You seem to be definitely an N (likely dominant), and to simplify things, “TiFe†is an “Aligning Asessments†preference (as opposed to “Ordering Assessmentsâ€), and you seem to fit this as well. So we can further shorthand by saying you're trying to figure “Realizing Awareness†(SeNi) or “Inquiring Awareness†(SiNe). These are all the new terms by Berens and Montoya, apart of the new “Intentional Styles†model.
[MENTION=19719]Forever[/MENTION], you can look at all the Ne and Ni descriptions, and still not know the difference, because many of them are ambiguous, using general behavioral descriptions, which can sometimes be done by either attitude.
The best way to define them is to directly pinpoint what makes one introverted or extraverted.
First, there are now the wiki articles on them:
Extraverted Intuition - Typology Wiki
Introverted Intuition - Typology Wiki
The tandem styles are named as such, because they both stem from the basic S part of the tandem. Se takes in the tangible data as "is" in the current environment (e). Ni works from this, in deriving intangible data (patterns, meanings, etc) from the individual's (i) unconscious. Hence, both functions basically "Realize" data immediately. Si takes from individual memory, which is used as a mental canister that what "is", is compared to. Ne also draws from this, in taking in the patterns or concepts fromt he environment, and comparng them with other patterns stored in memory. So both end up comparing things, and hence "Inquiring" or basically going somewhere to get data, rather than just "realizing" it in the moment.
So from what I'm seeing, you seem on the Inquiring side, or Ne.
Noticing plot holes in the story I am being fed in a theory/movie/book, is what I do. This is something I quite enjoy actually. Of course I do consider how it matches up to external evidence, but it's not so much about testing a rule or measuring the theory or whatever. I just want the story/theory to explain the facts (external evidence) in a logically self-consistent way without "cheating", IE without making logical back flips or hoops when that explanation meets evidence that is not consistent with it. Generally, even if the theory cannot be empirically tested, I am generally satisfied if it can explain the given facts self-consistently. For this reason, it is extremely disappointing to me to discover plot-holes in movies, because it kind of ruins the larger story for me.
At first, "plot holes" made me think of Ni, because Ni often fills in "what's missing" from a pattern. But this, again, draws from the unconscious. (Again, Ne is also called unconscious, and both N in general, and introversion of any function were considered by Jung as "unconscious", so again, this makes it hard to tell Ne from Ni, but the key is where the perception comes from). You seem to be about Inquiring, or matching or filling in objects. So the conceptualization is externally oriented.
This inspiration is like an inner spontaneous drive to follow a certain trail of thought without being sure where it leads at that exact moment, to let it dance from one thought to another and when I write this way, it's my best, in fact, this is how I CREATE my paper or build it.
This sounds like Ne "brainstorming", and even though you said it was inner, all the functions will have some inner aspect, since they are within our own processing. But it still seems to be dealing with comparitive
objects, like "from one to another". Ni is usually described differently than that, though again, there will be similarities. Ni doesn't seem to be so well marked in terms of "objects" (even if these in this example are technically "internal" ones), so it us usually expressed as symbols, for lack of better terminology.
[MENTION=23583]21lux[/MENTION], that first post about preserving is so interesting!!! There are things I do like to go back to from my past, though not so much from my childhood. Say for example certain TV shows I will keep going back to every few months or every few years. I have rewatched them many times. I guess I am trying to recapture the experience/mood of when I first watched it. For example, every few years or months I will rewatch Gilmore girls. Sometimes it's Friends. Or Being Erica. When I find a restaurant I like, i tend to keep going back to it. Perhaps this is Si in my inferior. For me what i am describing is not about preserving what I got from childhood perse...I honestly couldn't care less...but it is about recreating the original feeling/experience even if it was first had as an adult.
This again sounds like Inquiring, with Si likely as the inferior or "aspirational" function (If you're 32, it might be starting to develop that way, and yet it would still explain the other post, of you still not being good with Si stuff).
What makes me doubt entp? People, people, people and values....they have always been VERY important to me (Which is why I assumed I must be nf)...Then again, so has truth!
Fe would be tertiary, and should be somewhat conscious by now (if still a bit immature), plus being a female will also tend to push someone toward traditional "feeling" behavior. I find female T's with tertiary Feeling (either attitude) do look a lot like Feeler at times.
Plus, there is also Interaction Styles (theother main model of Berens), which use the old classic temperament dimension of "people vs task" (which went along with introversion/extroversion). So both NP's and SF's are "informative", which is "people"-focused, and generally means more responsive to others, and generally softer in communcation. In some versions of classic temperament (the theories using the old "humour" names), it also indicates a higher "want" of interaction from people.
So that may also explain what you describe. And again, especally for a female. This often leads to the anamaly of NTP's, the only informative Thinkers, to confuse as Feelers.
Another is that I do not consider myself enterpreneual in any pronounced way. I am kind of slow in life actually. And I do not generally feel a twitch to go out and "explore" though when I do, I certainly enjoy the sights. I thought I was introverted because I have very little need to explore my environment. Even in my office, it takes me months after starting before visiting some places in the not so large building. Same thing as my neighbourhood. It takes me forever to get to know my physical environment beyond the most basic (my actual office where I sit or my house where I live).
The ways in which I am introverted, you mean? Here goes:
I am not at all outgoing. I almost have to be forced to "do stuff" through pressure from family or friends. I'm pretty boring by most peoples standards. I am very comfortable being by myself in my room or my own place.
It's often said that EN's might not always fit the classic portrayals of "extraversion" (which might be influenced by extraverted Sensing or Feeling), but I'm not so sure of that being a hard rule.
I do believe that in the classic sense, there is a graduated scale of I/E (the "Expressive" scale), where you can be a less expressive extravert.
Since ENP as an Interaction Style would correspond to the classic Sanguine temperament, on the social level, you could look at these variants to see if they fit:
Phlegmatic Sanguine in Inclusion
(the less expressive variant)
The Sanguine in Inclusion Temperament
(the pure, fully expressive version)
The Phlegmatic Supine in Inclusion
(an adjacent temperament that is even more reserved)
But the way I see it,
ENTP.
