It's been said somewhere in passing but I feel inclined to have a full elaboration on this phenomenon, since I foresee it being a continual point of clarification in the migration process of members.
So far almost every Ne-lead ll-- type that's come to CT has been an INxP, and while I don't feel there's any necessary obligation for the two systems to match, in this particular case I'm inclined to say that they technically do.
What I mean to say is, I actually think their self-typing was accurate, or as accurate as it could be if we assume a level of parity. Because what they've thought of themselves up to now is more or less the same. There's no real need to change what one has thought of themselves up to this point, but the classification/conversion is different in CT because the ll-- category doesn't exist in MBTI.
I always like to say that in CT, if you're sitting by yourself in your room playing video games, you're actually engaging Pe - an extroverted process because you're engaging with objects. Or if you're shut in with your computer, but absorbing lots of media content, that is still cognitive extroversion, even though it's social introversion. Ne-leads are often creatives, but they can be shut-in creatives. And since MBTI often frames the E/I category in terms of whether you feel you gain or lose energy by being social, introversion comes to mean a lack of sociability.
A few Ne l--- (standard development) people also identify as INxP and this correlation is more debatable, but the Ne ll-- type is almost guaranteed to type as an introverted every single time because they really are introverted by all the terms they've been familiar with. Due to Ne's non-literal engagement with the world, Ne-leads are already "introverted extroverts" (as per the CT book) but with Ji conscious that becomes a twofold expression. So if you're Ne ll-- and you're looking at that alarming "E", don't panic! CT isn't calling you a social butterfly. You don't need to give up your introvert card. Chances are you got your type right, but your type converts over differently here. CT pushes the criteria of introversion further back, to where it's the mental disengagement with the environment, rather than as a disengagement with people.
So what does it mean to be Ne-lead ll-- and how is it different from a Ji-lead? Well to use a fuzzy metaphor, an Ne ll-- is like an INTP/INFP without being a Ji-lead and having Ji properties as central. So being Ne ll-- is like being an introverted Pe-lead, but without the Ji rigid fixations, castle of axioms, idealisms, and prince/princess energy being the core. Instead the core remains open-ended curiosity, imagination, daydreaming, experimentation, exploration and dabbling with objects.
To put it another way, a Ji-lead is somewhat more resistant to the aforementioned curiosity/daydreaming/exploration, to the degree that they actually want closure. A Ji-lead is much more anal than the MBTI paints them out to be. And this has to do with the J-P swap in MBTI. The TiNe and FiNe are J-leads, and that means everything is ultimately about "coming to answers", and about "having the truth." This is an inner truth, but it's still held onto with an adamant attitude that Pe-leads don't often have. And if no such truth is held yet, the psychic impetus is constantly seeking it; narrowing possibilities, honing in on things, perfecting a specific understanding rather than branching out and getting the widest possible context.
So the iconic "What if..?" personality is an Ne-lead, not a Ji-lead.
This also makes sense when you think about polarity, wherein Ji-leads are mini Je-leads. A Ji-lead is an inverted Je, and has the same motivational drive as their other half. A Ji-lead will have a covert politician in them, and can make a big fuss over alignments to truth at the global level; sometimes being tempted into the global stage themselves, if their Je eventually calls them to it. This is quite different than the INxPs that MBTI describes.
NeFi ll-- Aurora Aksnes
Now the other side to this is how a conscious Ji affects a Pe-lead.
Under the wing of the creative/generative function (Pe), Ji becomes a means through which exploration happens more aesthetically and precisely. But the motivation remains to exist adrift in a world bubbling with potentiality and novel ideas. Ji is used as a rudder to steer the boat. But the boat is still the primary vehicle and the point; the freedom of going new places and engaging with environments.
In contrast, the Ji-lead puts down a structure, or is intent to do so even if they may be early in their quest for the right cornerstones and haven't quite found the right bedrock. They use their creative energy to build up that structure which can be a princely identity or an acute ideology.
This identity/ideology becomes synonymous with them, and they "stand behind their words" (J) as a representative of those ideas. There may be some crossover with Pe ll-- and Ji ll-- in some of these descriptions, but this is meant to give a general overview of the differences at the behavioral level. I hope it helps clarify what CT means by these development levels, and I look forward to hearing what our Ne-lead ll-- and Ji members have to say!
Yes, this is meeeee!
1) Introversion: I'm literally the most socially introverted person I''ve ever met (I know it sounds hyperbolic, especially given my extreme silliness on discord, but I swear it's true, you guys.) Deciding to leave the house without necessity is a battle I fight with all my strength. I call myself a hermit because I can disappear into a house (or a room/small section within a house) for weeks at a time. I think if it were not for needing to buy food and generally being forced out, I could go six months straight without ever leaving a section of the house (Again, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here.) I think it's quite dangerous if you're looking to form face-to-face relationships but otherwise, I just don't need to leave my place and socialize 9/10 times.
2) Curiosity: What I'm constantly doing though (in that hermitage, in a bus, in an office--everywhere!) is permanently looking up and discovering all sorts of new things on the internet just for the heck of it. My mom wonders what the use is of all the 'useless' information I gather (and share)--which makes me wonder sometimes if she's Ne lead after all (?). I've never understood people who need some kind of justification or reason for knowing things. It's just interesting! Why is that not enough?
In academia, they make you justify the uses of the things you're studying and that always boggled my mind. Knowledge is valuable for its own sake as far as I'm concerned. But now that I realize it's the bottomless pit of my Ne curiosity talking, I understand them a bit more too!
Those guys who have careers on youtube just talking about fantasy stories, myths, superheros, and other geeky things are my heroes! Literally figured out a way to be paid for just being naturally curious. Ain't that interesting? Anyway, I digress.
3) Wonder: I've discovered as I write my books that it's not optional! If there's no wonder, there's misery and greyness and gloomy bland castles. For me, wonder is the pure pleasure of contemplating an idea, an interesting thing about how the world works, and stories.
I tried lucid dreaming once a few weeks ago and only managed I think a minute or two of lucidity before I 'fell asleep' and dreamt for real, but my impression of that one minute or so is that my imagination or 'dream world' is a kind of animated realm, with lots of vivid colour and many odd creatures (also of vivid colour), kinda like 'the smurfs' but more colourful and with more variety in the inhabitants. I'm guessing this is the stuff I've accumulated in all my years of reading stories, watching movies, cartoons etc and my own quirky imagination.
I was writing something very academic-ish (rather Te) a few weeks ago and I was beginning to feel the stress as it took its toll on me when I felt the urge to see Harry Potter (Just a few days before I found the discussions on him here, lol! synchronicity!) I watched all ten films spaced out in three/four days and you know what? It got me out of my rut.
I wondered why before I realized it was "wonder"..that's the fix I was going for to help me do "work". It's painful to work without it. And Harry Porter, especially in the first film, is all about wonders and discoveries, even the soundtracks ignite that feeling! Sometimes I watch Narnia but I couldn't find it that day.
Anyway, it's a specific feeling/sensation/experience, this wonder. At least in me. It's literally delicious. Like food but for the core of my chest/body! lol. Rather than my stomach. If I write from that place in my chest, my writing is described by others as "quirky and empathic"--that's what I've been told is my 'writing voice' by people outside Typology. I just figure if they knew CT, they'd say instead, "Your voice is Ne and Fi and seelie". I think that's what they're trying to describe in non-type terms.
I have another dry, academic voice I know is Te and people say it's like a totally different person! I had to split a book into two to separate these two voices because people found the contrast stark and jarring. I was really shocked (and amused) that they had been able to pick out Te and NeFi even though they used their own words.
The Te voice is what I use when giving dry info and clear directions and it sucks all the life out of me, oy! I dream of the day when I shall partner with someone with enough Te to take this out of my hands. Wonder (Quirky/Empathic) is my happiness. The dry Te voice brings me not an ounce of joy. I can only use it in short bursts. Otherwise, I'll get depressed.
Disclaimer: I'm NeFi lll- in denial, coveting the ll-- label XD
I know a few people whom I strongly suspect to be NeFi l-- and ll-- developed, but who are significantly more socially extroverted than I. Maybe I am wrong and they are actually l-l- ... but I can't see the Te in them. How am I still so socially introverted with two conscious extroverted functions? Does Ji hold that much power over the other two?
@shelley-lorraine, this might be linked both to the fact that Te is not really a social function and to the functions hierarchy itself: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/hierarchy-primary-auxiliary-tertiary-polar/
@shelley-lorraine - Oh as far as I can tell just about anyone can be socially introverted. You just have to dislike or fear people enough. It doesn't say much on its own about your psychic processing. For example even a double-extrovert like a TeNi l-l- (Te+Se) may identify as a social recluse, and thus "introverted" even though they're probably go-go-go and consumed in their own enterprises.
My note about Ne-lead ll-- types is just to say that they actually have a fair level of cognitive introversion involved as well. And that the MBTI's INxP types lack Ji-lead psychological features -- thus describing them somewhat as introverted Pe-leads. But actual FiNe and TiNe can fit the profile too just as I fit parts of INTP. So none of this is an exact calculation or conversion.
It's a failed mission from the very start, to try to find perfect parallels between the two systems. So this is not mean to be a pristine translation algorithm, since the very fuzziness of MBTI (and its lack of consensus on most matters) will inescapably lead to people typing all sorts of ways depending on what sites and descriptions they're going off of. My goal with this thread is moreso to broadly explain why we see some patterns across typings of new members, and to perhaps ease their minds about what is and isn't true about some of the more popular descriptions they've likely heard before and identified with.
For example even a double-extrovert like a TeNi l-l- (Te+Se) may identify as a social recluse, and thus “introverted” even though they’re probably go-go-go and consumed in their own enterprises.
Yeah, most people would call me an introvert, and I have Se-Te development that goes way back. I'm consumed with whatever it is that I'm doing.
I didn't overtly identify with "introvert" or "extrovert" in colloquial terms. I'm just not someone that gets energized by constant humans, but I'm not withdrawn and super shy either. In real life people describe me as socially introverted, since I'm into my own thing and not into parties & group activities. I go home after my shows to be alone or with one person. I'm much more consumed with my own visions. But I was not stuck on the idea of being an introvert because I don't have much trouble talking to people if I want to. (Barring the vocal difficulties, or if I'm obsessed with a guy and therefore become speechless.)
@faerie I also isolate myself for months at a time.
I always like to say that in CT, if you’re sitting by yourself in your room playing video games, you’re actually engaging Pe – an extroverted process because you’re engaging with objects. Or if you’re shut in with your computer, but absorbing lots of media content, that is still cognitive extroversion, even though it’s social introversion.
To the extent Introversion is sometimes taken to mean "seeking (literal) environmental stimulation" I actually feel like in some ways I can actually be more "extroverted" than some Ne-leads I know. In general, I can only go for so long at one time with my nose in front of a book before the actual, physical discomforts associated with reading make me want to get up and do something more physical, even if it's just chores. If I'm looking at a screen, I have at least peripheral awareness that I'm staring at a piece of plastic, not a portal into another world. If an entire day were to goes by where I don't go outside or leave the house, I'll feel glum about it, like I'm letting my life slip away rather than actually living it.
Another interesting thing about reading is that--probably because I'm a cognitive introvert--I can't read very fast because I usually have to stop every few paragraphs and mull over what I've read for a little bit. (If the book isn't very engaging, I can easily get siphoned off into Ne-daydreamy land during these moments). My brother is an Ne-lead and growing up, he was a far more voracious reader/gamer, etc., and could be pretty antisocial. He could become so engaged in things like video games that he'd become quite oblivious to his physical surroundings. I was more of an "explorer" in a literal sense--I was more interested in traveling, outdoor activities, going to events, trying new things, meeting people, looking for distractions, making maps of new places in my head, etc. I've generally been a social introvert, but at some times of our lives my brother has probably been more socially introverted than me--although he certainly has a more "extroverted" way of articulating.
Anyway, I'm assuming these differences might relate partly to the fact that I lead with an S function, and if so, it seems like maybe some popular conceptualizations of extroversion/introversion correspond with S vs. N to some extent. i.e. in some places I feel like I've seen the difference conceptualized along the lines of engagement with external stimulation, but without appreciation for the particular character of Ne.
@hrafn - That idea posits that the N "removal from literality" and it's "surreal" disposition adds a layer of distance from tangible engagement with the world, yes. I think that's correct. Ne can be consumed in a more digital or imaginary trajectory (video games, internet) and engage its exploration through that avenue while being suspended from bodily concerns or tactile feedback.
I hadn't thought about how an Si-lead would experience their conscious, but polar, Ne's exploration. You seem like an interesting case study in this regard. I wonder what @meta might have to say about it.
But I'm also wary of this idea because my observation has been that "N" vs "S" and "T" vs "F" differences break down after l--- development. A person with both their N/S or both their T/F functions conscious breaks the pattern and makes the categories useless.
However, I do see the potential for N/S and T/F differences to be resinstantiated if a higher level of resolution can be achieved, in which essential differences are observed even within those who have conscious use of their lower functions. My personal sense has always been that there is a distinction there, but I haven't seen member agreement on it -- or any description that is satisfactory in a scalable way.
I would love to describe what it means to be a Beta ST versus a Beta NF... or an Alpha NT versus an Alpha SF... regardless of development levels. The question is -- what are the differences and how are they to be described.
This makes sense...just thinking about Ne & Si leads I know, I've seen a complex array of relationships between the two polarities in different people.
I hadn’t thought about how an Si-lead would experience their conscious, but polar, Ne’s exploration. You seem like an interesting case study in this regard. I wonder what @meta might have to say about it.
I've been thinking about this Ne-exploration topic lately, specifically as it contrasts with Si's draw to the familiar & predictable. Naturally I have some of both, but I feel like it's a complex relationship, and I find that what does/doesn't register as "familiar" isn't always completely literal or straightforward. Someday I'll follow up on this in another thread.
This is interesting and definitely something I’ve noticed as well with the people I suspect are Ne lead. Most of the time they are more reclusive, quiet, and elusive than I am. My sister is my best example even though she’s never been officially typed in this system. I strongly suspect she’s an Ne dom, but she’s always identified as INTJ as far as I know. She’s also the epitome of E5 and is aware of this, so there’s this definite distancing from others that is more apparent and unusual compared to others I know.
Back when I had little understanding of typology and was still trying to type myself by dichotomies the I and E were the biggest struggle for me to choose (the only thing I was sure about was “F”). It’s still rather ambiguous to me and I sometimes wonder if I’m really an extrovert. Socially I want to be popular and engage with many people, but it’s always been a struggle to fit in. Therefore, I often end up ostracized or as a voluntary recluse. There’s this strong internal desire to make a global impact, but a constant tendency to hold myself back.
My sister always enjoyed video games and actively engaging computer interactions more than I did. We would rent a game, I would play for awhile, then get bored with it and enjoy watching her play for hours. Media-wise she has put herself out there far more than I have and has achieved a wider impact than I probably ever will. Socially her pendulum swings harder than mine will as she’s either one of the most popular in her circles or completely disengaging from the world and not replaying to any messages. My interaction with the world is a bit more in the middle, but she has always insisted she’s the introvert and I’m the extrovert. Pretty much everyone in typology circles insists I’m an introvert, however, so I go with it.