u/Even-Broccoli7361

I was looking for some stealth games with fun mechanics. Here are what I've played so far,

1. Styx series
2. Dishonored series
3. Deus Ex (the newer two ones)
4. Mark of the Ninja
5. Aragami series
6. Shadow Tactics (all three)
7. Commandos series (older ones, till commandos 5)
8. Hitman series
9. Assassin's Creed series
10. Splinter cell: Blacklist
11. Thief 4 (but didn't like it too much, so left it unfinished)
12. Sniper Ghost Warrior
13. Batman Arkham Series
14. Alien Isolation
15. Metal Gear Solid
16. Far Cry series (if it counts)
17. Watch Dogs (first two ones)
18. A Plague Tale (if it counts)

I specifically liked Styx, Dishonored, Deus, and Shadow Tactics games because of having immersive style, that is to say, finishing missions in different ways.

So, have I run out of option or is there any other?

I was wondering where does Jung really fit in the dichotomy of psychology and philosophy. Of course, psychology is indeed preceded by philosophy, as one's described by James Hillman, Jung's student.

But do modern psychologists and/or neuroscientists take Jung seriously? I think Jung is caught in the trap where all psychological philosophers are trapped in, empirical philosophy. Jung's psychology is less of a psychology, not being backed up by any empirical verification, yet I would hesitate to call it pseudoscience as his works transcend psychology.

Jung is probably same as William James, who lands between philosophy and psychology, that is to say, writing on psychology from philosophical perspective.

Basically the question? Are most INFJs represented by the "Sage" archetype or "Seeker" or/and "Creator" also exist?

I was wondering how important is music to INFJ's lives? I think INFJs really have an obsession with music. That is not just about listening to music, but more about trying to connect to its underlying image through your worldviews.

I also read somewhere that Jung said music calls (awakens) the collective unconscious. If this is true, then it really explains INFJs' fondness for music. Also it explains why Nietzsche liked music so much who was typed as Ni-dom by Jung. Schopenhauer, though wasn't typed directly by Jung (but similar), also held music in highest esteem of aesthetic who appeared to be an INFJ. Wittgenstein, another possible INFJ, was also very passionate and did some analysis of music (i.e. Brahms) though himself not being a skilled musician.

I think INFJ's Ni, has really to do with music.

আমি মোটরসাইকেলের সাথে খুব একটা জড়িত না, কিন্তু সত্যি বলতে বুঝতেসি না কর নিয়ে মানুষের এত আপত্তি কেনো?

হ্যা এটা হতে পারে করের মাত্রা বেশি কিংবা করের টাকা আদৌ জনগণের কাজে লাগবে কিনা। কিন্তু গাড়ির মত মোটরসাইকেলের কর হলে সমস্যা কী? হ্যা, বলতে পারেন, জীবিকা বা প্রয়েজনে মানুষ মোটরসাইকেল কিনে। কিন্তু কম দামী মানে, ১১০ সিসি এর নিচে তো আর কর দিতে হচ্ছে না। যেই লোক ৩ বা ৪ লাখ টাকার বেশি মোটরসাইকেল কিনছে নিশ্চয় তার জন্য ঐ মোটরসাইকেল জীবিকা বা প্রয়েজনের থেকে বেশি কিছু, লাইক Show-Off. দামী বাইক কিনলে কর দিতে সমস্যা কী?

If any of you are familiar with the figure, Sigmund Freud, do you know, Carl Jung's most trusted student, Marie Louise Von Franz, identified Freud as an Fi-dom, possibly with high intuition (INFP).

>The inferiority of their extroverted thinking very often expresses itself in a certain monomania: they have actually only one or two thoughts with which they race through a tremendous amount of material. Jung always characterized the Freudian system as a typical example of extroverted thinking.
Jung never said anything about Freud’s type as a human being; he only pointed out in his books that Freud’s system represents extroverted thinking. What I add now is my own personal conviction, namely, that Freud himself was an introverted feeling type, and therefore his writings bear the characteristics of his inferior extroverted thinking. In all his works the basic ideas are few. With them he has raced through an enormous amount of material, and the whole system is completely oriented towards the outer object. If one reads biographical notes about Freud, one sees that as a person he had a most differentiated way of treating other people. He was an excellent analyst. He had also a kind of hidden “gentlemanliness,” which had a positive influence upon his patients and upon his surroundings. One must really in his case make a distinction between his theory and his personality as a human being. I think, from what one hears about him, that he belonged to the introverted feeling type.
- Lectures on Jung's Typology. Marie Louise Von Franz

This came to me as a surprise because, none of the typical characteristics of Fi fits to Freud, as Freud was largely plunged into heavy scientific stuff, which sets him apart from other possible INFPs (Fi-doms) - like Kierkegaard, Kafka, or Van Gogh, who's inner worlds were driven more by artistic imaginations.

I see a lot of characteristics and traits of INFJs. But after digging into original Jungian works, including that of Myers, I noticed, INFJs are misrepresented.

For instance, Ni-doms, particularly INFJs, are depicted as idealists seeking to change the world, who could predict the future. People also tend to equate Ni to a function that summarizes patterns.

But, Jung originally equated Ni to a type represented by the artist, who has his inner visions and seems to express them in their art. I would say its more philosophical artistic ability rather than painting. The standard example of Ni is Nietzsche (used by Jung) who's philosophy speaks much of it. However, I think Nietzsche's Ni was supported with thinking (INTJ).

INFJ's, that is to say, Ni supported by feeling, is more about philosophizing art and aesthetics through various forms of expression. Dostoevsky, I believe, was an INFJ who used to express his psychological analysis through literature. Conversely, Wittgenstein, whom I too believe was an INFJ, used to write more in analytical tone to support his Ni.

The Gandhi like symbol of INFJ is somewhat wrong.

Originally posted it on the main sub, but later thought of writing it here too since seemed appropriate. The aim of this post is to highlight the original Jungian analysis of introverted thinking.

• Ti begins with the subject and leads back to the subject (far though it may range into the realm of actual reality) - Jung
• External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking (Ti) - Jung
• The normal introverted thinking type could be represented by Kant (I mentioned it because of Kantian like thinking which discloses the mystery of Ti) - Jung
• The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in developing ideas which approximate more and more to the eternal validity of the primordial images - Jung
• All philosophy is concerned with the logical processes of the human mind, with the building up of ideas. This is the realm where introverted thinking is mostly at work - Franz
• It creates theories for their own sake, apparently with an eye to real or at least possible facts, but always with a distinct tendency to slip over from the world of ideas into mere imagery - Jung
• The inferior feeling of a thinking type shows either very good or very bad taste - Franz
• With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending - Jung

All of it could be found in Psychological Types of Jung's, and Von Franz's lectures on Jung's typology.

I hear its an Ne thing. But recently after reading original Jungian analysis, am thinking having too many interests is not limited to Ne. Even an Ni person could have many interests, but where Ne and Ni differs is how each their interests are oriented to.

Anyway was thinking if other INFJs also struggle with it.

Recently what I have realized is that, there is a good chance of pessimists being mistakenly equated to incels, particularly by the feminist community.

Lets say for instance, a person sees through "Devil's Laughter" so seeks chastity to guard against his sexual desires, which he sees as the starting point of "blind will". But ordinary people would not understand his reason and identify him as an incel who hates women and then withdraws himself.

Out of all the functions, I feel like Si is the most underestimated function followed by Fe. While Fi and Se are stereotyped quite often, they are discussed quite often unlike Si which is hardly ever discussed.

There are many reasons for it. Firstly it all starts with Jung himself, who doesn't give a proper description of Si. Even if I leave out his writing style, his writings on Ti and Te are phenomenal whereas he gives all those mythological, mystical, whimsical I mean psychedelic kinda tone of Si. Myers described Si quite well, but truth be told, her description of Si is kinda boring. Von Franz, the mediator between Jung and Myers, actually gives a somewhat better analysis of Si.

Nonetheless, another reason why Si is underappreciated is because of the hype of Ni, which is perceived as a psychic power. On top of that, all those mysterious, questionable surveys made Ni the special rare type, while putting Si on the list of mass culture. Besides, frequent link of Si to traditionalism and concrete materialis, made people underappreciate Si.

But, Si is not just the type where people only read details having good memory. Its a combination of data and their external links. Si is a function that is found among artists and authors. An Si dom, if well connected with his intuition, is perfectly capable of producing prophetic artistic works like any other function like Ni. Franz herself cited Thomas Mann as an example.

Though no direct examples are given, but I believe Si is perfectly capable of creating philosophical works too (all functions can) if has developed thinking or feeling. Hobbes and Confucius are good examples of Si (especially the latter), who made use of their Si to form philosophical views.

My personal opinion is that, Si makes its best uses in case of artistic productions like creating documentaries or writing historical novels.

I think the analogy of Ni convergence is slightly misleading, where people say Ni doms want to summarize different patterns into a single form. I think its misleading because, all introverted function have a tendency for it. Since, all introverted functions are concerned with the "subject', where the focus is on the one internal ground of the object, as opposed to its external form.

So, a Ti for instance, does the same thing as the Ni. Moreover, it makes Ni look like, it is reading data and then analyzing them towards a certain theory. But the reverse could be true. For instance, his analysis of external reality (data) is preceded by his prior internal thought (Ni to Se), where he thinks of the plan (topic) first and then sets up his points.

Although, its a difficult topic, but I think, Ni cannot be described accurately in any other way than the Collective unconscious symbols, where it relates to its subjective factor. In a more oversimplified way, it could be related to Platonic forms (higher forms). The problem however with this approach is that, it makes Ni look more special, where it has access to higher forms of truths, which wasn't the intention of Jung.

'১০ এর দশকে গড়ে ওঠা একজন হায়লি introverted ছেলে, আমি নেচারালি mainstream জিনিসের প্রতি আকৃষ্ট ছিলাম না। কিন্তু সে সময়ের কালচারের মানও এখনকারের থেকে বেশি মানসম্পন্ন মনে হয়।

ছোট একটা উদাহরণ দেই। যেমন, আমাদের সময়ের পোলাপাইনরা বিভিন্ন artistic, entertaining, আর comedian মিডিয়াম এর দিকে আকৃষ্ট ছিল। বলতে গেলে তাদের জীবন অনেক vibrant আর colorful ছিল। কিন্তু এখনকার ছেলে-মেয়েরা দেখি সব পড়াশুনা কেন্দ্রিক। তাদের সেলিব্রিটি মানে ঐ YouTube education instructors, তাদের উচ্ছাস, আনন্দ মানে ঐ একি জিনিস। সব কিছুতেই এখন খালি পড়াশুনা মানে একাডেমিক বিষয়। সবকিছুই এখন এককেন্দ্রিক। আগের মত ঐ colorful লাইফ আর দেখি না। সবকিছ এখন বেশি খ্যাত মনে হয়।

I know, it can appear in any type. But is there a certain association of unhealthy Ni to "God complex"? I mean, the feeing when one feels he is special, and he seems to exclude others from his style of thinking to separate him?

Because, I have experienced these from my frequent discussions with some INXJ types from different places (subs). This appeared to be somewhat overt in Ni supported with thinking, and covert in Ni with feeling, but the underlying attitude remains there.

I say this because (to be honest), I myself, have had this kind of feeling. But over time, have come to developed my Ni to get over it. I feel like Ni is a highly introspective function. But, when other functions are repressed too much, and the introspection is isolated, it leads to this.

Some of the most brilliant (possible) Ni dom philosophers I have seen - Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein etc. also seemed to suffer from this.

The thing is, I oftentimes observe things from the world (only a tiny part of it) and they create a sense of nostalgia (emotional visions) in me. However, the visions/nostalgias I see don't necessarily exist in reality. That is to say, the feeling I get where I see the imaginary vision through nostalgias, likely never happened. It (they) exists like as the underlying imaginary world of the existing events (or parts of the events).

Like for instance, if I see a random old building, I see an abstract form of family residents inside it which I never saw or knew. Likewise, when I see the sky and the bird, I see an inner vision of the world, where every event of time keeps flowing, while the observer (I) stand still.

Previously, I thought, it was introverted feeling. But, now I know, it can't be feeling, since in Jungian terminology feeling is about creating judgement from perceived information. What I am talking about seems more likely a perceiving function rather than judging function.

It might be Si (introverted sensing) too. But, here the imaginary scene doesn't really exist or likely never happened, even though it exists beneath the scenes that triggered the nostalgia. Sensing, particularly Si, still perceives its visions which have their existence in reality (according to Von Franz and Myers, at least).

The thing is, I oftentimes observe things from the world (only a tiny part of it) and they create a sense of nostalgia (emotional visions) in me. However, the visions/nostalgias I see don't necessarily exist in reality. That is to say, the feeling I get where I see the imaginary vision through nostalgias, likely never happened. It (they) exists like as the underlying imaginary world of the existing events (or parts of the events).

Like for instance, if I see a random old building, I see an abstract form of family residents inside it which I never saw or knew. Likewise, when I see the sky and the bird, I see an inner vision of the world, where every event of time keeps flowing, while the observer (I) stand still.

Previously, I thought, it was introverted feeling. But, now I know, it can't be feeling, since in Jungian terminology feeling is about creating judgement from perceived information. What I am talking about seems more likely a perceiving function rather than judging function.

It might be Si (introverted sensing) too. But, here the imaginary scene doesn't really exist or likely never happened, even though it exists beneath the scenes that triggered the nostalgia. Sensing, particularly Si, still perceives its visions which have their existence in reality (according to Von Franz and Myers, at least).

Being a Gen-z, I grew up listening to bands like Artcell, Aurthohin, Warfaze etc, which are probably some of the earliest bands Gen-Z rock fans listened to. For a long time, I thought '90s created the foundation of modern rock music of Bangladesh. But then discovered, Feedback quite some time ago, which released albums in the '80s.

It appeared to be a popular band among the early generation. But one thing I noticed is their integration of synth instrument which created the path for 2000s Bangladeshi alt rock and recent indie-new wave pop music.

So, was wondering how popular is the band Feedback among the youths?

Here is the thing, I don't think the attitude of auxiliary function matter. Jung never clearly defined the role of auxiliary function, Myers did by quoting Jung. However, in none of the quotes it clearly pointed towards the case that the attitude of the auxiliary function must be opposite of dominant function's.

Personally, I think it makes little sense whether your auxiliary function is extroverted or introverted. Lets say for instance, if you are Ni or Si dom, where your dominant function is introverted, your preference for auxiliary function must always come as a subordination of the dominant function. Hence, even if your auxiliary function is extroverted it must be regulated under your dominant function. So, an IXFJs Fe is highly internalized, likewise an IXTJs Te is internalized.

The thing here is that, auxiliary function can never act as the function where it remains dominant. For instance, an INTP's Ne or an ISTP's Se, would never work like an ENTP's Ne or ESTP's Se, since it is already lower in preference.

Well, if one ever picked up cognitive function theory then he might already know feeling (both Fi and Fe) is considered to be a rational function too alongside thinking (Ti and Te). But isn't it odd that if feeling is the opposite of thinking and thinking means logic, then feeling means subjectivity and irrationality? Well, no. Its because, that definately is not what feeling is about - emotions. Feeling also cannot be reduced to mere sensitivity or empathy/sympathy dichotomy as opposed to thinking. This, I am going to explain with easiest possible ways.

But before it, let me quote from Carl Jung (I found Myers's definitions very unsophisticated),

>Feeling, like thinking, is a rational (q.v.) function, since values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason, just as concepts in general are formed according to these laws

This is the direct hint where Jung says feeling is also rational. To give it a clearer account, I present another quote. This is a quote on Fe and Te (which is applicable to Fi and Ti too for our current discussion)

>I call the two preceding types [Fe and Te] rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a great extent, subordinated to rational judgment. But we have to consider whether by “rational” we are speaking from the standpoint of the individual’s subjective psychology or from that of the observer, who perceives and judges from without.

Note here, Jung here uses the term rational and judging interchangeably. And now, to finally quote Jung,

>The rational is the reasonable, that which accords with reason. I conceive reason as an attitude (q.v.) whose principle it is to conform thought, feeling, and action to objective values. Objective values are established by the everyday experience of external facts on the one hand, and of inner, psychological facts on the other. Such experiences, however, could not represent objective “values” if they were “valued” as such by the subject, for that would already amount to an act of reason. The rational attitude which permits us to declare objective values as valid at all is not the work of the individual subject, but the product of human history.

So, here Jung gives a better account of the idea of rationality. So, to explain, we have to get rid of the old misinterpreted definition of Thinking = logic, and Feeling = emotions. This is where everything gets messed up.

The rationality (logic) we talk about, the tool to search for a metaphysical truth, is the topic of philosophy not psychology. Here Jung (although he himself is acting like a philosopher), says, the metaphysical truth is attained through countless philosophical discussions from the philosophical lines and discussions (i.e. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes). But here what Jung means by rational is the capacity to "judge". That means here the person already creates his own system and acts according to his "values". It is cognitive process we are talking about, not logic of analytic philosophy.

But now comes the real part. When one can get rid of the misconception of thinking = logic, he can understand why feeling too is rational. Very plainly speaking, thinking means, trying to create a systematic framework of human judgement (values). Which obeys the laws of the judgement (values). Hence, thinking acts according to the "values", not against it. And feeling is what those "values" ground upon. So, to put it simply, feeling functions lay down the ground of "values" whereas "thinking" function helps establishing theories from them.

For instance, Ti says, all adult sane people should vote for the government. But what if I do not vote, after all, I am just one person*?* Here comes the catch. The Ti will say, the person may be thinking he is just one person, but hundreds of other people like him will think the same and in the end no one will come to vote at all. So, the people, the community and the entire social organization here is served as the object for "value" where Ti is deriving his laws. And here for the Ti, the counterpart of "objective value" (extroverted function) would be Fe.

Likewise, if Te says we ought to establish justice, maintain peace and harmony, hence create laws to protect human life. But the very idea of importance of human life comes from his underlying "value" which motivates him to seek (establish) laws. That is to say, if there are no people, there are no laws either. Here, Te's counterpart is Fi, from where the objective laws are derived from subject's individuality.

Now, one could say, what's the point of dominant and inferior functions? A person with Te-Fi axis will always think same regardless of his dominant or inferior function. Same is true for Ti-Fe axis too. Here, is the thing. All human beings use judging axes of the functions - Ti-Fe or Te-Fi. It is what he prioritizes from where any dominant cognitive function appears.

So, say for instance, if an Fi-dom prefers anarchy over authoritarian government, he will still try to look into his Te to justify his claim even if he is doing it unconsciously. Whereas, if a Te dom supports an authoritarian government over anarchy, he will still be looking for individual values through his Fi unconsciously (Note - Jung equates inferior function almost closer to unconscious function).

I hope it helps.