the author of this comment are entirely fantasy fictional or science fictional, and are not representations of actual reality or existence, but are only and exclusively abstract philosophical nonsense !} I watched your video a couple of times to try to gather enough understanding to respond to it. Also, I had to look up the definition of SE, SI, NI, NE, and the rest. This is because I couldn’t read the dry erase board, because I had viewed it on my cell phone. I guess it didn’t have a big enough screen to see your writing. Utilizing the example you gave of dark water and ghost eels describing the SE/NI diagram I have discovered some interesting parallels with my hypothesis, the Super Fractalon Field Hypothesis. The ghost eels represent the intuition and someone’s mind of the observation of the waves in the dark water representing the object. However, we might have other intuitions about how the ghost eels could affect the dark water besides the waves. So using these new intuitions about what we know about ghost eels, we can do another observation to see if our new intuition prediction matches what we observe about the dark water. Let’s say the water has a certain sound it produces that in our original observation, we did not notice, but assumed could be present given that we have described the source of the waves in the dark water as ghost eels. We can match that against our intuition about what sounds ghost eels should make. If it turns out that the sounds that we observe in the dark water are not what we predict about our knowledge of the sounds that ghost eels should make then we need to reduce our intuition to a property that is contained within the original intuition. We have discovered only an intuitive property that fits the first observation of the water making the waves. We could call this property ghost eel-like dark water wave producing behavior since it completely matches the original observation of the dark water’s waves. It is therefore an irreducible property and does not need to be re-examined for additional reduction. Therefore, if we are able to find an internal intuition which describes an irreducible property of the behavior of an object, we can use additional observations to modify our understanding of the underlying intuition like a site of nucleation. The Super Fractalon Field Hypothesis posits that the internal intuitive property of non-zero probability of non-preferential existence is an irreducible property of reality and can be a foundational principle for establishing all other precipitous properties that describe the object with internal and then external intuition. The purpose of extrapolating from an irreducible property to a greater internal intuition would be to reverse the polarity of the diagrams-so we’re talking about SI/NE-and then make predictions about what we are going to observe. The better the predictions, the more likely we are to observe what are external intuition predicts. So the goal would be to create an external intuition that describes existence well enough to satisfy all of the observational capability that we have currently. This would actually probably increase our observational capacity and would probably revert us back to the other diagram once we observe something that did not fit our external intuition model. This sounds to me, kinda like the scientific method and the goal is to make a stable external intuition model of existence so that we can have an unlimited capacity to describe objects before we observe them and their properties. This could ultimately give us the capacity to program existence, since if we can always predict what we’re going to see in an observation of an object we can also always predict what the effect of our interactions with the object could produce kind of like computer code. Strangely enough, this was my intuition before I started developing the Super Fractalon Field Hypothesis, and your videos have helped me to gain additional tools to describe the hypothesis in a way that might be more accessible to people interested in it. {! Disclaimer: I am a hobbyist hypothetical physicist, an amateur conjectural theologian, and an aspiring philosophical sci-fi/fantasy author. The ideas posited and owned by the author of this comment are entirely fantasy fictional or science fictional, and are not representations of actual reality or existence, but are only and exclusively abstract philosophical nonsense !}
Good to see you, Michael! I would be surprised to find out that my dichotomy-based, deductive process for building up typology systems would be equally shared with an ENFP. If we take the Ni/Se approach that you suggest of yourself, of considering the given object as the place of certainty, and the relationships between as the place of malleability, then we should just cut straight to the holistic view of the type, and not the underlying rules at the elemental, functional or basic dichotomal level. In this case, we can look at what we know to be an 'ENFP' regardless of what rules we are using to deduce what an 'ENFP' ought to be. That ENFP would likely not follow the rule you posit about the Ne/Si axis.
Si I think is a really nostalgic function. Question: If a couple of functions gain dominance in a group of humans, do you think it would make sense for the next generation to be predisposed to express the shadows of those functions? I think so, from a fitness perspective. Some cultures are very biased towards extroverted thinking, and others towards introverted feeling, for example. I just read a book called The Fourth Turning Is Here, and it talks about archetypes of different generations. But it only explains the judging functions, probably because political movements are mostly judgments. But it would be interesting to see a version of this about the changes in generations in dominant perceiving functions, particularly expressed through art. For example, 1970-90 reminds me strongly of Ne, and the time where a lot of nostalgic Christmas music was written (Si) was around 1930-1950, or 2 generations prior, which matches the cadence talked about in The Fourth Turning. The in-between generations are probably Ni in 1950-1970 because of all the futurism, and Se between 1990-2020 because of the growth of extreme sports and violently loud and flashy concerts. We've transitioning into another Si era of nostalgia if this is right.
No, because we still have all the functions and all the types present in the different eras. You're just mentioning one oddly specific thing from those different eras, for example, relatively loud rock concerts were obviously big in the 80s as well. My mom saw the Beatles movie in the 60s and didn't get why a bunch of girls were screaming about them, but she's an ISFP. As for Si people act like things are better in the day even when they actually weren't and sometimes that doesn't even have to do with Si, they're just complainers or may have a political agenda. And Christmas music wasn't nostalgic in 30s-50s, it was written then and is nostalgic now. Think of each function as being 1/8 of what makes up the human experience, and you'll hopefully realize you can't narrow it down to one trend each 20 years. Human beings are very complex individuals.
@@sarahberkner I can't believe you considered my comment with such lazy effort, and yet bothered to reply to it. Do you feel threatened by generalizations, even when they obviously apply to _averages_ rather than _all_ individuals? You don't think soldiers in WWII were listening to Christmas songs and feeling nostalgia for Christmas at home, which they hadn't experienced in years? Christmas itself is a sentimental, nostalgic topic. Duh. DUH. Why do you think I didn't pick something else as being nostalgic? I could have said '60s music was especially nostalgic. Why didn't I? Because I'm not an idiot. I had a reason. Incredible, right? Obviously '60s would only be nostalgic for people who were alive in the-wait for it-'60s. Maybe if you had thought for a second before smashing your face on your keyboard, you could have realized that Christmas music is full of memories for most people. All seasonal music is inherently nostalgic, because the neuronal connections will span greater lengths of time than that of other muisc, bringing up associations from deeper recesses of memory-and Christmas is the most distinct season, so it should also be the most inherently nostalgic. Everything is a simplification. I'm not saying everyone in 20 years is the same. I'm not saying there weren't loud rock concerns in other decades. Come on, this is not difficult, and your comment is irritating. You clearly aren't used to thinking about demography, or any social science for that matter. If you segment generations, you will get deviations from longer time spans. I don't care what you're measuring. You will get deviations. And each psychological deviation should naturally call out the shadow functions. It only takes an anomalous, extreme event-such as WWII-to push psychology towards one extreme. And don't tell me there were also people at home; I'm talking about _averages_ . A V E R A G E S. Averages averages averages averages. So, in the next generation, it would be biologically unfit for there _not_ to be a correction in the average average average average temperament of the next generation.
Could the reason for Si-Ne finding the matrix more «real» be that N is their extroverted mode of perception? In that case, whichever function is extroverted is the one that is considered «real». Their Si is coloured by the subjective, just as our Ni is, which might be another way of saying it´s less «real» - it´s less objective and less available to others.
Instead of thinking of S as factual and N as conjecture, one might view them as different scopes of a lens: S is the details, N is the big picture, but they´re both equally «real». That is, they´re «real» when they´re objective (extroverted), and «imagined» when they´re subjective (introverted).
I think of N using the hegelian formula essence is the appearance of appearance. So N want to find the essence but essence is really a structural illusion (it is nothing but illusion that there is something behind), but even if the essence is also appearance, the opposite still exist, so N consist of finding structural relation, the implications, shifting between conscious and unconscious, backgrounds and foreground. N is nothing but this movement between things and its implicated effects or opposites. S is on the contrary the fixed. So S/N is nothing but passivity and activity which presupposes each other. The difference of E/I in perceiving function mainly consist of if they store results of their perceiving, so Ne shift through concept really quickly but they do not organize as much as Ni, Ni shift through concept and store them and want to see them as a whole. I also speculate this difference is due to the characterization of objects as some sort of resistance, so things that are known to you is never the true object.
How about this theoretical example? Ne does not see the door. It sees the associated key, door knob, brass kick-plate, window, weatherstripping, door slot and then, from these associations, deduces its a door.
I'd even say: Ne induces it's this thing I can go through to enter the house. Because Si says it has worked like that before. Ok Ni, call it a door if you like... - INFP here. ^^
@@nephistar INTP on this end. But now that I have you, can I ask a question? When you are speaking and pause to think do you tend to roll your eyes up into your eyelids?
@@nephistar my working theory is that someone with a dominant introverted cognitive function and shadow Se (aka auxiliary Ne) almost instinctively learns to shut off their primary real world perceptive senses (eyesight) to assist cognitive recall. What do you think (or should I say feel 😂 INFP)?
@@Redmist370Z I feel like smiling. ^^ I absolutely agree! Just maybe not necessarily by rolling up eyes. But I think it's visible. My brother used to say I was staring into space again. In German, we say: staring holes into the air.
So a tendency to prioritize the objects and their actions as a representation of these underlying principles, or matrix, rather than seeing the lens in the exact reverse, as the principles something subject to change in accordance to the actions and relationships of physical objects, be considered an Ne dominant perspective? I can’t lie, I see this as a flawed way to perceive things but maybe that is the Ne/Ni conflict you’re describing 😂 trying to present these ideas with language is very difficult so I appreciate the visual, however minimal it is.
My exploration into typology started and ended with your videos. Your voice is just as much a part of my journey as your words. Yet you torment me with refusing to release the audio-book of motes and beams. Your explanation...mouth noises...honestly? If you don't i'm going to do it (although that would finally get me to read the book...no...no easy way out for you!) and release it on RU-vid. Don't make me do it!
INFJ, huh? Too bad we only get to see your academic directed thinking side. Maybe one day we will see that Feeling side which you claim is such a large part of your habitual functioning 🤷♂️
I think the way he cares about the delivery of his words usually demonstrates that. But there is a video of him making stand up comedy, maybe you will find more Fe there.
As per CPT INFJs are actually NiTi abstract conceptualises (aka philosophers) Fe is the authority function that seeks to disseminate humanistic insights to the masses. He's a convergent subtype - NiTi subtype for sure but yes as for most of the other bogus INFJ wannabes out there, he certainly is one. INFJs are not empaths they are logically not emotionally predictive. Remember we all think & feel it's just contingent upon the perceiving function the codec is attached too. Check out Cognitive Personality Theory for clarification; I mean no disrespect but I think you're working with a very stereotypical behavioural notion of what an INFJ is as opposed to underlying cognitive processes. Apart from Harry from CPT he's the only real INFJ I've seen who posts information around typology. The likes of Wenzes etc are all ESFPs. I'm professionally typed as an ENFJ & by far from the cutesy buggy teddy bear stereotype as you can get as after all Fe acts at the behest of a Ti agenda & my Ti is by far from 'inferior' as MBTI would posit it; Fe & Ti exist on an inextricable axis.
@@dominicsey3032 Agree, it's a very good logical framework to better understand yourself and people around you. Not a scientific but brutally effective when got it right.
@nikitamedvedev4696 Indeed. Also psychology like all sciences is a child of philosophy, and in some ways more similar to its parent far as its approach intelligibly and phenomenologically, in contrast to the harder sciences such as say physics, that deal with the sensible using mathematics.
I agree MBTI is bullshit but that's not what Michael is espousing as a Jungian theorist...Myers Briggs did Jung as disservice. I believe that Michaels perspectives & that of CPT have some real valuable insights into human cognition. CPT is currently conducting research at Edinburgh a world class university; yes it's qualitative but it can pave the way for empirical verification.
@Tified96 what do you mean by empirical verification? Do you mean distilling the framework into the modes that characterize neurophysiology? And from this establishing correlates for the frameworks parameters and constants to foster predictions, thus increasing our psychological confidence that we are tuned to realtime phenomena and aren't merely projecting and interpreting the results we get from how these projections make us intelligible to ourselves and each other?
Hey Michael :) Could you do a Video on Se/Si and how these functions show up when it comes to sex? Almost no one talks about it and i find that super interesting. Thank you for your Content
