What TiNe/INTP Really Looks Like!

[Auburn]

This video shows what TiNe (INTPs) really look like, for anyone who is confused about their type. Second in the series of how to type people visually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djNyqqiIfk

 

[loveofreason]

Well done. In brief time that gives a good depth to understanding TiNe (understanding by identifying what the functions are doing in real time), that written profile descriptions seem to lack.

Now how about Jung? TiNe or no?

 

[Auburn]

Indeed.

As for Jung... this is quite a famous topic, which is also quite curious.
Jung was definitely not TiNe, there isn't too much footage of him that is clear, but from this video which @snafupants posted earlier...

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7DpbJ1xFg

Jung was definitely a worldview-lead. He drifts off to the sides constantly and has a very viscous way of moving. His articulation has the exerted push of Fe, unless I am mistaking this for him not being a native English speaker. And I cannot see his eyes clearly enough in this video to tell if they are Ni or Si - nor do I know if the shriveled brow is due to old age and baggy skin or perma-contracted Si.

From the known: Looking at his writings, it is very apparent that he uses Fe/Ti in the way he formulates his sentences with a sort of second-perspective on the reception of its delivery onto other ears; and a meticulous modification of it to preemptively meet those sensed, inevitable reactions. But looking at some of his works such as Libre Novus & his many archetypal concepts, it appears quite probable that his perception was Ni.

Looking at some photographs, there is definitely secondary-Fe, and certain images such as the one below do suggest Ni-eyes, others are more difficult.

​

Spoiler

​

Possible Type:
SiFe
NiFe
​

Not possible:
INTP
ISTP
INTJ

 

[joal0503]

THANK YOU! its like WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE!??!?

i feel alone again.

 

[duke of new york]

Visual cues aside, it seemed like what the male artist was describing was textbook Te. Organizing and perfecting an external system, like a painting, is extraverted thinking, as opposed to the INTP introverted thinking, which attempts to perfect and eliminate inconsistencies within one's thought process.

Doesn't mean the guy is not an INTP, but I thought it was a very non-INTP thing for him to talk about.

 

[loveofreason]

mmhm. When I saw the first video from snafu's thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-hp5s9A-4k

I certainly wasn't trying to type him from the microbehaviours you focus on, but couldn't ignore that he was so invested in turning the abstract into stone. No INTP!

Time for you guys to give him up, once and for all!

C'mon, he's full of nice messy Ni flaws and Se fetishes- INTPs don't want him

 

[snafupants]

I certainly wasn't trying to type him from the microbehaviours you focus on, but couldn't ignore that he was so invested in turning the abstract into stone. No INTP!

Time for you guys to give him up, once and for all!

C'mon, he's full of nice messy Ni flaws and Se fetishes- INTPs don't want him

@loveofreason
@Auburn

The focus on the occult and underlying meaning seem to suggest Ni. Also, Jung's emphasis on primitive symbology, the unconscious, dream imagery and synchronicity all suggest Ni over Ti dominant. In the Ni video as well, Jung displays almost no certainty about death. He hints that spirit and body are somewhat separate and that death might not be the end. All of these things taken together are not the trappings of inner judgement or, more specifically, introverted thinking. Also, Jung's essay on the differences between Eastern and Western thinking is a summative effort in that Jung is trying to strip concepts down (Ni) and see them almost without culture.

 

[loveofreason]

I'm sold on the peripheral indications being for Ni, but I accept that a deeper analysis of microbehaviours could read Si. I just think it's really not likely, given everything else you've mentioned.

I haven't read that widely, but I have some recollection of Jung talking about his own 'co-dominance' of Ni and Ti? If he was correct in understanding himself, and Ti is strongly present, then Jung was NiFe.

Time for the pink pompom kitties!

 

[viche]

The more I read Jung, the more I think that he was likely an INxJ rather than INTP.

His writing is actually very unstructured. He makes many "logical leaps" in his reasoning that he never explains and seems to be unable to explain. At some point he himself has admitted that his work is lacking in rigorous logical treatment and bestowed hopes that in the future it will be subjected to more careful analysis. That doesn't sound like something that a Ti-dominant INTP would say, but a type with weaker logical function.

Another thing that points out to him being INxJ is that he was exceedingly past introspective, going hundreds of years into the past and fishing out old stories and tales from which he later derived his archetypes and other nifty concepts. This is the working of dominant intorverted intuition, that is vortexed into itself and turned onto the past (reason why INTJs and INFJs are ascribed predictive talents in their profiles). INTP's extraverted intuition has a more refreshing, present-based outlook.

 

[viche]

some visual examples of INTPs for this thread

Andrew Bird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt7fuzgYrc4

Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo

Brian Greene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw

 

[Ink]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but what would be the reason Jung calimed to be Ti-dominant his entire life if he wasn't?

 

[snafupants]

some visual examples of INTPs for this thread

Andrew Bird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt7fuzgYrc4

Lawrence Krauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo

Brian Greene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw

I agree with your logic apropos Jung. Right now, though, I'm watching Greene's talk.

Spoiler

Elegant Universe is an awesome read!

 

[snafupants]

Could Greene be this generation's Sagan?

 

[Ink]

Now that Sagan's brought up, you all would agree he was Te-Ni?

 

[Auburn]

some visual examples of INTPs for this thread

Andrew Bird: TiNe
Lawrence Krauss: SiFe (or NeTi)
Brian Greene: SiTe (or TeSi)

I can see how you'd confuse Lawrence, he's peculiar. Brian Greene really is a very clear Te user though, identical to SiTe Bill Maher.

~~~~
​

@ forum - The main purpose of this thread is to show, in clarity, what a TiNe truly looks like, less so than a post-examples-of-INTPs thread. There's been too much of that already, and very incorrect reads too. Confusion..

But I'm up for reading anybody that you guys think may be TiNe (including one's self..), and explaining the reasons they are/aren't - in ways more fruitful than the endless clash of unfalsifiable opinions.

~~~~
​

@ Carl Sagan - He used Fe/Ti & Ni/Se, with his judgment wheel as dominant. DeGrasse Tyson is more the next Sagan (Tyson: FeNi). If you look closely, Sagan had a lot of interpersonal connection with others and that emotional pull is what caused him to be so publicly influential & iconic.

 

[snafupants]

@ Carl Sagan - He used Fe/Ti & Ni/Se, with his judgment wheel as dominant. DeGrasse Tyson is more the next Sagan (Tyson: FeNi). If you look closely, Sagan had a lot of interpersonal connection with others and that emotional pull is what caused him to be so publicly influential & iconic.

Tyson is certainly more outwardly spirited, even goofy. Sagan, though, had a laid-back quality.

Brian Greene really is a very clear Te user

I do notice the push with the forehead of high Te users. They rush the other party as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah *constant head nodding* Dude, I know you're there!

More generally, XXTJ tend to be more fluid and aggressive speakers than XXTP.

More extraverted yet mature XXTP like Bertrand Russell and Brad Warner dip in and out per their first two functions.

identical to SiTe Bill Maher.

You just went there.

 

[fnordprefect]

Auburn, once again...great work!!

Would you say I'm a Ti or Ni dom? I've heard different takes on my type from several different people who claim to be adept at visual reading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XxUkEpnqNA


Personally, I don't really identify with a lot of the descriptions of the "worldview" type. I don't think I'm much HSP and my weak function seems to be articulating my own willpower.

I was originally mistyped as ENTP by a couple of those crappy online tests but I soon realized after that I don't directly relate to the other ENTP's I have come across.

Thanks.

 

[Ink]

Okay, to claim Bill Maher is anything but ENTP is quite an extraordinary claim... Starting to doubt your methods now

 

[Lordran Nights]

@Auburn

In that case can you say if you think these are INTP,

Julien Casablancas of the Strokes?

Hugh Grant?

 

[Auburn]

@fnordprefect - Okay. You're not Ti or Ni dominant, but actually Si dominant. You're SiTe.

@Ink - Bill Maher is definitely not ENTP (or at least not NeTi). It does seem, I've found, that a lot of SiTe are mistyped as INTP or ENTP - and there is a reason for this.

Having Si/Ne as your primary oscillation (as in SiTe, SiFe, NeTi, NeFi) will make it so that Ne also heavily influences these types ---- much more so than the profile descriptions online. The truth is that Si doms are some of the most random people, and innovative.

This misconception is, once again, due to the fact that the MBTI measures the dom/aux functions as more crucial to the type, whereas CognitiveType acknowledges that types are two sets of oscillations --- the first of which (dom/polar) is where the center of that type lies.

So for example, SiTe may see themselves as "introverted" but as using "Ne" highly. And because of that high level of Ne scatterdness they won't associate at all with the "mbti-J" label. So they'll consider themselves some form of xNTP, because they see themselves as "T" over "F" but they don't really have Ti. There are a couple other SiTe regulars on the forum that fall into this same pattern.

@Lordran Nights -

Julien Casablancas is an explorer (Ne/Se) lead with Fi secondary. However, he seems stoned in most all the videos I see of him so it's a bit iffy. His eyes do indicate Ne, but he lacks the momentum from it -- which I think is due to ... er.. "chemical" influence.

Hugh Grant definitely has Te-Si, with Te probably above Si. He's actually quite an axiomatic Te user - you could probably even use him as a reference point for other Te types. His dismissive energy, fast-pace comments with very dispassionate articulation, dry browraises and casual/nonchalant demeanor -- it's a flavor of Te that is very iconic.

Disclaimer: I'm talking from an objective (as much as possible) perspective, in which I don't like or favor any type above another -- nor consider it an insult to be any one type. For the record, I also know that the myth that INTPs have any intellectual advantage over other types is false.

 

[Coolydudey]

There are a couple other SiTe regulars on the forum that fall into this same pattern.

@Auburn

Care to elaborate? How did you infer the type from text?

Also, relative to the disclaimer; Every type has advantages and disadvantages, and I think that if INTPs didn't have an academic if not intellectual edge (intellectual edge meaning a way of thinking that fits society's intellectual challenges), then they would be pretty much useless...

 

[PhoenixRising]

@fnordprefect

Actually, you seem neither Ni nor Ti dominant to me. You appear to be Si dominant with Te secondary. Your eyes and facial expressions do indicate Si. Your eyes remain steady for the most part, but do not have the penetrating quality of Ni. They blink a lot as well, indicating the Ne/Si duality. You do a lot of Si searching (concerned, wrinkled brow, with eyebrows lifted). Your speech tumbles forward consistently, and is somewhat monotone, a trait of the Te/Fi duality.


@Ink

imo Bill Maher can't be an ENTP. He doesn't have enough buoyancy to be Ne dominant, plus he is definitely Te with Fi, not Ti with Fe. His speech doesn't have the warming pushes that someone with Fe demonstrates, it's more monotone and continuous (something especially apparent in those who have Te/Fi with Ne/Si). He is either Te/Si or Si/Te.

@Lordran Nights

Julien Casablancas seems like he's pretty stoned in the interviews I was able to find.. but the Ne in his eyes is apparent as well as a very spontaneous Fi smile. His eyes lead his entire head, which indicates that he is perception dominant. He seems NeFi, not TiNe.

Hugh Grant is a heavy Si user, with the quick response of a Te user. The focus of his movements is on his articulation, indicating that Te is probably his dominant function. He seems TeSi not TiNe.

 

[Ink]

Auburn, I asked a bunch of questions of some celebs in your other big thread, did you try and type any of them? If there was a person I've watched a lot of I think I'd understand more of your POV (not the case with any celebs mentioned here)

 

[fnordprefect]

@fnordprefect - Okay. You're not Ti or Ni dominant, but actually Si dominant. You're SiTe.

@Ink - Bill Maher is definitely not ENTP (or at least not NeTi). It does seem, I've found, that a lot of SiTe are mistyped as INTP or ENTP - and there is a reason for this.

Having Si/Ne as your primary oscillation (as in SiTe, SiFe, NeTi, NeFi) will make it so that Ne also heavily influences these types ---- much more so than the profile descriptions online. The truth is that Si doms are some of the most random people, and innovative.

This misconception is, once again, due to the fact that the MBTI measures the dom/aux functions as more crucial to the type, whereas CognitiveType acknowledges that types are two sets of oscillations --- the first of which (dom/polar) is where the center of that type lies.

So for example, SiTe may see themselves as "introverted" but as using "Ne" highly. And because of that high level of Ne scatterdness they won't associate at all with the "mbti-J" label. So they'll consider themselves some form of xNTP, because they see themselves as "T" over "F" but they don't really have Ti. There are a couple other SiTe regulars on the forum that fall into this same pattern.


Disclaimer: I'm talking from an objective (as much as possible) perspective, in which I don't like or favor any type above another -- nor consider it an insult to be any one type. For the record, I also know that the myth that INTPs have any intellectual advantage over other types is false.

I find this all extremely bizarre. I find the common descriptions of Si and Te both very alien to the way I am. This hypothetical functional stack gives me Fi which is also a function I don't really see in myself.

Here are some facts about myself:
-Extremely idea and big-picture oriented
-Disorganized, lazy and horrible at keeping track of things
-Awful with handling small details and memorizing random facts
-Terrible at following a routine, detailed instructions and doing the same repetitive tasks for more than 10 minutes at a time.
-Gets very bored when subjected to mundane, everyday tasks and topics
-Very non-directive
-Totally non-sentimental.

Basically, I'm about the farthest thing possible from an "ISTJ Duty Fulfiller"

Here are all the types I've had self-described "readers" read me as:
Ti|Ne, Ni|Te, Ni|Fe (Pod'Lair on that one, lolll...)

Yeeeeah....I'll just stick with "INTP" for now

1. So what you've basically done is postulate a theory which makes the MBTI a giant pile of nonsense (that part I'm willing the believe) that serves more as a series of rough behavioral profiles than anything that actually measures real cognitive function dynamics. Have you concluded this as being close to the truth?

2. Could you tell me what exactly "Si" and "Te" are. Because obviously all the descriptions I've seen of them don't describe much of anything about how I function. Si according to Jung, Myers-Briggs, Socionics and all the online description sites seems really alien to me.

3. What are you using as your original point of reference for what these visual cues are supposed to represent?

4. The only consistency I've gotten out of this whole process is the fact that you and Pod"lair both read me as a Worldview-dominant type, which leads to believe that you two may be using some of the same methods. Is this accurate as far as you know?

Otherwise, I appreciate you taking the time out to throw your own perspective on this very convoluted proto-science.

 

[Chad]

Can someone explain the rationality to me that says that every person that is a give type such as INTP will be TI/NE/SI/FE.

I am not saying this isn't the case I don't see how it is a must though.

When I tested my dominate functions they do read TI/NE/SI/FE however I have a speech impediment (due to hearing problems during my developmental process.) and extreme fidgeting and moving a most times due to ADHD. Also I have been told on numerous times that I look stoned even though I don't take any drug (including prescription ones) this is actually do to light sensitivity causing my eyes to generally be half closed most the time. I have also had people question me that I was asleep because they thought my eyes were closed when they were not.

The out side factor have no effect on my personality however they effect very much how I am perceived by others.

I also believe that at times my NE does surpass my TI function especially when when I am thinking about subjects like religion. I also have a very week Fe (like it comes out maybe once or twice a month you would be hard press to see it in any daily conversation I am having.) I have the capability of surprising people expectations of me when my Fe does show it self. This is most due to the fact that I like to stay in control of my feelings as I know they have a place but are not useful in daily life.

If you take the functions about I can easily see that I am an "I" (I really don't enjoy social interaction as much I as I do enjoy being by myself and thinking) I prefer being Intervened therefore I am. I still not completely sure how to describe the difference between S and N I generally think about something in the mind set that if A is B than this means C. I make logical links and I'm not afraid of guessing and than testing. My ability to make logical leaps that are not directly related my my sensory observations is why I believe that I am and N. My logical leaps are incomplete or even wrong all together at times this is why I come across as impractical. The N function has the side a nice side function in the fact that I can easily create ideas in my head that don't relate to reality this comes across as creativity and imagination.

As for and the T/F spectrum goes. I am very anti feeling. However this is most likely do to environmental factors more the genetic ones. In my early developmental stage I seen many cases where people were destroyed by there own emotions rather by rage, fear, sadness, or even Love and happiness. I learned early on in life that emotions were not a reliable source of information they are always directly related to things that you can't change or even observe completely. It took me some time to learn how but I found solace in school and than in Education and Ideas. Ideas come easily to me but I would have never embraced this path as much as I have if it wasn't for the distrust in any emotions including my own. For this reason I am a very strong T and I hide my F very well. Its not that it doesn't exist I just don't like it.

The P and J function is one that I see the most confusion in when I read forums about types. For me I read it this way. P functions are observes primarily, they like to take in as much information as possible and then they can make "an educated guess" on what is "Truth". J on the other hand see "truth" as an absolute there is not guessing when it comes to "truth". There for they are able to make chooses relatively fast and reliable as there version of "Truth" rarely changes. I am the former. I don't really have a absolute understanding of "truth" (this is not to say I don't believe in an absolute truth I just believe in my own ability to find it). I tend to think subjectively on many matter. Because of my personal belief that the only way to understand the truth is to understand all the parts. As I learn new part my understanding of the truth changes (I also expect this to happen). Therefore Truth is never objectively understood in any matter due to the passably of more information. This doesn't mean I am in capable of make chooses or conclusions it just means that I am almost guaranteed to change my mind at some point. This is why I believe I am a P.

Therefore if the sum equals the part I am an INTP. I relate to many of the stereotypes as well. I don't believe that I am an INTP because I fit many of the stereotypes though. What I do believe is that some of the stereotypes fit me because I function in the personalty of INTP.

As far as the interactions between these functions some of them fit me too. However, I don't believe that if I showed you a 5 minute clip of me talking you would identify me as and TI/NE and therefor an INTP.

I may be wrong but I don't see the connection. I am open to the idea that this exist. However, until it explain more clearly to me I regard this in much the same way of saying that phrenology and Eugenics can tell you in someone has anti-social criminal behavior. (The belief at the time was that Ugly people were more likely to be anti-social and have criminal physiological problems.) This however, is debunk easily but statistical analysis and specific examples were this is not the case. The most famous example being Ted Bondy who was a very charismatic and attractive individual. He of course uses these feature to stalk and kill people.

If sociopathic tendencies are related to genetic attractiveness than genetically attractive people wouldn't be sociopaths. However statically speaking sociopaths are more likely to be attractive than ugly by a small degree. (in this case we are saying attractiveness is related to physical appearance which actually also includes mannerisms and approachability as well as sexually attractive.)

However, I am sure it not exactly the same thing as you seem to have a bit more justification in you response but I still don't see the direct link. I also see that other non-personality related factors can play a large roll in these function you are relating entirely to personality.

I have to agree the INTP does not imply Intelligence although it does tend to imply a longing for information gathering, which often times equates to being more intelligent. However, intelligent came form a multitude of sources included general giftedness. Therefore being Intelligent doesn't necessarily imply that you are an INTP either.

 

[Auburn]

Yeeeeah....I'll just stick with "INTP" for now

1. So what you've basically done is postulate a theory which makes the MBTI a giant pile of nonsense (that part I'm willing the believe) that serves more as a series of rough behavioral profiles than anything that actually measures real cognitive function dynamics. Have you concluded this as being close to the truth?

2. Could you tell me what exactly "Si" and "Te" are. Because obviously all the descriptions I've seen of them don't describe much of anything about how I function. Si according to Jung, Myers-Briggs, Socionics and all the online description sites seems really alien to me.

3. What are you using as your original point of reference for what these visual cues are supposed to represent?

4. The only consistency I've gotten out of this whole process is the fact that you and Pod"lair both read me as a Worldview-dominant type, which leads to believe that you two may be using some of the same methods. Is this accurate as far as you know?

Otherwise, I appreciate you taking the time out to throw your own perspective on this very convoluted proto-science.

These are really valid questions and I thank you for being at least considerate of my proposal - shocking as it seems. It really will take redefining EVERYTHING that relates to the functions & theory, and that is why we plan to remake not only the profiles but the cognitive functions descriptions. But it will take some time & I've got my hands full with just the video series...

When I say you have Si and Te, it isn't just random but is in the context of all other types. Which means, if I show you a Te-lead, you'll relate to them in their Te, and if I show you other types you share functions - the crossover can be seen.

Spoiler

{~ramble alert~}

Elaboration..

Basically... the strength in this theory is in the consistency it has in contexts. For example, what a TiNe is is inseperably dependent also on what an FeSi is. Because they share the same functions. So you'd expect a TiNe to share the same psychic aspects they have in common with an SeTi, with a TiSe (...that being the Ti/Fe axis), but not with an FiNe (who has no Ti/Fe axis). But they'll share the same aspects they share with an NeTi, with an FiNe. So if you were TiNe, you'd resemble NeFi in specific ways, and TiSe in specific other ways, and not SeFi in much of any way. Etc.

What CognitiveType theory is, is just that. And if you hang tight and watch as the videos roll out, I think you'll see the lines of connection. I'm making them as clear as I can (literally second-by-second walkthrough) so that identifying any one person's type doesn't contradict anyone else.

This can be debate formally with others. For example, if someone wanted to suggest to me that my person-A-read was not really TiNe but was SeTi, then I can ask them to show me someone they'd consider TiNe. And once they show me their example, I can ask them to show me an example of a TiSe, and then an SeTi, and show me the traceable pattern of how those that share Ti are similar, and then show me the difference between Se and Ne between the corresponding users of them. If they cannot, then their paradigm isn't consistent. I can actually do this, and I can demonstrate how TiNe is like FiNe, and how FiNe is like FiSe but not like TiNe, et cetera.

Elaboration pt2 / repetitiveness..

So if one is going to type a certain person as, say, FeNi, then that automatically commits them, by consistency's obligation, to have similarities appear between FeNi and NiFe in their paradigm, or between FeNi and TiSe, etc. And if they make a claim that a certain someone is, say, TiSe, and that person does not coincide or share the similarities they should with FeNi, then there is a flaw in that model. So in this way -- via this avenue/method -- it becomes totally not about identifying a person's type individually and in isolation but in the whole schema. This is how you weed out the inconsistencies in typings.

So as for how a methodology like this develops.. and "What are you using as your original point of reference for what these visual cues are supposed to represent?" -- my original point of reference was those closets to me and myself, and I do realize that if my starting point of reference was mistyped then one may deduce that if I extrapolated that formula onto others - all other reads would be mistyped also. But there's more to it. The formula is no longer about, or relevant, to my starting point because the consistency is instead non-specific.

So, say, everything that I call "Fe" is a chain that weaves through different hierarchies in very specific/symmetrical ways. And if I was mistaken in calling it "Fe"and it was actually "Te", then that would be irrelevant to the consistent pattern. And so ultimately the hierarchies would still be correct -- just the label different. In which case simply switching "Fe" with "Te" would correct the whole error because the framework is aligned just the same.

 

[Auburn]

@ forum - So I've put forth four examples of what I consider TiNe.
And a second-by-second deconstruction of why I think they're related to one-another/ the same type. So I'm curious...

#1: Do you see the consistency between the four examples's visual signature, as was intended and noted in the video? (nevermind what their type may be, for the moment. Just wondering if you see a pattern.)

- If yes, how so?
- If no, how so?

#2: What do you think of the cues noted? Do you think they are at least all related to all other cues that share the same label? (i.e. all "Fe" cues, as labeled, are being caused by the same thing - whatever that might be.)

- If yes, how so?
- If no, how so?

#3: Do you have a prior concept of what a TiNe looks like? If so, how does this compare to those in this video? Do they fit that description?

- If yes, how so?
- If no, how so?​

 

[Chad]

@ forum - So I've put forth four examples of what I consider TiNe.
And a second-by-second deconstruction of why I think they're related to one-another/ the same type. So I'm curious...

#1: Do you see the consistency between the four examples's visual signature, as was intended and noted in the video? (nevermind what their type may be, for the moment. Just wondering if you see a pattern.)

- If yes, how so?
- If no, how so? Yes, and No. I do see similarities but I also see many of these similarities in other videos that you say are different types. This may or may not be because you are more observant that I am.

#2: What do you think of the cues noted? Do you think they are at least all related to all other cues that share the same label? (i.e. all "Fe" cues, as labeled, are being caused by the same thing - whatever that might be.)

- If yes, how so?
- If no, how so? No, Personally I think everything we do has reasons but I don't think we found the secret to what that meaning is. I think this is to simplistic but that just my opinion.

#3: Do you have a prior concept of what a TiNe looks like? If so, how does this compare to those in this video? Do they fit that description?

- If yes, how so?
- If no, how so? No, I do not have a Prior concept of what TiNe looks like. I don't know if I believe INTPs look any different than any other type. They just react differantly. This may manifest in some visual characteristic however I would be far press to believe that all visual characteristics someones personality.

I am not saying that this is not true however, I really don't see any reason to see this, this way.
​

Please explain if you want to. I am interested you just have not convinced me yet.

 

[SLushhYYY]

These videos definitely helped convince myself of my actual type, thanks brah

 

[Lordran Nights]

@Auburn and @PhoenixRising

Thanks for your opinions. Come to think of it Hugh Grant does actually remind me of a friend who I thought was ISTJ. It's funny how you can get an idea into your head.

*sneaks off to change avatar*

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I don't have much else to add that I haven't said already. One thing, though, that kind of goes along with stuff I've suggested in previous threads, is in regards to the list of common features for any given type at the beginning of the video. It'd be cool if, at some point maybe, you did videos where you went through that list and explained the nuances of each particular feature. Instead of speeding through interviews and just flashing the words on the screen, you could maybe take more time and slow down/stop videos and use voiceovers to really explain what's going on in that particular shot.

For example, on your list for TiNe, you say that Ne generates "Ne Self-parody." What is that feature? How can one recognize it from other possibly similar actions? Again with the Ti neutral face as opposed to the kind of "sad" look on a NiTe's face? Maybe explain the differences in a more in-depth way.

That'd be something I'd like to see in the future.

 

[PhoenixRising]

@Cheeseumpuffs

I think that sounds like a good idea. After we finish the initial videos for all the types, a more in-depth visual comparison would probably add another depth of clarity to the explanation. Thanks for suggesting this

 

[Minuend]

So, when is the ENFP cummin? ._.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

@PhoenixRising

Awesome. I look forward to that. And, seeing as I brought it up, what is the Ne Self-parody?

 

[Ink]

So, when is the ENFP cummin? ._.

When it does it has to contain these two crazy Nefis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQwe9KIRpu8

They talk about Jung and Freud in this clip...

 

[WhatTheFunction]

What about learned behaviors? Situations where a person may have the traits you list but have been told by other people that those traits are bothersome and to change them?

Like maintaining eye-contact for instance or even not using your hands to speak. And these are all videos of a person explaining themselves right? So it's different if they're just having a conversation with someone.

Just a couple of thoughts that went through my head while watching the video.

 

[Ink]

@Auburn Hope you don't mind me testing my understanding with you, would you agree that Kobe is Ti-Ne and Kimmel Se-Ti? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awmzn6IzTiI

 

[bartoli]

This video shows what TiNe (INTPs) really look like, for anyone who is confused about their type. Second in the series of how to type people visually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djNyqqiIfk

Sorry if that's off topic, but nice necklaces!

 

[Auburn]

You're getting the right idea, I think..

Jonathan Ross, Russel Brand, Ellen Degeneres, Jay Leno - are all NeFi, I think.
(Kimmel, Letterman, Conan - are all at least Te/Fi users.)


On Ne + Te:

There is something that happens when a person has both Te and Ne in their hierarchy. These two functions share some aspects in common.

Te - Makes very brief consecutive remarks. Its thinking is more immediate (in comparison to Ti processing) and since it is also an Articulation function it is verbal about that.

Ne - Makes very quick consecutive connections. Its cross-contextualizing is more impulsive (in comparison to Ni drifting/zoning-out) causing the relations to be formed faster and more sporadically.


People who have both Ne & Te in their hierarchy will have more ease in unbroken and ongoing articulation (rambling) especially if Ne is dominant. This happens to be precisely what is necessary for a talk-show-host. The capacity to always come up with something new to say -- minimize dead-space-time -- and just roll forward. The fact that Te also has a witty and quick sort of humor just adds to this, especially since Ne can provide it with an unbroken stream/supply of ideas.


Cues:

Some cues to note about Ellen, Jay & Jonathan :
The Fi happy snarl --- they smile toward the inside of their face, particularly upward toward the sides of the nose. This is a moderate-to-strong cue of Fi. It's not 100% consistent but approximately 85% from my experience.

Kobe Bryant isn't TiNe, he's a perception-lead possibly with Se/Ni. May take a closer look at him a bit later.
​

 

[Puffy]

Cool, interesting.

I'm very confident that I have Ti-Fe/Fe-Ti. I think you said XNTP before, and looking at your general body-language I'm unsure about INTP. I do have a stuttering, just not sure if it's to the same extent.

The focus on the occult and underlying meaning seem to suggest Ni. Also, Jung's emphasis on primitive symbology, the unconscious, dream imagery and synchronicity all suggest Ni over Ti dominant. In the Ni video as well, Jung displays almost no certainty about death. He hints that spirit and body are somewhat separate and that death might not be the end. All of these things taken together are not the trappings of inner judgement or, more specifically, introverted thinking. Also, Jung's essay on the differences between Eastern and Western thinking is a summative effort in that Jung is trying to strip concepts down (Ni) and see them almost without culture.

I identify a lot in terms of interests with snafu's description of Jung. But I'm not sure if interests is the best way of going about things. The appeal of dream imagery, synchronicity could go beyond an Ni based worldview. They're also events with ambiguity, which are fun to brainstorm meanings about (Ne?). I do feel teleology, or searching for hidden meanings behind things, is a part of how I function, but it's almost an aesthetic. If the meanings have practical value to my own processing then I'll latch on to them and use them, while still maintaining a kind of speculative distance.

You don't need to respond to this if you're busy, I can always try working it out for myself with more videos.

 

[Auburn]

@Puffy Hey there! ....yes, some form of Ne/Si + Fe/Ti user, if I recall. I wasn't as sure back then since I was still learning a lot. I'd probably have a much more solid opinion now.

Ne Users & Typing (as Ni):

The thing about Ne, is that it is a function very poorly suited to convergent truth when unchecked by introverted processes. Heavy Ne users can find a way to relate any two unrelated things. This also crosses over into self-typing.

They'll see parallels everywhere.
"I do that too!" ...
"Yeah, that totally sounds like me!" ...
"Ohh, yes that's something I do"....

It's common for high-Ne users mistype as Ni, and many other types, because their cross-contextualizing can relate more than their Ti/Fi can discriminate. So they may see the parallels more clearly than the contradictions. The things an Ni-dom will talk about, will make sense to an Ne user and they may relate so much with the ideas that they consider themselves identical to the Ni in thought process.

I personally like Ne-doms but they're one of the types I'd trust least to properly type themselves. Especially if they're using the Myers-Briggs instrument. As a whole, what I've noticed is other types such as NiTe are generally better able to type themselves -- even just using the Briggs instrument -- because their mode of operation is more consistent.

 

[Ink]

You're getting the right idea, I think..

Jonathan Ross, Russel Brand, Ellen Degeneres, Jay Leno - are all NeFi, I think.
(Kimmel, Letterman, Conan - are all at least Te/Fi users.)

You think huh? Doesn't sound very confident (how much have you watched them?)... I disagree with you on most, but I'll spare my arguments until you go into detail on one person

 

[snafupants]

You think huh? Doesn't sound very confident (how much have you watched them?)... I disagree with you on most, but I'll spare my arguments until you go into detail on one person

Ellen and Russell most likely are ENFP but whatever.

 

[snafupants]

So, when is the ENFP cummin? ._.

Yay! Ne-dom lunatics!

Spoiler

Do ENTP first...or else.

Spoiler

I'm not sure.

 

[Puffy]

@Puffy Hey there! ....yes, some form of Ne/Si + Fe/Ti user, if I recall. I wasn't as sure back then since I was still learning a lot. I'd probably have a much more solid opinion now.

Ne Users & Typing (as Ni):

The thing about Ne, is that it is a function very poorly suited to convergent truth when unchecked by introverted processes. Heavy Ne users can find a way to relate any two unrelated things. This also crosses over into self-typing.

They'll see parallels everywhere.
"I do that too!" ...
"Yeah, that totally sounds like me!" ...
"Ohh, yes that's something I do"....

It's common for high-Ne users mistype as Ni, and many other types, because their cross-contextualizing can relate more than their Ti/Fi can discriminate. So they may see the parallels more clearly than the contradictions. The things an Ni-dom will talk about, will make sense to an Ne user and they may relate so much with the ideas that they consider themselves identical to the Ni in thought process.

I personally like Ne-doms but they're one of the types I'd trust least to properly type themselves. Especially if they're using the Myers-Briggs instrument. As a whole, what I've noticed is other types such as NiTe are generally better able to type themselves -- even just using the Briggs instrument -- because their mode of operation is more consistent.

That makes a lot of sense, actually. Would you say Ne-doms are more restless/ likely to change their type description quite frequently then?

Are Ne doms particularly extraverted in the Fe social sense? One thing I find is that I need a lot of space. I walk for a few hours a day effectively just to day-dream (or think about something in particular). My thoughts can feel quite fast sometimes, and I find the walking pace helps me keep up with them/ gives me momentum. I get pent up if I can't do this.

Spoiler

I wouldn't say identify with, I do like the rush of Brakhage's film-style though in that sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJKC3cwv5b0

But if I'm absorbed in my work, like I am now, I can go for long periods of time without feeling a need to communicate with anyone. And to be honest, anyone in my life would call me an introvert, I think. Still border-line, not sure. May prepare a video at a different time.

 

[Ink]

Ellen and Russell most likely are ENFP but whatever.

Russell definitely, Ellen sensor all the way.

 

[Auburn]

@Ink - Once again, "sensor" doesn't exist.
You cannot classify someone as a sensor.

Per site: "Types are not exclusively logical or ethical, nor abstract or concrete, nor is it reliable to measure type based on which one process of a pair theoretically ought to be more prevalent and noticeable. Types are defined by the two dualities existing within them, which can be distinctly identified without the four-letter-code, and the level of dexterity individuals may have with one or both dualities within them can be strong enough that it may seem to overwhelm the supposedly lower processes. Thus the categorizations of "NT" "NF" "ST" "SF" are entirely absent in this theory as those groupings share no cognitive processes in common, and the small amount of similarity that may be shared through having similar first-letters of one's dominant/auxiliary functions is not any more consistent -- neither in the behavior it births, signals emitted, nor mental processes -- than any two random types."
​

I'm arguing they're NeFi, not "E" "N" "F" "P".

If you're thinking of Ellen in terms of the mbti four letter code, then it is futile to try to correlate that with my theory. They're apples and oranges. If, however, you mean Ellen is an Se-Ti-Fe-Ni then we have compatible basis.

I won't say "Ellen isn't S, because [insert list] suggests N"
I'd debate something like this...
Ellen uses Ne/Si not Ni/Se. Her Ne is leading her Si.

 

[Ink]

I know all the functions stuff, spare me the lecturing, it's just faster typing it that way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJVdQe62gp4

The only thing Russel and Ellen have in common is the in the moment EP temperament, Pe dominant that is... Isn't it very obvious in the clip above that ellen displays all the Ti-and Fe cues? For the record I'm claiming Ellen is Se-Ti and Russell Ne-fi

edit: I have drunk, but I still can think pretty clear, sry

 

[loveofreason]

Ne Users & Typing (as Ni):

The thing about Ne, is that it is a function very poorly suited to convergent truth when unchecked by introverted processes. Heavy Ne users can find a way to relate any two unrelated things. This also crosses over into self-typing.

They'll see parallels everywhere.
"I do that too!" ...
"Yeah, that totally sounds like me!" ...
"Ohh, yes that's something I do"....

I could say that of myself, but am a (presumably) confirmed Ni user. Though, as far as I'm concerned, the inter-relatedness of everything is paramount and inescapable, because it is related. The "all things hang together" systems view. If someone can't see the relationship between two things, they just haven't stepped far enough back to frame it.

How is that different from Ne usage?

Which function is obsessed with the relationship between things? All things?

It's common for high-Ne users mistype as Ni, and many other types, because their cross-contextualizing can relate more than their Ti/Fi can discriminate. So they may see the parallels more clearly than the contradictions. The things an Ni-dom will talk about, will make sense to an Ne user and they may relate so much with the ideas that they consider themselves identical to the Ni in thought process.

What about the things an Ne user talks about making sense to the Ni dom? What about Ni doms relating so strongly to ideas that they don't discriminate?

I personally like Ne-doms but they're one of the types I'd trust least to properly type themselves. Especially if they're using the Myers-Briggs instrument. As a whole, what I've noticed is other types such as NiTe are generally better able to type themselves -- even just using the Briggs instrument -- because their mode of operation is more consistent.

If NiTe are rigid inflexible consistent, what about NiFe? How adaptable, inconsistent, flakey, are NiFe personalities? Do they readily morph? Identify with everyone/everything else to the extent that they don't really know who they are?


How does a person identify strongly with both Ne and Ni descriptions? I recall that it was a common feature of cognitive function test results - there is a cluster of those who (mis)type as INTP, for whom both Ni and Ne are among top testing functions. (If we assume that test properly discerns between Ni and Ne manifestations of experience and behaviour? For instance, what aspect of intuition is the 'aha' moment meant to indicate?)

 

[Auburn]

Very challenging questions! >>

Spoiler

i started making a reply but then i confused myself and scrapped it...

Spoiler

& nyoo, cant make me bring it back this time! ;p

I dislike being taken too deeply into these theoretical loops.
If I tried harder I could try to find the right semantics
to describe the fine difference between Ne and Ni which
apply to every particular person, maybe come very close,
but such endeavors ultimately end in failure...

There isn't any way to use language alone to create a fully
consistent divide between what is and isn't Ne and Ni
especially considering they're, by nature, abstract..

And thus defining them in language necessitates using
abstract words which are highly subject to interpretation;
anecdotally understood in millions of different ways.

Still..
I know Ni exists. I know Ne exists. I know what they look like.
I can't describe them as well as I can show them.

It is better I stop investing energies in grammatical disputes,
which many typlogists are still trapped in, and instead work
toward providing a better platform to refine things in. I should
get to work on the other vids, rather than posting here. >.>