Go Back   INTP Forum > Within > MBTI & Typology > MBTI & Typology Archive

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 4th-January-2012, 11:44 PM   Auburn's time 4th-January-2012, 03:44 PM    #1
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Note: This is an independent thread I am making from my own observations & experience with the phenomenon as of today. The samples presented will be some of the clearest to see the differentiation in, but keep in mind the distinctions are often more subtle than this. This is just an exercise in getting the jist of the differences.


Nai(Ni) Cunning Eyes have a cunning aspect to them, & a sort of persuasive quality to them. They remain distant from the environment and lack buoyancy. They are steady, confident and remain within their mind. Their eyes are not very animated or absorbent, as drinking up too much Vyy(Se) stimuli becomes distracting to their perception. They generally look at one spot as they're talking.

Top Left: Ni-Te (INTJ) Michael C. Hall (Dexter)
Top Right: Ni-Fe (INFJ) Marshall Mathers (Eminem)
Bottom Left: Te-Ni (ENTJ) Arnold Schwarzenegger (Terminator)
Bottom Right: Fe-Ni (ENFJ) Gerard Butler (King Leonidas)






Nyy(Ne) Dancing Eyes have a playful, almost childish demeanor to them. Their eyes are alert, animated, observant and absorbent. They often appear wide open -- as if opening them more would somehow aide them in drinking up the environment. They also have a bouncy quality to them, and leap from one object to another as they're talking.

Top Left: Ne-Ti (ENTP) Jim Carrey (Ace Ventura)
Top Right: Ne-Fi (ENFP) Mike Myers (Austin Powers)
Bottom Left: Ti-Ne (INTP) Tom Baker (Dr.Who)
Bottom Right: Fi-Ne (INFP) Michael Jackson

Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th-January-2012, 11:45 PM   Auburn's time 4th-January-2012, 03:45 PM    #2
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

The Perception Functions can be seen most clearly in the eyes, as the eyes are what we primarily use to perceive. I used only male examples to minimize the variables present in this demonstration (not trynna be sexist ).

Now, Ni comes paired with Se - and thus Ni will also show Se eyes (which I'll get to in a bit). Inversely, Ne eyes will come paired with Si eyes.



Vyy(Se) Eyes: Se eyes are similar to Ne eyes in that they seek to soak up the present, which manifests in an overall alertness. However, unlike Ne eyes they will not bounce around -- they prefer to stay focused in one place, or at least one place at a time. Often I've seen that when they look at something else, their whole head will turn with their eyes, while Ne eyes just move their eyes.

Ni eyes come paired with Se eyes, and so all Ni users will also show this steadiness and linear-alertness. However, the Ni "distance" will overshadow the Se alertness, so that the eyes appear steady, but sort of "lost in a distance gaze".


Vai(Si) Eyes: Si eyes accompany Ne eyes. Si eyes have a similar, almost intimidating, quality to them. However, instead of a "distant/lost-in-a-daze" look to them, they have a concrete "here" appearance. They will also show instances of Ne levity/playfulness take them over for brief moments before being again overtaken by the sobriety of Si.

When Si eyes are engrossed in referencing their facts-library for some elusive paper, their eyes will look at some point steadily while their brow shrivels in concern. All Ne users will show some instances of this brow-shrivel, but then easily release the tension and resume their dreamy-dancing look. They'll often alternate between the two a lot in short periods of time.
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 12:47 AM   Auburn's time 4th-January-2012, 04:47 PM    #3
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Ne dominant Eyes: Mike Myers


His eyes scatter around the room as he talks, animated, interested. They appear completely comfortable and loose. You can see that he wears his eye on his face, as opposed to Ni dom/aux who keep their eye in their head. They're playful, and display a passivity that is akin to all Adaptives.

Ne auxiliary Eyes: Michael Jackson


Jackson shows the same sort of dreamy, dancing-eyes that are completely comfortable skimming the surroundings. However, his eyes are not as alert as Mike Myers or Jim Carrey. His upper eyelid is more relaxed and eclipses his eyes more (per example).

Notice how his eyes are not the prevailing focus of his face (despite them being large), instead his smile as well as the way he emotes his face as he talks, is the dominant dynamic-feature.

Ni dominant Eyes: Marshall Mathers


Eminem might not be the clearest example, since he seems to have some dexterity with his Se -- and that shows in his eyes -- but nonetheless the Ni dominance is still visible. His eyes are cunning and steady, inward turned and confident. He lacks the playfulness apparent in Ne eyes. Notice how his brow appears almost permanently "locked" how it is, this is something I've seen a lot with Ni doms. I'm not so much referring to it being shrivelled as much as firm.

Ni auxiliary Eyes: Gerard Butler



Notice how his eyes are not the prevailing focus of his face, similar to Michael Jackson. His smile (Fe) and the overall dynamics of his mouth are the prevailing movement. His eyes are steady, confident (as opposed to buoyant).
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 02:49 AM   Owfin's time 4th-January-2012, 07:49 PM    #4
Owfin
ISTJ
 
Owfin's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 42
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
Vai(Si) Eyes: Si eyes accompany Ne eyes. Si eyes have a similar, almost intimidating, quality to them. However, instead of a "distant/lost-in-a-daze" look to them, they have a concrete "here" appearance. They will also show instances of Ne levity/playfulness take them over for brief moments before being again overtaken by the sobriety of Si.

When Si eyes are engrossed in referencing their facts-library for some elusive paper, their eyes will look at some point steadily while their brow shrivels in concern. All Ne users will show some instances of this brow-shrivel, but then easily release the tension and resume their dreamy-dancing look. They'll often alternate between the two a lot in short periods of time.
I tend to be halfway between the two. My eyes are often staring at something blankly and distantly, but it is a stare, and it looks quite "serious" even if I'm dancing with a very playful idea in my head.

Your second paragraph is totally true, though.

Also, with an earlier post... I think that the 4th doctor is actually an ISTP, but my explanation would derail the thread.
__________________
Owfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 03:51 AM   Trebuchet's time 4th-January-2012, 07:51 PM    #5
Trebuchet
Senior Member
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 1,015
macossafari
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

I find it interesting that in each group of four, you only listed one real person. The others are fictional, though of course played by real people.

Not being good at typing people myself, I wouldn't dream of second-guessing you, but are you saying that the actors have those types, or the characters do? The Terminator robot didn't seem all that similar to California's Governator, for example, even though they were played by the same person.
Trebuchet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 04:26 AM   blarg's time 4th-January-2012, 11:26 PM    #6
blarg
Muhahahaha. Ha. Ha.
 
blarg's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Right behind you
Posts: 99
windows_98_nt_2000ie
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

I seem to fit your description of Ni when I'm relaxed and looking in one direction. My eyes seem to have some sort of intensity and depth mixed with aloof-ness. But when I look around or laugh, or I do something quickly, they resemble your Ne description.
blarg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 05:03 AM   Auburn's time 4th-January-2012, 09:03 PM    #7
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I find it interesting that in each group of four, you only listed one real person. The others are fictional, though of course played by real people.
Oh! That wasn't at all intentional. ;p
But the people I am referring to are the actual human beings, yes. I'll edit in their names to dispel further confusion. Thanks :3

Quote:
Not being good at typing people myself, I wouldn't dream of second-guessing you...
Actually, this is also why I'm posting this -- to ask for your second guessing. I don't consider myself all that versed in typing, and if what I am seeing (when explained as plainly as I can) can't be seen by others then I dunno whether or not I'm delusional.

I admin I'm not as confident as the Podlair interns, and with good reason. I think truth, when actually true, should be apparent to everyone.
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 05:59 AM   crippli's time 5th-January-2012, 06:59 AM    #8
crippli
Senior Member
 
crippli's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,219
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

I'm trying to see what you see. But the resolution is much too small. I took away the faces as to not be distracted(and even 'increased' the resolution). I'm trying to extract data for judgement on this. But I don't see all that much. I see that they are different.
Spoiler:

The whole face, maybe even the whole body, in a setting of choice could tell me or my imagination more. If you just give me one of these pair of eyes. I could make guesses on I and E, but they would be just that, guesses, but I don't know facial typing at all. It would probably not be difficult for any of these people to swap the expressions if they decide so. Not to mention the deviousness of lightning.

I'm probably being overly critical here without having competence.
I like the ideas. People will judge people on appearance without personality theory or not. And to make an improvement on the current practice on everyday judgement on appearance would be nice imho.
crippli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 08:42 AM   Auburn's time 5th-January-2012, 12:42 AM    #9
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
Provide a naked body picture, and high resolution image of the face(from several angles), and done with a 50mm lens on a low aperture. Also without makeup. And one lightning source. That would provide more data, at least on facial structure and composition.
Lol

Jim Carrey and Mike Myers might comply, but there's no way you'd get Michael C. Hall or Marshall Mathers to comply.

Quote:
The whole face tells me more.
Yes. And the whole faces, along with body language is *meant* to be taken into account. ;p For instance, the eyes cues should be referenced along with the mouth cues (this thread).

The eyes shape itself isn't the focus as much as what the orbicularis oculi & proceus muscles are doing, along with the movements of the eyes -- along with the rest of the face. But here I was just focusing on the eyes, since the more variables you introduce into something, the harder it is to know what is causing any particular effect.
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 09:14 AM   Auburn's time 5th-January-2012, 01:14 AM    #10
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

For the interest of this particular forum, and what an INTP truly looks like,
This is someone I am almost completely certain is an INTP:

Ti dominant: Matthew Gray Gulbler (Dr.Spencer Reed from Criminal Minds)



This is not someone Podlair has listed yet, but my own personal identification.

00:00 - 00:++ From the beginning you see his inferior Fe smile, which he is using as a tool for social-interaction. He overmodulates Fe a lot. During the entire film he smiles, largely by protocol whenever a smile needs to be inserted -- however you can tell the smiles are a front to his dispassionate mind which is his resting place.

The smile easily falls out of his face (unlike Gerard Butler (Fe dom) who keeps it up for minutes at a time) without effort. When talking his smile drops, and his cheeks flatten as he enters his Ti to properly construct his sentences.

Additionally, he is making an effort to fluctuate his voice more than what is natural to him. After every word, his voice subsides and retreats along with his posture. Because Fe is so energy-expensive for Ti dominants, IxTPs will often use only the minimal energy required to pass as "relatively normal" -- since their deadpan face would make them appear unfriendly and unapproachable.

00:49-00:55 His eyes begin to "dance" back and forth as he brainstorms an answer. Notice that at 0:52 His eyes go into an Si "searching", then immediately out of it. This is the Ne-Si pairing. He does this throughout the whole video -- far too many times for me to list them all.
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 09:47 AM   Melkor's time 5th-January-2012, 09:47 AM    #11
Melkor
*Silent antagonist*
 
Melkor's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Béal feirste
Posts: 5,667
unknownopera
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

The important thing to note here is the presence of actors.

Actors, the paid kind and the common kind, tear all sorts of holes in your theory.
If they can put on a convincing 'type' face, an idea I find dubious at best, then what's to stop the rest of us?

If facial expression and stance isn't necessarily indicative of true type for them, why should it be for others?

I would be more inclined to say expression is socially derived, largely independent of type outside of a few blatant indicators of extroversion/introversion and impossible to pin down to such a fine art.

In the case of myself, if one presumes I'm an ENTP, I've noticed I almost never make eye contact, often I address people, particularly customers at work, by speaking to the wall or patch of air next to them. Friends are lucky to have me facing them when we talk, or unlucky I should probably say.

I've also been told I look unhappy or angry most of the time, but I think I smile in a forced and nervous manner quite frequently when I interact with people.

This is likely related to self confidence and a lack of practice in a social environment, making it completely unrelated to my type and yet a large part of my daily expression.

I suspect I would fall into the category of wandering eyes that can't stay still, at least in my own opinion, and yet I've also been told my eyes always look bored or 'drunk/stoned' even when I'm none of the above!

Eh. At any rate I think you'd best give up on a theory so lacking in scientific accuracy. If one's craft is to judge people simply by looking and applying discretion, then you're no better than old Lombroso, and apply much of the same assumptions.
__________________
"It's my duty. My duty as a complete bastard!"

"I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core."
Melkor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 10:46 AM   Auburn's time 5th-January-2012, 02:46 AM    #12
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melkor View Post
The important thing to note here is the presence of actors.

Actors, the paid kind and the common kind, tear all sorts of holes in your theory.
If they can put on a convincing 'type' face, an idea I find dubious at best, then what's to stop the rest of us?

If facial expression and stance isn't necessarily indicative of true type for them, why should it be for others?
Firstly, even if it was true that type can be temporarily "faked" by acting, that does not automatically negate type's existence -- nor does it mean that in non-acting conditions, said actor's type cannot be determined. It would just imply that to get the actor's real type one would have to get them off stage.

Secondly, even though levels of energy can vary during instances, the functions in use do not change. So for instance, an INTP might manifest arguably similar to an ENTP for a time, but an INTP cannot manifest as an ENTJ (by these facial standards). This is because his modes of perception (Ne/Si) and reasoning (Ti/Fe) remain static. He cannot pull off Te/Ni/Se/Fi. So there is a limit to how much variation in manifestation a type can exhibit.


Quote:
I would be more inclined to say expression is socially derived, largely independent of type outside of a few blatant indicators of extroversion/introversion and impossible to pin down to such a fine art.
Level of expression do not change the levels of energy expenditure a type undergoes from each lower function. Although social conditioning can pressure a type into expressing certain functions more/less than others, they will always remain draining or energizing to the type -- according to the order they appear in hir hierarchy.

Types that are overusing a lower function will not be operating optimally and the effects will be physically taxing.

Again, type is defined by the cognitive processes you use and the order of availability you have for each of them (not necessarily how much expression you exhibit). The higher up a process is, the more readily available/natural it is to you and the less energy exertion is needed to wield it.


Quote:
In the case of myself, if one presumes I'm an ENTP, I've noticed I almost never make eye contact, often I address people, particularly customers at work, by speaking to the wall or patch of air next to them. Friends are lucky to have me facing them when we talk, or unlucky I should probably say.
Being an ENTP doesn't necessarily have anything to do with socialization. The primary motivation of Ne dominance is stimulation. It thrives on consuming some form of environmental component -- whether that is people, video games, animals or any other thing.

If an ENTP has learned through life that people are a taboo thing to socialize with, and that they offer no safe source of playful interaction, then the ENTP might very well look for other -- safer -- source of engagement. Nevertheless the disposition to engage with something will remain fundamental.

Quote:
I suspect I would fall into the category of wandering eyes that can't stay still...
Oh! Oh! I can check for you.

Quote:
Eh. At any rate I think you'd best give up on a theory so lacking in scientific accuracy. If one's craft is to judge people simply by looking and applying discretion, then you're no better than old Lombroso, and apply much of the same assumptions.
Well, the issue is this isn't just theoretical, at least not to me. Real people I interact with on a day to day basis exhibit these patterns -- in the same exclusivity I am describing. To dismiss this would be to ignore simple observation.
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 12:35 PM   Melkor's time 5th-January-2012, 12:35 PM    #13
Melkor
*Silent antagonist*
 
Melkor's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Béal feirste
Posts: 5,667
unknownopera
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

I think you misunderstood me.

Rather, I said that the duality of ones expressions and the capability of any individual to perform alternate function manifestations means that your method of facial typing would be no more accurate or useful than the tests you so heartily denounce.

Even if you did the nigh impossible and accurately mapped eye movement to a corresponding personality type, any individual could be conditioned to express one not valid to their functions or indeed could simply have a unique way of expressing them.

I find it hard to believe such varying and complex mental functions can be expressed by a set of eyelids and two orbs in sockets, but I'm still open to the possibility.

So far you've done little to evidence how you came to develop or precisely identify these eye types , other than providing pictures of celebrities with different SHAPES of eyes. Which is more akin biological positivism than a socially derived personality theory.


Eh, I think I only have drunk videos of me with broken audio, which would hardly suit any accurate studies on my personality.

There's also the small matter of me preferring to have my eyes plucked out, roasted and fed to me on a stick over having you analyse me.
__________________
"It's my duty. My duty as a complete bastard!"

"I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core."
Melkor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 11:36 PM   Minuend's time 6th-January-2012, 12:36 AM    #14
Minuend
will eat your face
 
Minuend's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,845
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

But still, a lot of faking can throw you off. For instance when you say drifting eyes and smiles hanging on. When I talk to people, I have difficulty knowing how long to look in a person's eyes and the analyzing makes me kinda go for brakes whenever I can.

For instance, if I am asked to remember something, I will consciously look up and away because I know this is an acceptable expression when thinking/ remembering. Actually, same expression when I consider something or just try to form an opinion. I also glance sideways sometimes. I try not to look down, because I think it could be an indicator of low self-esteem.

About lingering smiles: I actually hold my smile so that it wont drop to quickly and seem faked. Even though it sometimes is. I also developed this weird thing when I close my eyes just a mm more when smiling to make it look more genuine.

I also gesticulate to 1. Divert attention from myself 2. Give me time to think about what I am saying. I can pause longer in mid-sentence if I move my hands around a lot Here I can look down when thinking.

And I do attach this warmly (I think?) expression to my face when meeting new people. I can kinda summon that "niceness/ caring expression" thingy and actually mean it while still being detached. (I suppose I'm trying to make the other person feel at ease, but I don't want to get emotionally involved with it). So it is genuine, but consciously summoned. Maybe a Fe/ Fi thingy. It's easier to do when you have some confidence in yourself. I find that it's easiert to accept other people when I try to picture them as "part of my flock". But that's a different story.

Actually, Auburn, the more I write the more I'm convinced you are right.
__________________
I think minuend is actually a balloon disguised as a human

Man, I knew he was nuts, but goddamn
Minuend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th-January-2012, 02:36 AM   Auburn's time 5th-January-2012, 06:36 PM    #15
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
Actually, Auburn, the more I write the more I'm convinced you are right.
Well this is quite bizarre..
I thought your questions were legitimate.

In any case, it's kinda difficult to explain theoretically what are the nuances & what is a pattern & what isn't.
Mmm, so how's about this.
1) Think of at least 1 person in your family or someone you spend a lot of time with -- and whose type you know & can see their 4 cognitive functions in their way of thinking.

2) Now, have a conversation with them and look for these eye cues along with the smile cues and see if they match. See if there is a correlation.
Y'see. Once you identify at least 1 real life person's actual type -- and can see how and why they are moving their face the way they are -- you can extrapolate from that and form a template. Then you will start to slowly notice other people who are their same type (or share functions) - displaying the same pattern of facial movements.

As you see the pattern more clearly in others, you build a stronger reference base and you start to identify what are aspects of the pattern and what gestures are just personal quirks. All the people of the same type will share the same set of facial cues, same personality type(cog.functions configuration) but probably some acquired nuances.

At least give this a fair try before objecting to this type of reading. =x
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th-January-2012, 04:59 AM   Puffy's time 6th-January-2012, 04:59 AM    #16
Puffy
Candlelight
 
Puffy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the Wired
Posts: 2,225
windows_98_nt_2000ie
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

I think this is a positive discussion to be having + the videos you posted in the other threads. I personally like seeing typology moving into a more testable, physical direction. So I'm glad this aspect of the discussion has survived the previous pod'lair bannings.

One thing I would note though is that this "physical cue" style of people reading still seems in development to me. I've spoken a lot with a close friend who's been involved with the theory for quite some time independantly, with pod'lair and post-pod'lair, and really through what I've tried with him it does seem quite complex, as you would expect it to be. You can approach someone with a manual of cues and spot what you think is an x or a y, and still come short, because like what Melkor implies people adapt personal styles which can throw you off.

This is likely my Ni brand of reading, but I'm finding the easiest way of reading, for me, is through identifying kind of "vibes" to people, in conjunction with cues and other methods.

I can't really think of a better way of explaining what I mean than through an example. This is someone my friend believes is an example of an INTP:

He told me felt Gubler was an ENFJ, watching the video I can't help but agree, just based on contrasting these two videos. Watch 01:26 for Gubler and 0:06 for Lynch and contrast their smiles, Lynch's doesn't go an inch up her face, where as you can see Gubler's eyes smiling, Ti-Fe opposites.

I guess this doesn't mean much unless we have a foundation to speak from. What do you read Lynch as?

And sorry, I struggle to put this to words, I guess I work on an irrational/ intuitive level with people reading, I'll try my bestest.
__________________
Spoiler:
"Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome. Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above the ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away–an ephemeral apparition. When we think of the unending growth and decay of life and civilizations, we cannot escape the impression of absolute nullity. Yet I have never lost the sense of something that lives and endures beneath the eternal flux. What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains." - C.G. Jung
Puffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th-January-2012, 05:08 AM   Puffy's time 6th-January-2012, 05:08 AM    #17
Puffy
Candlelight
 
Puffy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the Wired
Posts: 2,225
windows_98_nt_2000ie
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

^I'll go into more detail if you'd like me to. It's late here now though, needz to sleep.
__________________
Spoiler:
"Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome. Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above the ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away–an ephemeral apparition. When we think of the unending growth and decay of life and civilizations, we cannot escape the impression of absolute nullity. Yet I have never lost the sense of something that lives and endures beneath the eternal flux. What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains." - C.G. Jung
Puffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th-January-2012, 01:06 PM   Auburn's time 6th-January-2012, 05:06 AM    #18
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Interesting..
I think I can see the Ne & Si eyes, but I'm not sure about Ti-Fe?
Could you please elaborate on that bit Puffy?

My initial impression is Ne dominant but I gotta look at other videos (blasted internet is being slow *scowl*)


(p.s. It would be interesting if this could become a video-type discussion thread. Some place where we can discuss the existence of a pattern (if any) and if a few of us begin to see something -- then expand on that perspective together. I suppose this must be how the podlair group initially developed theirs, but then they go on and expect everyone to take their word as fact.


Whereas I think each pair of eyes has to decide for themselves and should be left with the opinion to disagree. If there is a pattern there then via trial and error it'll become apparent -- as the inconsistencies force us to re-examine supposed patterns until only the legitimate ones stand up to criticism in all situations (if such do exist).)
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-January-2012, 06:28 AM   SkyWalker's time 10th-January-2012, 07:28 AM    #19
SkyWalker
observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming down & joining y'all for mundane stuff... when out of fuel...
 
SkyWalker's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 986
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Very interesting!

Can you show us some pic/video examples of Se & Si eyes too?
SkyWalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th-January-2012, 12:12 AM   Dapper Dan's time 10th-January-2012, 06:12 PM    #20
Dapper Dan
Did zat sting?
 
Dapper Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 465
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

I agree with Melkor that you could probably find some better examples than the ones you chose.

I mean, Jim Carrey's entire career is based on his excellent facial manipulation.
Dapper Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th-January-2012, 05:59 PM   Reluctantly's time 11th-January-2012, 12:59 PM    #21
Reluctantly
Senior Member
 
Reluctantly's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,477
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

I don't understand the need to stereotype the functions the way people do. What you describe as Ne seems to just be wackiness. What you describe as Ni having a cunning gaze seems to be the calculative nature of Ti, which I would assign to INTJs first function.

But I guess really it doesn't matter what we call things as long as they exist similarly, so what you call Ti, I call Ni for different reasons, but the way Jung explains things seems to be without stereotypes and as a process that manifests due to its unconscious motivations and behaviors that get expressed or internalized as a result. MBTI doesn't explain anything in terms of unconscious motivations in the descriptions, but instead alludes that we develop the 'unconscious' side consciously, which is contradicting and will only define behavior as a stereotype. Your explanations seem to have this same element of contradiction, which is why I'm pointing it out.

I know this is a touchy subject and you may even have reformulated or changed your mind, but if you haven't, I'd appreciate hearing if/how you can refute these contradictions/inconsistencies behind the implicit assertions made here.
__________________
~don't forget to wake up~
Reluctantly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th-January-2012, 07:56 PM   snafupants's time 11th-January-2012, 01:56 PM    #22
snafupants
Resident Member
 
snafupants's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,026
windows_98_nt_2000ie
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni


Perhaps this could also be a supplement for typological review.
snafupants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th-January-2012, 11:37 PM   Auburn's time 11th-January-2012, 03:37 PM    #23
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
I don't understand the need to stereotype the functions the way people do. What you describe as Ne seems to just be wackiness. What you describe as Ni having a cunning gaze seems to be the calculative nature of Ti, which I would assign to INTJs first function.

But I guess really it doesn't matter what we call things as long as they exist similarly, so what you call Ti, I call Ni for different reasons, but the way Jung explains things seems to be without stereotypes and as a process that manifests due to its unconscious motivations and behaviors that get expressed or internalized as a result. MBTI doesn't explain anything in terms of unconscious motivations in the descriptions, but instead alludes that we develop the 'unconscious' side consciously, which is contradicting and will only define behavior as a stereotype. Your explanations seem to have this same element of contradiction, which is why I'm pointing it out.

I know this is a touchy subject and you may even have reformulated or changed your mind, but if you haven't, I'd appreciate hearing if/how you can refute these contradictions/inconsistencies behind the implicit assertions made here.
I agree with your definition of the functions, actually.
(well, as in what a function *is*)

No worries, nothing I've said in this thread is more than a curious attempt to see if a correlation does exist between physiognomy and psychology. I see some correlations myself but wonder if others do too.

In theory, I think it may still be possible that the body's manifestation alludes to the unconscious. For example, I have no idea why my eyes move the way they do as I think. And if I try to consciously stop that, I can't concentrate well.

I'm not very aware of my face or body, yet it does things on it's own as I think. And I can't say they are learned traits either, because I haven't had any sort of training for that. The same seems to apply to most people I see (also non-actors). They still do things with their face and hands for no apparent reason.

This at least suggests that perhaps the way the body&face flexes/moves is a *reflection* of what is happening inside the mind? Something that manifests unconsciously as a side-effect of cognitive processing. At least, that's how I am approach the subject -- but there may not be any correlation at all.

Spoiler:
Tangent:

This also presents another interesting question: Even if we did see a consistent pattern to people's facial movements -- and used them to pin a type on the (say, INFP) -- how can we know for certain that inside they really are an INFP? They might display all the cues of an INFP (as we are defining them) perfectly, but be another type on the inside.

This is mostly thinking out loud. I dunno how best to go about that. I know that if I spend ample time with someone I do start to see the underlying rhythm of their consciousness (their type) outside of all the stereotypes. But with celebrities I obviously don't have the time to get to know them personally, so I can never really know if my read of them was truly accurate..

//addendum

Hmm...
I suppose this should start from the inside, out. Yes..
So for instance, spend ample time with people close to you and analyze them to understand what processes they're using. Then after you know their (inner) type, examine their face/body movements -- and compare that to other people who you've also spent time with and know their (inner) type, and see if there is indeed an outer type manifestation pattern.


//ramble >.<
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2012, 07:21 AM   SkyWalker's time 12th-January-2012, 08:21 AM    #24
SkyWalker
observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming down & joining y'all for mundane stuff... when out of fuel...
 
SkyWalker's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 986
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reluctantly View Post
What you describe as Ni having a cunning gaze seems to be the calculative nature of Ti, which I would assign to INTJs first function.
Eh?? INTJ = Ni-Te.... there is no Ti in INTJ (in the first 4 functions).

Actually, it could be the calculating nature of Te, but not Ti.
SkyWalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2012, 07:24 AM   SkyWalker's time 12th-January-2012, 08:24 AM    #25
SkyWalker
observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming down & joining y'all for mundane stuff... when out of fuel...
 
SkyWalker's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 986
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Typing celebs is also tricky, since you'll type them as their PR team wants them to be. They might be totally different in real life than their made-up public image. But maybe that is not really important because if the PR team makes them "look like a certain type" then it would still be the traits of this type that they simulate, thus still a very good example.
SkyWalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2012, 07:29 AM   SkyWalker's time 12th-January-2012, 08:29 AM    #26
SkyWalker
observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming down & joining y'all for mundane stuff... when out of fuel...
 
SkyWalker's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 986
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reluctantly View Post
I don't understand the need to stereotype the functions the way people do. What you describe as Ne seems to just be wackiness.
Well Ne is pretty wacky!

It's because Ne is unable to see loss. It doesnt see how it can lose credibility by being ackward for example. It only sees possible profit. Possibilities to gain, possiblities to gain, possibilities to gain.
This is also why the eyes move around, they dont see the loss in moving their eyes around, only the possible profit from more info.
Socially it can be a loss to move your eyes around because others will think you are unfocused or indifferent to them, Ne is blind to this because it is blind to loss due to intense focus on possible profit.

This only really comes out if Ne is the first function. (ENTP/ENFP)

In INTP the skeptic Ti function rules the Ne and tones this effect down a lot.
SkyWalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2012, 08:41 AM   Auburn's time 12th-January-2012, 12:41 AM    #27
Auburn
is part anima
 
Auburn's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,798
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Lol, nice explanation SkyWalker.
I think that's pretty right on, from what I've seen too.
Ne doms are not fatigued by new data, and thus have pretty alert and inquisitive eyes.

Quote:
What you describe as Ni having a cunning gaze seems to be the calculative nature of Ti, which I would assign to INTJs first function.
Didn't address this last time, um..
Not sure but when I observe Ti doms, their eyes are not really "cunning" as much as it is sort of toned-down Ne or Se. They still seem absorbent and rather playful but not to the same extent.

Ni eyes are steady and, um.. "focused"? It's as if they're not really interested in their surroundings, their mind knows where it stands and what is left is to simply make that known.
Auburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-January-2012, 11:53 PM   SkyWalker's time 13th-January-2012, 12:54 AM    #28
SkyWalker
observing y'all from my UFO. inevitably coming down & joining y'all for mundane stuff... when out of fuel...
 
SkyWalker's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 986
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auburn View Post
Lol, nice explanation SkyWalker.
I think that's pretty right on, from what I've seen too.
Ne doms are not fatigued by new data, and thus have pretty alert and inquisitive eyes.
Well yeah its because i'm pretty much like that (ENTP with Ne through the roof), so I know whats going on.

I'm pretty civilized, but really tend to move my eyes around too much. I never see myself, but it must look ackward. I'll also fidget if i cant find new stuff to look around at. Fidgeting is like rolling dice, you just hope for some possible profit by just rolling it. Anything better than this! You never know what great idea might come out from the result of the dice. This is the idea behind the Ne driven instinct. (Ideas actually do come from it).

I once noticed that if I stop doing it, and either fix my gaze on 1 point with effort or (if i cant seem to summon my effort: ) entirely close my eyes, girls seem to be attracted to me much more than before. (Yes, even when I entirely close my eyes it seems to increase my luck!!)
Funny huh??? So it must be pretty obvious what I do.
I guess Ne in its "unspoiled form" is not very attractive to the ladies.

Only people who really know me can probably see through it, others must probably think i'm a retard

actually i can control it, and cut the crap, but its so fun and addictive that i usually refuse to control it, even when i would rationally know its bad in a certain situaton.
SkyWalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th-January-2012, 04:30 AM   Reluctantly's time 12th-January-2012, 11:30 PM    #29
Reluctantly
Senior Member
 
Reluctantly's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,477
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Eight Different Eyes: Ne & Ni

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWalker View Post
Well Ne is pretty wacky!

It's because Ne is unable to see loss. It doesnt see how it can lose credibility by being ackward for example. It only sees possible profit. Possibilities to gain, possiblities to gain, possibilities to gain.
This is also why the eyes move around, they dont see the loss in moving their eyes around, only the possible profit from more info.
Socially it can be a loss to move your eyes around because others will think you are unfocused or indifferent to them, Ne is blind to this because it is blind to loss due to intense focus on possible profit.

This only really comes out if Ne is the first function. (ENTP/ENFP)

In INTP the skeptic Ti function rules the Ne and tones this effect down a lot.
Thing is, I've firsthand experience that my ESFP brother is wackier than the ENTP I know. The ENTP is very much a thinker, but he leads with Ne, which is hard to explain, but he's a stable person, much more than me, that superficially you might think he isn't leading with an irrational function such as Ne. But his Ne is a matter of interest for him. He sees a possibility, easily engages that to other people, and then goes for it if he wants to or other people want to. He gets along well with my long-time ENFP friend. They are very similar, but the ENTP is less sympathetic and more systematic about what he does, the ENFP more chaotic and wacky.

I realize how hard it is to verbalize something complex and deep-rooted as cognitive functions, let alone differentiate them enough between people to the point that they become meaningful, but saying Ne is wacky and ignoring how other types can be wacky is misleading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWalker View Post
Eh?? INTJ = Ni-Te.... there is no Ti in INTJ (in the first 4 functions).
Dude...no shit. MBTI is logically fubar in introverts.
It says that introverted perceiving types are rational...
It says that introverted judging types are irrational...
It tries to tell you who you are and attempts to use the unconscious functions as a path of 'function' development rather than explain how cognitive processes are influenced by the unconscious...

Hmmm...let's see what a summary of Jung's Ni sounds like compared to Ti (http://www.voidspace.org.uk/psycholo..._types.shtml):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ni
The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and -- in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]

If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man 'gone wrong', a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for 'psychological' novels.

Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. [b]The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the 'voice of one crying in the wilderness'.

The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete 'sublimation' is prevented. But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude. The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects. [p. 511]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ti
Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486]

disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the [p. 488] better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.

With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.

The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.
I don't even know how people can deduce that the INTP type is really Ti. Most of the Ni stuff fits INTPs really well and a lot of the Ti stuff is ascribed to INTJs. Maybe you are Ti+Ne, Walker, but I don't get that impression at all from the majority of INTPs on this forum and others alike.

Quote:
Actually, it could be the calculating nature of Te, but not Ti.
It could be anything, that's the point. You're just stereotyping the functions rather than seeing what they are supposed to represent themselves. The functions don't exist, neither do the cognitive processes, but they can be helpful in understanding how we project onto the world at times...that's the point...

anyway...
Te is a cognitive process that involves primarily employing extroverted logic. Ti is a cognitive process that involves primarily calculating introverted logic. One is the extroverted form of the other and both are used and required by each other.
__________________
~don't forget to wake up~
Reluctantly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can you read eyes? hope Psychology & Neuroscience 80 9th-May-2014 03:23 AM
eyes kamari rised INTP Archive 34 30th-July-2012 01:17 AM
Looking People in the Eyes Jon C INTP Archive 40 15th-March-2012 07:44 PM
Eyes Cognisant Psychology & Neuroscience Archive 11 17th-August-2010 03:15 PM
HOW ARE WE SEEN THRU OTHERS' EYES? Da Blob Psychology & Neuroscience Archive 19 19th-March-2009 08:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Template-Modifications by TMS



no new posts