Examining each axis is much more illuminating than anazying each fuction-orientation in isolation. It's good to see you making these vidoes again. They are always interesting.
+Ryan Campbell Both kinds of observation have their place - analyzing the individual functions is quite fruitful for looking at people in whom that function is dominant, while axes tend to fit people with that axis in the middle better.
Your description of Ne/Si is spot on to how I experience it as an INFP. I even felt I could relate to both sides of the coin reguarding the issues of the Si dom vs the Ne dom, since I've always experienced a noticable shift between favoring one or the other at different times in my everyday life.
I appreciate your returning to topics you've already covered with a changed perspective, Michael. It gives me that much more clarity on the subject you are approaching. Thanks again and keep up the good work!
I like that description at the how you say you feel like you empty your brain out and forget what you even said, happens to me all the time :p especially during presentations, but even just normal convos
So close to a new perspective..my brain is nearly ready for that information dump..to make way for that new me.. Phoenix of the psyche; the old, ready to be burned away
Are there any plans to make the written script of this and the other axis video available? The content is amazing but its so rich and dense, I can't process the information before you've already moved on, so a written version would be awesome.
XOmniverse Well, the script for these axes videos are in prep to be published in a CelebrityTypes Kindle book on function axes -- so I don't think I can post the scripts for free right now, but I'll ask how that all works. I'm glad you really liked the video! I hope I can get you something...
Andrew T Komatik Here you go! The Judgement Axes In general, the nature of the judging axes can be described in this way: Fe/Ti asks 'what do you think, and how can we communicate that?' Te/Fi asks 'what do you want, and how can we get it?' These two attitudes can be summed up as 'translating' and 'operationalizing' respectively. The one axis seeks to understand the logical form or structure (Ti) underlying various sentimental appearances (Fe); thinking along this axis is a bit like trying to construct an android, a structure of programming and framework on which a realistic, socially pleasing skin is placed. A good example of this is the logical project of Russel and Whitehead, who were trying to develop and justify an abstract system that could account for every proposition in varied human experiences, cultures and languages. The other axis seeks to apprehend the hierarchy of desires (Fi) motivating the creation of various structures to accomplish those desires (Te); thinking along this axis is a bit like trying to construct a mechanical appendage controllable by a living, breathing human in order to accomplish certain tasks and thus fulfill certain desires. A good example of this is Newton's development of calculus because he wanted to solve a specific problem and needed that framework to do it -- not for its own sake (as was the case with the likely Ti preferring Leibniz). This relates directly to CelebrityTypes' observation of "NTP Knowing and NTJ Willing", though my proposition is that this in fact applies across all types in the form of these judging axes, albeit with varying degrees of appearance. I believe that in the sense above, the Fe/Ti axis is more naturally wired to seek abstract knowledge, while Te/Fi is more naturally wired to make concrete its visionary will. This is the primary basis for the philosophical conflicts between Fe/Ti and Te/Fi. This is demonstrated nicely by two quotes from famous philosophers representing each worldview: "Behind all logic and its seeming sovereignty of movement, too, there stand valuations or, more clearly, physiological demands for the preservation of a certain type of life." -- Friedrich Nietzsche (INTJ). "…amidst all the variety and caprice of taste, there are certain general principles of approbation or blame, whose influence a careful eye may trace in all operations of the mind." -- David Hume (ENTP). Hence, the Te/Fi attitude, represented by Nietzsche, assumes that people do things because they want to, they desire to, they have a passionate, sentimental drive to: desires and feelings are the metaphysical bottom-line, for which structure serves only as a vehicle. Meanwhile, the Fe/Ti attitude represented by Hume assumes that people do things because that is what makes sense to them: because that is the decision-making paradigm which they are working off of, and all feelings, motivations, and desires result from the way a person chooses to logically view the world, whether they realize it or not. Feelings and motivations are merely the skin of logically ascertainable principles upon which people operate. These two views of the world are, of course, mutually inimical -- they inevitably chase each other's tails. Nietzsche says to Hume: 'he stole that bread because he wanted to feed his family,' to which Hume replies, 'yes, that is true: but why did he want to feed his family? Because he is adhering to a familial principle,' to which Nietzsche replies, 'I suppose you could put it that way, but why is he operating according to that principle? It's because he wants to, because he loves his family,' to which Hume replies, 'yes, but why does he love his family? It's because that is his logical worldview…' And so on. It should be noted, of course, that this is regarding psychological structure, not content, as CelebrityTypes often says. A philosopher preferring Fe/Ti can most certainly agree with Nietzsche that people act according to desires, and not principles, and eschew all those supposed prejudices I've just attributed to Fe/Ti; yet notice what this philosopher has done: they have analyzed Nietzsche's accusation into a logical principle that people do not act according to logical principles, and has then extended that logical principle to all people, getting underneath the sentimental ways they disguise this truth. As always, the actual structure of their mind has contaminated their content. The same thing applies to the Te/Fi axis. One will also notice that this entire article, as well as all of my other articles, are clearly written from an Fe/Ti perspective: I am laying out valueless principles as the framework underneath people's motivations and desires. I'm explaining the Te/Fi axis as a series of principles that they do not in fact realize they are adhering to in their focus on desires and motivations. Someone with that axis may very well restate these ideas in terms of the underlying desires motivating the Fe/Ti axis to construct and attribute logical systems to everything. The Perceiving Axes In general, the nature of the perceiving axes can be described this way: Se/Ni asks 'what is the bottom-line of the raw data?' Ne/Si asks 'what is the Truth behind the perspectives?' These two attitudes can be summed up as 'conjecturing' and 'examining' respectively. The one axis seeks to discover, envision or predict the potential course (Ni) plotted by their various raw experiences of things (Se); obviously the image I am summoning here is that of a scatterplot and line of best fit, though one could also summon the image of a researcher recording their observations and then forming overarching conclusions abstracted from that data. On the Ni side, a good example would be Karl Marx, who spent hours upon hours researching and observing social and economic conditions in society, from which data he developed his comprehensive theories of capital and dialectical materialism. On the Se side, a good example is Dale Carnegie, who, as CelebrityTypes pointed out in one of their function axes articles, is one of many Se types who concretize their wealth of experiences into practical wisdom, such as 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'. The other axis seeks to discover, cognate, or comprehend the true nature of things (Si) by compositing the uniting elements between various creative perspectives on things (Ne); the image I like to use here is of a diagram showing multiple perspectives of a 3-D object in 2-D space, where each perspective conceals something in order to reveal something else. A good example of this mentality on the Ne side can be found in the theories of Michel Foucault, who himself describes society as a series of power structure grids you can lay on top of the truth in order to reveal some things but conceal others, and our goal essentially should be to experiment with various power grids to discover the true limits or bounds of how human society can successfully be structured. An example from the Si side could be Martin Heidegger's discussion of Being or existence, and how many different perspectives are required to observe it and get a full picture, because of our extremely subjective position in relation to the nature of our own existence, not to mention existence within the ever shifting realm of time. Overall, Se/Ni is much more trusting of what we could call empirical or collected data, particularly data from direct experience, which is why, as CelebrityTypes was the first to point out, it tends to feel much more "intense and singular" of vision, because it is perfectly happy with direct observation and direct conjecture from the collected data. As CelebrityTypes says, "The person will stress one point of view (Ni), which is indeed frequently the viewpoint that generates the greatest yield here and now (Se). The singularity of observation involved will frequently lend a manifest and immediate quality to the Se/Ni type’s observations, which in turn tends to make them convincing." This is because Se/Ni is naturally hooked into and derived from a direct and photographic view of the world. A dominant Ni type, for instance, is constantly conjecturing from whatever data they have: it's what they do, and that’s why these types will often feel like they have a lot to say on topics regardless of their expertise, because they can still conjecture an intriguing point of view from what little data they have; of course, depending on their skill, luck, and their sample size, it is not uncommon for their 'lines of best fit', as it were, to be off by some degree. In fact, Ni types are often used to this and, at least in my experience, can sometimes conjecture about how accurate their own conjectures are likely to be. Se types conjecture like this too, believe it or not, just not as consistently, but it is part of what can lend that peculiar air of surety or confidence to the ESTP's speech, or the driven spontaneity of the ESFP's decisions. These types feel that they see something before them in glorious clarity and sharpness. How long that vision will last varies. Meanwhile, the Ne/Si axis is not so trusting of direct experience, which is hardly a mystery, because their perception of reality is introverted, meaning they aren't interested in direct and photographic reality, but in the ideal versions of experiences abstracted from reality (e.g. Socrates' search for the overarching 'idea' of everyday things like dogs, beds, piety, etc., as opposed to individual instances of these things). This is why, as CelebrityTypes also points out, "The person will also be more careful and meticulous (Si) because there is an unconscious striving to contribute one’s observations to building a system which is valid not just in the here and now, but which is perceived to be true in general: To generate the type of knowledge that could conceivably end up in a future textbook on the subject." The axis makes use of Ne's multifaceted nature to accomplish this. This helps illuminate a number of characteristics of Si and Ne individually: dominant Si types focus their energy on the apprehension and upholding of the Truth as it is carefully and cautiously composited and systematically tested for weaknesses; hence, their stereotypically thorough, cautious, and reserved nature, and why they are not so sure in idea-based conversation as Ni types: because of just that -- they aren't sure. Meanwhile, dominant Ne types, focusing their energy on the exploration and experimentation from various angles, have the same presence of doubt, which is why Ne types so often eschew dogma and may be perceived as intellectually 'flakey' or 'capricious' because they never truly commit to anything: it's all experimentation and exploration, forming a composite Truth, though their trouble is they never want to stop. The Si's trouble, on the other hand, is that they don't want to start. Concerning John Maynard Keynes, an INTJ, it was said: "[He spoke] on a great range of topics, on some of which he was thoroughly an expert, but on others [he had] derived his views from the few pages of a book at which he had happened to glance. The air of authority was the same in both cases." Meanwhile, Bertrand Russell famously said that "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Coincidentally, history records a number of ENTPs and INTJs very much disliking each other. This axis is also apparent in my own videos: you'll notice there are quite a few of them, partly because I keep on redoing the same topics whenever I feel I've hit on a new perspective that I then can't help but explain as though it were my new 'doctrine' because it suddenly seems so much more clear and beautiful and compelling than any previous perspectives, and I just want to get that pure idea out. Literally, after I do a video on a compelling subject, if I did it well, I'll feel like I've emptied myself out, and I'll very easily forget what it was that I just explained in that video. The idea dulls, I start finding some problems with it, and over time I mull it around with other material and then become bedazzled by the next rich synthesis.
I see myself as a gather of information, observing and reflecting on it until a picture of everything starts to emerge. For example, I could read an essay on ethics, listen to Richard Dawkins speak on Atheism, and then hear a sermon from a theologian on Calvinism, and doing all of that would make reality more clear (or my perspective more on life more informed). Would this be the "behavior" of Ni/Se, or can Ne/Si better explain it? I quite honestly prefer the worldview that one could only forever study the world so as to understand it better but never to have a certain/absolute view on it (and such sounds like Ne/Si to me).
***** Yes, options! Ne would suffocate if it didn't have options (or allowed to offer alternate views on issues). +Michael Pierce In terms of the rational functions, I feel Fi/Te. In terms of the perceiving functions, Ne/Si. Most likely being an introvert, would I be an ISTJ?
Right at the end you discuss the activities of an anchorite. In some respects, you describe - "the fame of the brain". After you go through this brain dump do you feel empowered or lacking vitality? I always find it fun to think about the reasons why anchorites were reclusive.
Um...well, according to google definitions, an "anchorite" is a religious recluse, so I don't know if you're using a more specific meaning than that? As for how I feel after videos, its a combination of exhaustion and fulfillment, like after one makes anything that was difficult but really fulfilling to do. I love being able to encapsulate a thought perfectly and clearly, its like I'm sculpting with words. So immensely satisfying, and whatever exhaustion falls into the background compared to that.
After watching this video and your last one about the judging axes, I have a question. I was going to ask Heavy Mole directly, but that channel doesn't have a lot of videos and none that are very topical for the question (that and I know that you give good answers). How does your current understanding of the function axes synchronize with the Heavy Mole diagram. Specifically, how are the perceiving axes more inward and the judging axes more outward? It seems that the perceiving axes have everything to do with how you absorb outside information, and the judging axes are all about how you process that information. Is there something in Jung that I missed, is there another source you are referencing, or is it something else? Thank you for your time.
+1mag1nat1vename That's an excellent question, and the answer is no, there is nothing that you missed in Jung; while Jung described perception as a sort of a priori observation, and judgement as more active (criteria-making), Heavy Mole and I have taken a further step to officially distinguishing perception as a more passive process and judgement as more active. So in that sense, perception would be more 'inwards' because it is receptive of information, while judgement is more 'outwards' because it is comparing things in the world to its criteria to see how they measure up. It's more or less just a different way to look at how you yourself described them. Now, as for how my current views correlate with the Heavy Mole diagram -- there's an interesting story there, actually. The diagram was more of an interesting side discovery of Heavy Mole's while he worked on a much bigger and more ambitious project that I myself have been struggling between college and video-making to get my head wrapped around. It's pretty neat. So for him, I don't think the 'diagram' is of *central* importance per say -- and for me, as I evolve and develop my understanding of function axes, while I still find it useful and valid, I am not seeking to remain consistent with it should my ideas end up diverging more radically than they have so far.
I think a good example to highlight the differences between these two axes is building confidence and being more attractive to the opposite sex: The Ne/Si type is likely to believe to be confident and attractive, a person needs to develop in multiple areas of life, basically becoming a renaissance man(or woman) while also abstracting wisdom that is timeless. A self-proclaimed ENFP "dating coach" I used to follow does this. He believes in building confidence in multiple areas and translating that into confidence around women thus apprehending timeless wisdom that can be used. As an Se/Ni type, I think it's bullshit I'll explain my next point. The Se/Ni type is likely to believe to be confident and attractive, a person needs to develop himself/herself specifically in dating and other areas pertinent to dating. Things like getting in good shape, fashion, communication skills, sex skills, anything pertinent to success with dating the opposite sex which is how I view it. The only way (as I see it) to build confidence with women is to "play the field" This is just an idea I had in my head that I wanted to "empty myself" of, which btw is VERY indicative of my Se/Ni axis.
Ayoub Minen They bounce all over the place without explaining the reasons for their ideas or how it's pertinent to what we've been talking about. Plus they consider things that are often excuses for reality. At least, that's my experience with them. Surely not all are the same.
I don't have dominant Ne, but I have auxillary Ne. I might be able to provide insight. the perception of pertinence that an Ne type has is present because the ideas they state are found through looking for any sort of connection to the central idea, whether direct, tangential, or anywhere in between. they attempt to balance these connections out, take into consideration which ones are worth keeping and which ones should be thrown out. stating these ideas in a rapid fire manner may be done because they assume your mind works similarly, or they may be using you as a sounding board, or it may simply be easier to figure out when they just let it flow out
8:15 I am the same way. Eventually I will fine-tune it and eventually come to a new revelation which I then share, only to repeat the same process.... and on and on and on. By the way: INFJ / INTJ here. I use both because when I was 19 I took the test, without any bias and INFJ was the result. Now, when I take the test, I am typed as INTJ. To be honest, the older I get, and the more I begin to accept certain aspects of my personality, the more I believe the INFJ result.
+Orion Atlantai You're not both. Test results simply fluctuate. More than that, they don't even measure the same things the functions do - both approaches just give the same kind of code due to shared history. It's like how Finnish and Estonian both have the word "hallitus" in them. Same sounds in same order, same word. Yet depending on the language, the meaning behind it changes drastically: "hallitus" means "government" in Finnish and "mold" in Estonian. The same is true with test results and functional analysis - they mean different things, and can say useful things about you but forcing the two to match will often invite mistyping.
Ni is described not as someone who studies and analyzes, but someone who just has AHA! Moments and comes up with ideas out of nowhere and can’t explain how they got there. According to this video’s description of karl marx, he would be an example of sensing and thinking, not intuition.
Works fine for me! Just the occasional double-tap 10s backwards, when my flow gets distracted trying to read/understand words that pop up on-screen. But that's all good. I like this dense stream of information actually.
Yeah but it gets easierr the longer you watch him because you'll be more familiar a lot of the concepts he builds on. I'd recommend you start with "the 16 types" playlist. -isfj encouraging you to stick with it because this guy's awes
Examining each axis is much more illuminating than anazying each fuction-orientation in isolation. It's good to see you making these vidoes again. They are always interesting.
+Ryan Campbell Both kinds of observation have their place - analyzing the individual functions is quite fruitful for looking at people in whom that function is dominant, while axes tend to fit people with that axis in the middle better.
Thank you for referencing us in your videos (where appropriate). Keep up the good work.
Your description of Ne/Si is spot on to how I experience it as an INFP. I even felt I could relate to both sides of the coin reguarding the issues of the Si dom vs the Ne dom, since I've always experienced a noticable shift between favoring one or the other at different times in my everyday life.
I appreciate your returning to topics you've already covered with a changed perspective, Michael. It gives me that much more clarity on the subject you are approaching. Thanks again and keep up the good work!
At the end of the video, you explained the process I go through explore ideas using Ni with unusual accuracy. (ENTJ)
First sentence was already so illuminating.
I like that description at the how you say you feel like you empty your brain out and forget what you even said, happens to me all the time :p especially during presentations, but even just normal convos
Very very useful video. Thank you Michael.
So close to a new perspective..my brain is nearly ready for that information dump..to make way for that new me..
Phoenix of the psyche; the old, ready to be burned away
Are there any plans to make the written script of this and the other axis video available? The content is amazing but its so rich and dense, I can't process the information before you've already moved on, so a written version would be awesome.
XOmniverse Well, the script for these axes videos are in prep to be published in a CelebrityTypes Kindle book on function axes -- so I don't think I can post the scripts for free right now, but I'll ask how that all works. I'm glad you really liked the video! I hope I can get you something...
+XOmniverse Hey! I am sending you a RUclips message containing the text of the scripts -- let me know if anything blocks you from getting it.
+Michael Pierce If it's not too much trouble, could you send them to me too? Very informative video, I learned a lot! Thanks
+Michael Pierce Me too?
Andrew T Komatik
Here you go!
The Judgement Axes
In general, the nature of the judging axes can be described in this way:
Fe/Ti asks 'what do you think, and how can we communicate that?'
Te/Fi asks 'what do you want, and how can we get it?'
These two attitudes can be summed up as 'translating' and 'operationalizing' respectively.
The one axis seeks to understand the logical form or structure (Ti) underlying various sentimental appearances (Fe); thinking along this axis is a bit like trying to construct an android, a structure of programming and framework on which a realistic, socially pleasing skin is placed. A good example of this is the logical project of Russel and Whitehead, who were trying to develop and justify an abstract system that could account for every proposition in varied human experiences, cultures and languages.
The other axis seeks to apprehend the hierarchy of desires (Fi) motivating the creation of various structures to accomplish those desires (Te); thinking along this axis is a bit like trying to construct a mechanical appendage controllable by a living, breathing human in order to accomplish certain tasks and thus fulfill certain desires. A good example of this is Newton's development of calculus because he wanted to solve a specific problem and needed that framework to do it -- not for its own sake (as was the case with the likely Ti preferring Leibniz).
This relates directly to CelebrityTypes' observation of "NTP Knowing and NTJ Willing", though my proposition is that this in fact applies across all types in the form of these judging axes, albeit with varying degrees of appearance. I believe that in the sense above, the Fe/Ti axis is more naturally wired to seek abstract knowledge, while Te/Fi is more naturally wired to make concrete its visionary will.
This is the primary basis for the philosophical conflicts between Fe/Ti and Te/Fi. This is demonstrated nicely by two quotes from famous philosophers representing each worldview:
"Behind all logic and its seeming sovereignty of movement, too, there stand valuations or, more clearly, physiological demands for the preservation of a certain type of life." -- Friedrich Nietzsche (INTJ).
"…amidst all the variety and caprice of taste, there are certain general principles of approbation or blame, whose influence a careful eye may trace in all operations of the mind." -- David Hume (ENTP).
Hence, the Te/Fi attitude, represented by Nietzsche, assumes that people do things because they want to, they desire to, they have a passionate, sentimental drive to: desires and feelings are the metaphysical bottom-line, for which structure serves only as a vehicle. Meanwhile, the Fe/Ti attitude represented by Hume assumes that people do things because that is what makes sense to them: because that is the decision-making paradigm which they are working off of, and all feelings, motivations, and desires result from the way a person chooses to logically view the world, whether they realize it or not. Feelings and motivations are merely the skin of logically ascertainable principles upon which people operate.
These two views of the world are, of course, mutually inimical -- they inevitably chase each other's tails. Nietzsche says to Hume: 'he stole that bread because he wanted to feed his family,' to which Hume replies, 'yes, that is true: but why did he want to feed his family? Because he is adhering to a familial principle,' to which Nietzsche replies, 'I suppose you could put it that way, but why is he operating according to that principle? It's because he wants to, because he loves his family,' to which Hume replies, 'yes, but why does he love his family? It's because that is his logical worldview…'
And so on.
It should be noted, of course, that this is regarding psychological structure, not content, as CelebrityTypes often says. A philosopher preferring Fe/Ti can most certainly agree with Nietzsche that people act according to desires, and not principles, and eschew all those supposed prejudices I've just attributed to Fe/Ti; yet notice what this philosopher has done: they have analyzed Nietzsche's accusation into a logical principle that people do not act according to logical principles, and has then extended that logical principle to all people, getting underneath the sentimental ways they disguise this truth. As always, the actual structure of their mind has contaminated their content. The same thing applies to the Te/Fi axis.
One will also notice that this entire article, as well as all of my other articles, are clearly written from an Fe/Ti perspective: I am laying out valueless principles as the framework underneath people's motivations and desires. I'm explaining the Te/Fi axis as a series of principles that they do not in fact realize they are adhering to in their focus on desires and motivations. Someone with that axis may very well restate these ideas in terms of the underlying desires motivating the Fe/Ti axis to construct and attribute logical systems to everything.
The Perceiving Axes
In general, the nature of the perceiving axes can be described this way:
Se/Ni asks 'what is the bottom-line of the raw data?'
Ne/Si asks 'what is the Truth behind the perspectives?'
These two attitudes can be summed up as 'conjecturing' and 'examining' respectively.
The one axis seeks to discover, envision or predict the potential course (Ni) plotted by their various raw experiences of things (Se); obviously the image I am summoning here is that of a scatterplot and line of best fit, though one could also summon the image of a researcher recording their observations and then forming overarching conclusions abstracted from that data. On the Ni side, a good example would be Karl Marx, who spent hours upon hours researching and observing social and economic conditions in society, from which data he developed his comprehensive theories of capital and dialectical materialism. On the Se side, a good example is Dale Carnegie, who, as CelebrityTypes pointed out in one of their function axes articles, is one of many Se types who concretize their wealth of experiences into practical wisdom, such as 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'.
The other axis seeks to discover, cognate, or comprehend the true nature of things (Si) by compositing the uniting elements between various creative perspectives on things (Ne); the image I like to use here is of a diagram showing multiple perspectives of a 3-D object in 2-D space, where each perspective conceals something in order to reveal something else. A good example of this mentality on the Ne side can be found in the theories of Michel Foucault, who himself describes society as a series of power structure grids you can lay on top of the truth in order to reveal some things but conceal others, and our goal essentially should be to experiment with various power grids to discover the true limits or bounds of how human society can successfully be structured. An example from the Si side could be Martin Heidegger's discussion of Being or existence, and how many different perspectives are required to observe it and get a full picture, because of our extremely subjective position in relation to the nature of our own existence, not to mention existence within the ever shifting realm of time.
Overall, Se/Ni is much more trusting of what we could call empirical or collected data, particularly data from direct experience, which is why, as CelebrityTypes was the first to point out, it tends to feel much more "intense and singular" of vision, because it is perfectly happy with direct observation and direct conjecture from the collected data. As CelebrityTypes says, "The person will stress one point of view (Ni), which is indeed frequently the viewpoint that generates the greatest yield here and now (Se). The singularity of observation involved will frequently lend a manifest and immediate quality to the Se/Ni type’s observations, which in turn tends to make them convincing." This is because Se/Ni is naturally hooked into and derived from a direct and photographic view of the world.
A dominant Ni type, for instance, is constantly conjecturing from whatever data they have: it's what they do, and that’s why these types will often feel like they have a lot to say on topics regardless of their expertise, because they can still conjecture an intriguing point of view from what little data they have; of course, depending on their skill, luck, and their sample size, it is not uncommon for their 'lines of best fit', as it were, to be off by some degree. In fact, Ni types are often used to this and, at least in my experience, can sometimes conjecture about how accurate their own conjectures are likely to be. Se types conjecture like this too, believe it or not, just not as consistently, but it is part of what can lend that peculiar air of surety or confidence to the ESTP's speech, or the driven spontaneity of the ESFP's decisions. These types feel that they see something before them in glorious clarity and sharpness. How long that vision will last varies.
Meanwhile, the Ne/Si axis is not so trusting of direct experience, which is hardly a mystery, because their perception of reality is introverted, meaning they aren't interested in direct and photographic reality, but in the ideal versions of experiences abstracted from reality (e.g. Socrates' search for the overarching 'idea' of everyday things like dogs, beds, piety, etc., as opposed to individual instances of these things). This is why, as CelebrityTypes also points out, "The person will also be more careful and meticulous (Si) because there is an unconscious striving to contribute one’s observations to building a system which is valid not just in the here and now, but which is perceived to be true in general: To generate the type of knowledge that could conceivably end up in a future textbook on the subject." The axis makes use of Ne's multifaceted nature to accomplish this.
This helps illuminate a number of characteristics of Si and Ne individually: dominant Si types focus their energy on the apprehension and upholding of the Truth as it is carefully and cautiously composited and systematically tested for weaknesses; hence, their stereotypically thorough, cautious, and reserved nature, and why they are not so sure in idea-based conversation as Ni types: because of just that -- they aren't sure. Meanwhile, dominant Ne types, focusing their energy on the exploration and experimentation from various angles, have the same presence of doubt, which is why Ne types so often eschew dogma and may be perceived as intellectually 'flakey' or 'capricious' because they never truly commit to anything: it's all experimentation and exploration, forming a composite Truth, though their trouble is they never want to stop. The Si's trouble, on the other hand, is that they don't want to start.
Concerning John Maynard Keynes, an INTJ, it was said: "[He spoke] on a great range of topics, on some of which he was thoroughly an expert, but on others [he had] derived his views from the few pages of a book at which he had happened to glance. The air of authority was the same in both cases." Meanwhile, Bertrand Russell famously said that "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Coincidentally, history records a number of ENTPs and INTJs very much disliking each other.
This axis is also apparent in my own videos: you'll notice there are quite a few of them, partly because I keep on redoing the same topics whenever I feel I've hit on a new perspective that I then can't help but explain as though it were my new 'doctrine' because it suddenly seems so much more clear and beautiful and compelling than any previous perspectives, and I just want to get that pure idea out. Literally, after I do a video on a compelling subject, if I did it well, I'll feel like I've emptied myself out, and I'll very easily forget what it was that I just explained in that video. The idea dulls, I start finding some problems with it, and over time I mull it around with other material and then become bedazzled by the next rich synthesis.
This is fascinating information, thank you! -ENFJ
I see myself as a gather of information, observing and reflecting on it until a picture of everything starts to emerge. For example, I could read an essay on ethics, listen to Richard Dawkins speak on Atheism, and then hear a sermon from a theologian on Calvinism, and doing all of that would make reality more clear (or my perspective more on life more informed).
Would this be the "behavior" of Ni/Se, or can Ne/Si better explain it? I quite honestly prefer the worldview that one could only forever study the world so as to understand it better but never to have a certain/absolute view on it (and such sounds like Ne/Si to me).
***** Yes, options! Ne would suffocate if it didn't have options (or allowed to offer alternate views on issues).
+Michael Pierce
In terms of the rational functions, I feel Fi/Te.
In terms of the perceiving functions, Ne/Si.
Most likely being an introvert, would I be an ISTJ?
+Phileos Sophia INFP also fits those axes.
Komatik Of course! Sometimes I miss the obvious haha
Really enlightning! Thank you, Michael Pierce!
Who's that dude at 7:45 with Nietzsche?
John Barnes That's Bertrand Russell, evidently, back when he was experimenting with big mustaches.
Right at the end you discuss the activities of an anchorite. In some respects, you describe - "the fame of the brain". After you go through this brain dump do you feel empowered or lacking vitality? I always find it fun to think about the reasons why anchorites were reclusive.
Um...well, according to google definitions, an "anchorite" is a religious recluse, so I don't know if you're using a more specific meaning than that? As for how I feel after videos, its a combination of exhaustion and fulfillment, like after one makes anything that was difficult but really fulfilling to do. I love being able to encapsulate a thought perfectly and clearly, its like I'm sculpting with words. So immensely satisfying, and whatever exhaustion falls into the background compared to that.
After watching this video and your last one about the judging axes, I have a question. I was going to ask Heavy Mole directly, but that channel doesn't have a lot of videos and none that are very topical for the question (that and I know that you give good answers). How does your current understanding of the function axes synchronize with the Heavy Mole diagram. Specifically, how are the perceiving axes more inward and the judging axes more outward? It seems that the perceiving axes have everything to do with how you absorb outside information, and the judging axes are all about how you process that information. Is there something in Jung that I missed, is there another source you are referencing, or is it something else? Thank you for your time.
+1mag1nat1vename That's an excellent question, and the answer is no, there is nothing that you missed in Jung; while Jung described perception as a sort of a priori observation, and judgement as more active (criteria-making), Heavy Mole and I have taken a further step to officially distinguishing perception as a more passive process and judgement as more active.
So in that sense, perception would be more 'inwards' because it is receptive of information, while judgement is more 'outwards' because it is comparing things in the world to its criteria to see how they measure up. It's more or less just a different way to look at how you yourself described them.
Now, as for how my current views correlate with the Heavy Mole diagram -- there's an interesting story there, actually. The diagram was more of an interesting side discovery of Heavy Mole's while he worked on a much bigger and more ambitious project that I myself have been struggling between college and video-making to get my head wrapped around. It's pretty neat. So for him, I don't think the 'diagram' is of *central* importance per say -- and for me, as I evolve and develop my understanding of function axes, while I still find it useful and valid, I am not seeking to remain consistent with it should my ideas end up diverging more radically than they have so far.
Thanks
I think a good example to highlight the differences between these two axes is building confidence and being more attractive to the opposite sex:
The Ne/Si type is likely to believe to be confident and attractive, a person needs to develop in multiple areas of life, basically becoming a renaissance man(or woman) while also abstracting wisdom that is timeless. A self-proclaimed ENFP "dating coach" I used to follow does this. He believes in building confidence in multiple areas and translating that into confidence around women thus apprehending timeless wisdom that can be used. As an Se/Ni type, I think it's bullshit I'll explain my next point.
The Se/Ni type is likely to believe to be confident and attractive, a person needs to develop himself/herself specifically in dating and other areas pertinent to dating. Things like getting in good shape, fashion, communication skills, sex skills, anything pertinent to success with dating the opposite sex which is how I view it. The only way (as I see it) to build confidence with women is to "play the field"
This is just an idea I had in my head that I wanted to "empty myself" of, which btw is VERY indicative of my Se/Ni axis.
Can you elaborate on the last part? it sounds interesting.
@@caseypham7975 its at the end of the video, the emptying yourself of the "vision"
People with dominant Ne are very confusing to me.
why?
Ayoub Minen
They bounce all over the place without explaining the reasons for their ideas or how it's pertinent to what we've been talking about. Plus they consider things that are often excuses for reality. At least, that's my experience with them. Surely not all are the same.
Josh the Jaguar
true
I don't have dominant Ne, but I have auxillary Ne. I might be able to provide insight.
the perception of pertinence that an Ne type has is present because the ideas they state are found through looking for any sort of connection to the central idea, whether direct, tangential, or anywhere in between. they attempt to balance these connections out, take into consideration which ones are worth keeping and which ones should be thrown out. stating these ideas in a rapid fire manner may be done because they assume your mind works similarly, or they may be using you as a sounding board, or it may simply be easier to figure out when they just let it flow out
8:15 I am the same way. Eventually I will fine-tune it and eventually come to a new revelation which I then share, only to repeat the same process.... and on and on and on.
By the way: INFJ / INTJ here.
I use both because when I was 19 I took the test, without any bias and INFJ was the result. Now, when I take the test, I am typed as INTJ.
To be honest, the older I get, and the more I begin to accept certain aspects of my personality, the more I believe the INFJ result.
+Orion Atlantai You're not both. Test results simply fluctuate. More than that, they don't even measure the same things the functions do - both approaches just give the same kind of code due to shared history. It's like how Finnish and Estonian both have the word "hallitus" in them. Same sounds in same order, same word. Yet depending on the language, the meaning behind it changes drastically: "hallitus" means "government" in Finnish and "mold" in Estonian. The same is true with test results and functional analysis - they mean different things, and can say useful things about you but forcing the two to match will often invite mistyping.
Komatik What a good lookin' paragraph.
At least you have the dominant down.
Ni is described not as someone who studies and analyzes, but someone who just has AHA! Moments and comes up with ideas out of nowhere and can’t explain how they got there. According to this video’s description of karl marx, he would be an example of sensing and thinking, not intuition.
Again, too much nonstop visual and spoken information to process at the same time-slow it down a bit, please!
-INTP approaching bedtime
+Frasier Linde I agree. Lots of fine language at blazing speed makes for a hard listening experience.
Works fine for me! Just the occasional double-tap 10s backwards, when my flow gets distracted trying to read/understand words that pop up on-screen. But that's all good. I like this dense stream of information actually.
Yeah but it gets easierr the longer you watch him because you'll be more familiar a lot of the concepts he builds on. I'd recommend you start with "the 16 types" playlist.
-isfj encouraging you to stick with it because this guy's awes