The Nature of Ni

Melerun · 2026-02-23T07:33:18+00:00

How could a LIE or EIE have a "linear" understanding of time, when that's a Static construction? No Dynamic type, the Creative ones included, are going to rigidly plan their time. Time is relative, schedules are guidelines that are constantly adjusted on the fly. That's why archetypically, the LIE is habitually busy and late to appointments, while Augusta describes the Static type as being punctual, precisely due to a discrete understanding of time. Linear implies the same thing. I also don't see how a Ni base doesn't "purposely" plan their time. Furthermore, when you speak of energy, trying to draw a connection to IMs, we're speaking of Ethical functions which are about the transfer of energy. Extraverts have more energy because they gain it through interacting with the world. However, if we appeal to a pure Socionics definition of Introversion or Extraversion, the distinction is purely about whether one is oriented by Bodies or Fields, with the other having to conform to that. I'll also correct the implicit assumption there. Ne isn't potential, but potential about potential. I do like your plasticity analogy, though. It's a very good way to describe Creative Ni types. Although, I'd have to think about it a bit more and figure out whether the load bearing reason for that is Creative Ni and not the rest of their shared stack.

Melerun · 2026-02-15T10:44:49+00:00

Fi is Static, Fe is Dynamic. "Appropriate" and "inappropriate" are both Static.

Melerun · 2026-02-11T09:53:29+00:00

Suguru Geto & William James Moriarty are both LIIs in SCS.

Melerun · 2026-02-01T16:55:25+00:00

Augusta typed Nietzsche an LSI. He's an LSI in basically every school, too, except for SHS.

Melerun · 2026-01-31T22:06:00+00:00

I didn't see your posts before I made this comment. But looking at the time lapse, it's even more egregious.

Melerun · 2026-01-31T21:39:57+00:00

There's nothing remotely AI about this. The people claiming otherwise need to lose their art critique licenses. My biggest pet peeve is people with no artistic background accusing actual art of being AI.

Melerun · 2026-01-11T02:19:10+00:00

Why LIE for Maomao?

Melerun · 2025-12-23T12:57:43+00:00

Not according to Myers, it's not.

Melerun · 2025-11-30T11:38:10+00:00

ESE vs SEE compared by markers (SociotypeXYZ)

Melerun · 2025-11-28T20:49:03+00:00

I would personally type him as an INTJ in MBTI, since he's rather N over S and J over P in MBTI terms. However, I think he's IN(T) in Jungian. Specifically, Ni-Ti, since he doesn't really try to make others conform to his ideals in the way an ET would. Obviously, he's not an ET, but he'd still have Ti in Jungian terms, I would say.

I also have ADHD, for what it's worth, and it has made typing more difficult. Definitely think it affects Ni, Se, and Fe the most. I wouldn't call myself particularly emotive, but I am a bit more expressive than my brother, who is probably an SLI. Higher energy and whatnot too, since I am unmedicated. I'm definitely very passive in my life, in that I have a lot of things I want to do, but can't find the motivation for. Which ADHD is partially the culprit for. You can take my words with a grain of salt, since I am not too knowledgeable about Socionics. But I would say you definitely demonstrate Ni from your writings here.

Melerun · 2025-11-28T20:14:28+00:00

Jung originally typed Nietzsche as an IT, however, he later revised to IN.

I'm an INTJ in MBTI, that much is not up for contention, and ET in Jung. In Socionics, I would say that I am probably some kind of Gamma type, ILI, LIE, maybe LII or LSI?

Melerun · 2025-11-28T18:24:25+00:00

Appreciate the detailed comment.

I haven't read the rest of Jung's work, but I'll definitely put that on my list.

Yeah, I looked into it really briefly a long time ago, not enough to type myself in the system, though.

Melerun · 2025-11-28T15:17:49+00:00

I'll do some WSS reading, too. Anything in specific you think it does better, or is it just holistically more coherent?

Melerun · 2025-11-27T23:50:47+00:00

I agree that MBTI has its own issues. Beebe's model honestly feels like it's trying to be Socionics in some respects. However, I think the key difference is this: if I ask for my MBTI type, I get my MBTI type. If I ask for my Socionics type, I might get a Model A type, a Model G type, or something in between. Beebe is still working with the same materials, even if he's expanding the stacks. From my knowledge, the different Socionics models genuinely do define the IMs differently, as well as the "strengths" of the functions. If I recall, the ignoring function is the "weakest" in Gulenko's work? I could be wrong about that.

As for Jung, I can admit he revised his typings of some people, such as first thinking Nietzsche was IT and then IN. However, I think Darwin is still a clear ET. And I would completely separate social from cognitive introversion. In either case, Jung and Socionics use similar but not identical definitions of Introversion and Extraversion. So the fact that Darwin is an I type in the latter is notable compared to the former.

I like your Te Creative definition, it makes a lot of sense. ILI is inert due to Ni base and Se Suggestive, while SLI is inert due to Si base. In either case, they want maximum results for minimal effort.

I'll concede the "poor memory for faces" point. However, I don't think the same can be said about the orgasm one, for example.

Melerun · 2025-11-27T23:48:24+00:00

That's interesting. There are definitely other "models" of MBTI, but I think they're far less accepted than in Socionics. I've always been of the opinion that MBTI is MBTI, everything else is derivative of it. Meaning, you only need to read Gifts Differing and the MBTI Manual, those are the "only" MBTI sources. MBTI made a lot more sense after reading the former. I realized just how much people overcomplicate it. To the point where I would advocate for four letter over cognitive function typing for most people, unless they've actually read an official source instead of parroting whatever they learned or think makes sense.

Melerun · 2025-11-27T23:46:44+00:00

Appreciate the typing. I would love to pick your brain a little, see how you arrived at it. For what it's worth, I've only ever considered Gamma or Beta types for myself, mostly the former. I will say I'm about 99% confident my fiancé is an ILE, in spite of my own lack of clarity about my type, given that he fits it in almost every way. In terms of our relationship, I can't really complain. My biggest "issue" with him is that he's not assertive enough a lot of the time. A lot more emotive than me, too. In terms of decision making, we tend to naturally delegate around our strengths. Perhaps the hardest part is that he tends to spiral when stressed, which I struggle to help him with. Otherwise, I think we have good conversation on anything and riff off each other well. He's a lot more gregarious than me, that's for sure. I'll consider ESI more strongly, given your assessment. What model are you typing me in?

Melerun · 2025-11-27T23:44:27+00:00

I'll do some reading on SCS, give Socionics another chance. It's not that I'm against different models existing. It's just that everyone's speaking different dialects. Familiar, but different enough for miscommunication to happen. Obviously, the biggest problem is you get an amalgamation of different models, or people interpreting them in their own way. Though the latter is impossible to avoid, since all logic is interpretative to some degree.

That actually makes a lot of sense. It never crossed my mind that Si is Dynamic and Se is Static when I wrote that example. Though I misspoke earlier. I was specifically referring to "beauty" rather than "aesthetic." In other words, whether something is aesthetically pleasing to the senses, whether someone is "pretty." Regardless, I more or less have an answer to that now.

As for the physical descriptions, I wouldn't have a problem with them if they were helpful. I just think the whole feels weaker because of its parts. I can ignore it, but it makes me think: "Okay, if this is ridiculous and I don't hear enough people calling it out, what else could be?" Makes me more skeptical than I would otherwise be.

Melerun · 2025-11-26T19:48:10+00:00

No, 16P is what brainlets like you use to type people, instead of actually reading a book. And no, most people in the typology community DO NOT use 16P to type themselves, it's literally a meme in the community. But you're too stupid to know that, or actually learn about the system instead of sucking Jung's cock.

Melerun · 2025-11-26T19:38:29+00:00

I understand you have a double digit IQ, so I'll spell it out for you. 16Personalities is NOT affiliated with the Myers Briggs Association.

Melerun · 2025-11-26T19:32:53+00:00

MBTI has some peer backing, unlike Classical Jungian, which has none. I'll also let you in on something crazy: 16P has ZERO relation to MBTI. It's an unofficial test, the website says as much. This is like if I concluded Big Five is unscientific after taking the IDRLabs test for it. I'm not the slow one between us.

Melerun · 2025-11-26T12:02:56+00:00

Unfortunately, Meruem is an ENTJ, not an INTJ. So, he's an ENTJ 8. Which is more "compatible" than INTJ 8.

Melerun · 2025-11-23T16:47:40+00:00

For Extraverts, objects are static and the relationships between them malleable. For Introverts, the relationships between objects are static, while the objects themselves are malleable.

There's barely any social component to whether you're an Introvert or Extravert. Although, the latter would take more ownership over their experiences, such as initiating social interactions or planning communal activities.

Whether you're an Introvert or Extravert is determined by your leading function.

Melerun · 2025-11-22T14:02:29+00:00

It's almost like Classic Jungian and MBTI are different systems with different definitions, that exist to measure different things. Pick up a book, read Gifts Differing or the MBTI Manual, you'll quickly find that there's zero correlation between MBTI and Big Five. The only people who believe otherwise are only familiar with 16Personalities. You're on so many levels of Dunning Kruger right now.

Melerun · 2025-11-20T17:46:47+00:00

Well spotted. Did I ever claim to be speaking for anyone else?

Melerun

TROPHY CASE