PDA

View Full Version : Comparing Ni and Ne



Resonance
07-03-2011, 05:16 PM
I know the question of what distinguishes Ne from Ni comes up a lot and everyone has different perspectives, so if nothing else just post your own idea of what it is, and we can see about discussing and at least make sure everyone's perspectives are out there so we can pick what seems 'right' to us.

There are probably some older threads on the topic, but I looked through some pages and only saw more specialized discussions.

----

The reason I'm wondering about this is because I've pretty much 'locked in' that I use Fe with people IRL and Ti for analysis/debates/work/etc, regardless of what meaning I'm going by. And N has always been unquestionably tops. So that leaves either Ni-Fe-Ti-Se (INFJ) or Ne-Ti-Fe-Se (ENTP).

Based on my apparent overuse of Ti, many people want to pin me as ENTP. But on the other hand, a lot of comparisons consist of "Ni-Te" vs "Ne-Ti" interactions - in debates and humour and so on, so it's hard to discern where Ti ends and some sort of N begins. I'd rather leave it up to a more general examination of Ni vs. Ne, because I feel like that's really the crux of the difference. In my case, I'm interested in the interactions of Ni-Fe, Ni-Ti, Ne-Ti, and Ne-Fe, but the inverse is probably relevant to some other people so by all means, go all-out.

For this reason, please don't just post "You seem [type/function] to me" unless it will help contextualize your explanation.

Anew Leaf
07-03-2011, 05:21 PM
Ne is random, tangential, and follows it's own bizarre path through the shrubbery maze. Ne is the idea generator that comes up with hundreds, thousands, millions of possibilities. Ne likes/needs something else to play with it to be at its best.

Ni goes it alone. Walks into the swarming cloud of ideas and plucks one (at seemingly random to the Ne observer) and says, "This is the right one." And by gum, it usually is the right one.

Lady_X
07-03-2011, 05:30 PM
it is hard to imagine not knowing if you were infj or entp...they seem sooo different to me....infjs are like the all knowing oracle...sitting there all poised with pure eloquence spilling from their lips...while ne doms are spazzy lil plate spinners telling jokes and doing tricks.

INTP
07-03-2011, 05:38 PM
Ne




Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was [p. 462] 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay in the object.

Just as sensation, when given the priority, is not a mere reactive process of no further importance for the object, but is almost an action which seizes and shapes the object, so it is with intuition, which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out. But, because this process extracts the perception unconsciously, it also produces an unconscious effect in the object. The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways. Such images have the value of definite discernments, and have a decisive bearing upon action, whenever intuition is given the chief weight; in which case, psychic adaptation is based almost exclusively upon intuition. Thinking, feeling, and sensation are relatively repressed; of these, sensation is the one principally affected, because, as the conscious function of sense, it offers the greatest obstacle to intuition. Sensation disturbs intuition's clear, unbiased, naive awareness with its importunate sensuous stimuli; for these direct the glance upon the physical superficies, hence upon the very things round and beyond which intuition tries to peer. But since intuition, in the extraverted attitude, has a prevailingly objective orientation, it actually comes very near to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude towards outer objects may, with almost equal probability, avail itself of sensation. Hence, for intuition really to become paramount, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is [p. 463] orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision. They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive's unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, appearing to the intuitive's consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so.

Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because only thus can the appearance of a complete life be created, so intuition tries to encompass the greatest possibilities, since only through the awareness of possibilities is intuition fully satisfied. Intuition seeks to discover possibilities in the objective situation; hence as a mere tributary function (viz. when not in the position of priority) it is also the instrument which, in the presence of a hopelessly blocked situation, works automatically towards the issue, which no other function could discover. Where intuition has the priority, every ordinary situation in life seems like a closed room, which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking outlets and fresh possibilities in external life. In a very short time every actual situation becomes a prison to the intuitive; it burdens him like a chain, prompting a compelling need for solution. At times objects would seem to have an almost exaggerated value, should they chance to represent the idea of a severance or release that might lead to the discovery of a new possibility. Yet no sooner have they performed their office, serving intuition as a ladder or a bridge, than they [p. 464] appear to have no further value, and are discarded as mere burdensome appendages. A fact is acknowledged only in so far as it opens up fresh possibilities of advancing beyond it and of releasing the individual from its operation. Emerging possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed.

Ni


Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.

Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervation disturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.

Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type.

The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive. To the one just as much as to the other, it is an aesthetic problem, a question of perception, a 'sensation'. In this way, the consciousness of his own bodily existence fades from the introverted intuitive's view, as does its effect upon others. The extraverted standpoint would say of him: 'Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless fantasies'. A perception of the unconscious images, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility. But, since these images represent possible ways of viewing life, which in given circumstances have the power to provide a new energic potential, this function, which to the outer world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel.

Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are [p. 508] represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates.

Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things.

Ginkgo
07-03-2011, 05:46 PM
I know the question of what distinguishes Ne from Ni comes up a lot and everyone has different perspectives, so if nothing else just post your own idea of what it is, and we can see about discussing and at least make sure everyone's perspectives are out there so we can pick what seems 'right' to us.

There are probably some older threads on the topic, but I looked through some pages and only saw more specialized discussions.

----

The reason I'm wondering about this is because I've pretty much 'locked in' that I use Fe with people IRL and Ti for analysis/debates/work/etc, regardless of what meaning I'm going by. And N has always been unquestionably tops. So that leaves either Ni-Fe-Ti-Se (INFJ) or Ne-Ti-Fe-Se (ENTP).

Based on my apparent overuse of Ti, many people want to pin me as ENTP. But on the other hand, a lot of comparisons consist of "Ni-Te" vs "Ne-Ti" interactions - in debates and humour and so on, so it's hard to discern where Ti ends and some sort of N begins. I'd rather leave it up to a more general examination of Ni vs. Ne, because I feel like that's really the crux of the difference. In my case, I'm interested in the interactions of Ni-Fe, Ni-Ti, Ne-Ti, and Ne-Fe, but the inverse is probably relevant to some other people so by all means, go all-out.

For this reason, please don't just post "You seem [type/function] to me" unless it will help contextualize your explanation.

Do you think that you're "overusing" Ti simply because your preference for it is atypical, or because it's not helping you grow as a human being?

---------------------------------

Intuition is concerned with possibilities. It possesses a subjective element in that it calls upon the energy of imagination, reading in between the lines, and toying with assumptions. Jung described intuition as a conduit between the conscious and the unconscious because it functions to perceive "random" ideas in spite of the already established.

The difference between introverted intuition and extraverted intuition is that... Well, this topic has been debated to the point of smoldering because intuition defies fixed perceptions and definitions.

I think Saturned has the right idea.

From Ne, we would island hop from one idea to the next, at times not even pursuing a single one to the very end. This is because Ne is so general that you're not going to stay on a single I'm going to go play Left 4 Dead 2 ... :D

The thing about Ni, and why it is so accurate, is that it's precise and that it abstracts:

Abstraction. A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of differentiation. (Compare empathy.)

Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 678.]

Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).

I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]

To the extent that its purpose is to break the object's hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of participation mystique.

So Ni is going to find diamonds in the rough. Personal significance through symbolism. Disregarding distraction, much unlike Ne.

guesswho
07-03-2011, 05:47 PM
Ne is funnier.

Ginkgo
07-03-2011, 05:48 PM
Ne



Ni

Thanks.

Anew Leaf
07-03-2011, 05:53 PM
P.S. for what it's worth, you seem far more likely as an INFJ than an ENTP.

Ginkgo
07-03-2011, 05:58 PM
Jung's definitions are excruciatingly pedantic. I don't think I would have the patience, though I admire the work.

So here's something interesting about Ni:


Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.

That means to Ni, objects themselves are essentially static. You uncover their meaning, mold them to your own vision and move on. Extraverted intuition would have the temptation to mold the object itself and discover the object's potential.

Resonance
07-03-2011, 06:15 PM
Ne is random, tangential, and follows it's own bizarre path through the shrubbery maze. Ne is the idea generator that comes up with hundreds, thousands, millions of possibilities. Ne likes/needs something else to play with it to be at its best.

Ni goes it alone. Walks into the swarming cloud of ideas and plucks one (at seemingly random to the Ne observer) and says, "This is the right one." And by gum, it usually is the right one.
Hrm...but couldn't 'plucking one' also symbolize Ne-Ti or Ne-Fi - that is, thinking of as many possibilities as possible and picking the best one according to what they think the criteria are(T)/what their criteria are(F)?


it is hard to imagine not knowing if you were infj or entp...they seem sooo different to me....infjs are like the all knowing oracle...sitting there all poised with pure eloquence spilling from their lips...while ne doms are spazzy lil plate spinners telling jokes and doing tricks.
You'd think, but that's just the archetypes. In practice they are quite similar if their tertiary is developed - Ti-Fe for ENTPs, and Fe-Ti for INFJs. The difference is, supposedly, in 'how' their idea platform (N) works.


Intuition is concerned with possibilities. It possesses a subjective element in that it calls upon the energy of imagination, reading in between the lines, and toying with assumptions. Jung described intuition as a conduit between the conscious and the unconscious because it functions to perceive "random" ideas in spite of the already established.

The difference between introverted intuition and extraverted intuition is that... Well, this topic has been debated to the point of smoldering because intuition defies fixed perceptions and definitions.
haha, yes, I noticed >.> but still, I think we can get at it somehow, especially if many different people of different types share their experiences of it, so that we can get an all-angles view.

I think Saturned has the right idea.

From Ne, we would island hop from one idea to the next, at times not even pursuing a single one to the very end. This is because Ne is so general that you're not going to stay on a single I'm going to go play Left 4 Dead 2 ... :D

The thing about Ni, and why it is so accurate, is that it's precise and that it abstracts:

Abstraction. A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of differentiation. (Compare empathy.)

Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 678.]

Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).

I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]

To the extent that its purpose is to break the object's hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of participation mystique.

So Ni is going to find diamonds in the rough. Personal significance through symbolism. Disregarding distraction, much unlike Ne.

Jung's definitions are excruciatingly pedantic. I don't think I would have the patience, though I admire the work.
Oof. I've been told that Jung's Psychological Types isn't really useful outside the context of his whole bibliography, because a lot of these concepts like 'symbolic' and 'energic devaluation' are more rigorously explored and defined in his other books - this particular chapter which everyone references is full of idiosyncrasies that can lead us astray of his intended meaning :s

Would one say that Ni 'snags' on certain ideas? or is that again a combination of N with a judging function.

Ne is funnier.
vOv

P.S. for what it's worth, you seem far more likely as an INFJ than an ENTP.
Thanks :s

Do you think that you're "overusing" Ti simply because your preference for it is atypical, or because it's not helping you grow as a human being?
Because I don't really prefer it... I use it a lot because it's my main way of putting things into terms that others can understand, and of keeping my imagination in check. Fe is a lot more fun/interesting/natural to me, when I'm not a zombie. (lol did not see your L4D analogy before typing this)

INTP
07-03-2011, 06:15 PM
also Ni(like all introverted functions) can do this:


Abstraction
A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of differentiation. (Compare empathy.)


"Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general. There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition. Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components. Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 678.]"

Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).

"I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]"

To the extent that its purpose is to break the object’s hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of participation mystique.

and Ne(like all extraverted functions) can do this:


Empathy
An introjection of the object, based on the unconscious projection of subjective contents. (Compare identification.)


"Empathy presupposes a subjective attitude of confidence, or trustfulness towards the object. It is a readiness to meet the object halfway, a subjective assimilation that brings about a good understanding between subject and object, or at least simulates it. ["The Type Problem in Aesthetics," CW 6, par. 489.]"

In contrast to abstraction, associated with introversion, empathy corresponds to the attitude of extraversion.

"The man with the empathetic attitude finds himself . . . in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself. [ Ibid., par. 492.]"

Ginkgo
07-03-2011, 06:54 PM
My Ne manifests itself usually in the form of imagining plausible dialogue between people. It's kind of like having a cushion between you, the observer, and the possibilities that lay out there over the rainbow. I imagine that cushion and those things in many different fashions, and can make assumptions based on what can be observed even elsewhere. It's all a fabric of teaming life. I frequently think globally; walking to the general store stokes imaginings of what shop keepers are keeping in their basements on the other side of the earth. Watching a presentation rouses suspicion about the motives of the people involved, what their underlying technique is, and how they came to be where they are. The audience consists of it's own demographic, meshed into the scheme of larger people, and ideas will surface about how these people relate. We speak. Communication winds around cognition and affect. What do they feel, why? How do they think? What images are recorded in their minds' eye? How drastically do they differ under different contexts? Where's the inspiration of a novel derived from? Contents; are they original? Is anything original? Is the colloquial "originality" just a rehash of so many particular recycled ideas that it's reshaped into the seemingly original? Why does that lady have a machine gun for legs? Are you insulting my intelligence by expecting me to be appealed by this nonsense? Do you have a messiah complex? Mister director, do you know what it's like being in this man-goat costume in 117 degree weather? It's like living in Gila Monster turd. Please, if you've had any experience being an actor, empathize with the crew here. I know I'm risking my job in being this upfront with you, seeing as you're an asshole and all, but it's for the good of the project. Fantasia Babes 4000 needs to be a blockbuster. I need this to put food on the table. Times are hard, and it's understandable that you have a stick clinging to the ribs of your colon, chaffing away at the tissue like a grain of sand chaffes at the vulnerable underbelly of a clam. We French don't listen to reason. I demand a refund.

And so on.

the state i am in
07-03-2011, 08:58 PM
Ne = cut and paste, quoted responses
Ni = very selective or just responding holistically

Lady_X
07-03-2011, 09:07 PM
well that's not true at all really is it?

skylights
07-03-2011, 09:10 PM
^ i think it's kind of true-ish, but it makes Ne sound like a preschool activity while Ni sounds like something godly.

anyway. guys. Ne is not random. it draws off the present stimuli in your environment. this includes all abstractions and concepts, therefore it may seem unrelated to the "issue at hand", but you can clearly trace the path back to where the concept has come from because it will be in your past, your future, or something in the present that has cued you to the idea. like all extraverted functions, Ne draws from the environment outside your head. it may also seem random because you will juxtapose ideas from the "issue at hand" to other ideas you have been cued to by factors in the environment, and synthesize new ideas from there. right now, IRL, there's a red book on the table in front of me, and the fireplace beyond that. the book plus fireplace makes me think of burning books, which makes me think of dumb things to burn, which makes me think of sati (an ancient indian practice of a wife jumping (or being pushed) into her husband's funeral pyre.) so sati, random, right? except, as you can see, it's totally not at all. everything connects back.

i will let the Ni doms share Ni specifics, because i imagine i would use wording unfamiliar to them (just as the state i'm in's "cut and paste" would never be something i would use to describe Ne...)

((ps - i usually find Ni jokes not funny, that might be a good litmus test ;) ))

uumlau
07-03-2011, 09:26 PM
Here are a few things that I've found help distinguish Ni and Ne in a practical sense.

Ne strives to think outside the box. Ni instead tries out lots of different boxes.

Ne is really good at figuring out innovative ways to achieve a goal. Ni instead figures out that the goal isn't the real goal, then finds an easy path to the new goal.

Ne, being extroverted (i.e., objective), tends to think in terms of the universe being made of objects. Ni thinks in terms of the universe being made of processes.

Consider the typical description of a movie: that it's a bunch of static images that are flashed rapidly in sequence so as to produce the illusion of motion. To Ni, the static images are the illusion, they reflect nothing real that you would see in the universe, e.g., a drop of water in the middle of splashing on the ground, perfectly still. The static images are the illusion, that if you flash them rapidly in sequence, create an image of reality.

Not that it is impossible for either Ne or Ni to not think of objects or not think of processes. Rather, it is the Ni tendency to aim perception at processes in particular, with objects as secondary. Ne is more interested in universal abstractions, and thus tends to favor more "static" models that tend to ignore processes. So when understanding the current state of a system is more important, Ne will appear to be more insightful, and when understanding the evolution of a system is more important, Ni will appear to be more insightful. If both are important, Ne and Ni types can gain a lot of mutual insight by sharing perspectives.

the state i am in
07-03-2011, 09:31 PM
huh, that was intended to be a minute, single feature of identifying p vs j responding styles.

i'm just saying p users are more likely to find quotes and then respond to them individually whereas j users are more likely to respond without that stage in sharing context. an entp girl told me when i needed help writing papers to just pull out important quotations and connect them and let the picture build itself. my tendency would be to write the paper and then find sources (because my process to build the context i want often doesn't have the same kind of natural traces and tangible sense of exploration). this could also be more specifically related to Ne-Ti vs Ni-Fe, but it seems relevant in the Ne dom thread (with onemoretime, q:re us, and orobas all demonstrating the pattern). and it at least seems to fit with the notion of extraverted perception more generally.

Resonance
07-03-2011, 09:52 PM
How much of this is Ne and how much of it is ADHD?

http://www.scatteredminds.com/ch2.htm

Ginkgo
07-03-2011, 10:14 PM
How much of this is Ne and how much of it is ADHD?

http://www.scatteredminds.com/ch2.htm

May overlap, may not. Just depends on the person. ADD may overlap with other functions as well.

The central issue is that Ne is a cognitive function and ADD is a learning disorder. Yes, they bare similarities. But ADD also bares similarities with introverted functions, being detached from what is going on outside yourself and concerned with your own little mental business. Bares similarities with extraverted functions as well, and the behaviors normally associated.

Also, I have severe adult ADD. Holy shit.

Resonance
07-03-2011, 10:15 PM
May overlap, may not. Just depends on the person. ADD may overlap with other functions as well.

The central issue is that Ne is a cognitive function and ADD is a learning disorder. Yes, they bare similarities. But ADD also bares similarities with introverted functions, being detached from what is going on outside yourself and concerned with your own little mental business. Bares similarities with extraverted functions as well, and the behaviors normally associated.

Also, I have severe adult ADD. Holy shit.
Happy birthday.

jixmixfix
07-04-2011, 03:15 PM
I know a girl who is an ENTP and she told me she needs to take medications for ADHD. I would of told though that she wasn't ADHD she was just an entp but then she would of thought I was some kind of weirdo. :shrug:

Esoteric Wench
07-04-2011, 03:38 PM
I'm still getting my head around the differences between Ni and Ne, but it seems that a major difference would be how each was energized. Just like any introverted / extraverted function, introversion gets its energy from introspection and reflection. Extraversion gets its energy from interacting with others.

Let me tell you how my dominant Ne feels to me: I live for finding new, interesting, cool ideas/people/things. This is what really energizes me. I completely love finding a new and interesting person who turns me on to something new and fascinating. This is what gives me energy. And, when I'm energized like this, all I want to do is go out and find more inspiring ideas/people/things. Also, I will ruminate on the connections and patterns I see. It seems like everything is perceive is part of a greater cosmic pattern. My ability to see the connections and patterns out there is so profound it's almost painful. I can't shut it off.

Ni in contrast: My best understanding of Ni (please correct me Ni users if I've got this wrong) is that while Ni sees the connections and the possibilities, too, Ni is more about ruminating on these privately. What energizes Ni is this ruminative process.

So my question to the OPer is which energizes you more? Or maybe it's easier for you to identify which drains your energy more? Interaction with others or internal rumination. Of course, you'll do both, but one is more energizing for you than the other.

Anew Leaf
07-04-2011, 03:55 PM
I know a girl who is an ENTP and she told me she needs to take medications for ADHD. I would of told though that she wasn't ADHD she was just an entp but then she would of thought I was some kind of weirdo. :shrug:

I actually agree with this. Most of my Ne-dom friends and family have had people ask them if they have ADHD at some point, or had teachers try to get them on meds.

My nephew is 3 and I think he is an ENTP in training just because everything he does is so Ne. My dad watched him one weekend, went into his bedroom to check on him, and discovered that Isaiah had taken apart his lamp. lol. When he saw my dad he looked up and said, "It just happened!" with this surprised look on his face. He's insanely curious about everything, explores it all on his own, comes up with his own little theories on why things are they way they are. Luckily his dad is an ENTP so his response is just "yeah.... he's me at that age...." And they encourage his explorations. I'll be curious to see how he turns out later.

jixmixfix
07-04-2011, 05:15 PM
I actually agree with this. Most of my Ne-dom friends and family have had people ask them if they have ADHD at some point, or had teachers try to get them on meds.

My nephew is 3 and I think he is an ENTP in training just because everything he does is so Ne. My dad watched him one weekend, went into his bedroom to check on him, and discovered that Isaiah had taken apart his lamp. lol. When he saw my dad he looked up and said, "It just happened!" with this surprised look on his face. He's insanely curious about everything, explores it all on his own, comes up with his own little theories on why things are they way they are. Luckily his dad is an ENTP so his response is just "yeah.... he's me at that age...." And they encourage his explorations. I'll be curious to see how he turns out later.

He could be any XXTP it seems, he sounds like he has strong Ti to me. I remember always playing with lego and video games as a kid. I always wanted those mini toy battery cars you drive around but never got one.:dry:

Resonance
07-05-2011, 04:39 AM
I know a girl who is an ENTP and she told me she needs to take medications for ADHD. I would of told though that she wasn't ADHD she was just an entp but then she would of thought I was some kind of weirdo. :shrug:
No, ADD is a real affliction. And I'm sure not all ENTPs have it. You can basically compare the socionics ILE to the MBTI ENTP to get an idea of the difference.

I actually agree with this. Most of my Ne-dom friends and family have had people ask them if they have ADHD at some point, or had teachers try to get them on meds.

My nephew is 3 and I think he is an ENTP in training just because everything he does is so Ne. My dad watched him one weekend, went into his bedroom to check on him, and discovered that Isaiah had taken apart his lamp. lol. When he saw my dad he looked up and said, "It just happened!" with this surprised look on his face. He's insanely curious about everything, explores it all on his own, comes up with his own little theories on why things are they way they are. Luckily his dad is an ENTP so his response is just "yeah.... he's me at that age...." And they encourage his explorations. I'll be curious to see how he turns out later.
lol, it's pretty much impossible to type a child before they start forming their own identities (teenagehood). Their activities are much more shaped by their environment and the interactions they get with their parents than by personality at that age.

jixmixfix
07-05-2011, 05:19 AM
No, ADD is a real affliction. And I'm sure not all ENTPs have it. You can basically compare the socionics ILE to the MBTI ENTP to get an idea of the difference.

lol, it's pretty much impossible to type a child before they start forming their own identities (teenagehood). Their activities are much more shaped by their environment and the interactions they get with their parents than by personality at that age.

ADD and ADHD medications are over prescribed especially to children and teenagers. Children begin to develop their personality at a very young age at about 3 or 4 y/o so yes you can type a child maybe not all out in full MBTI fashion, but you can get an idea whether they are introverted or extroverted etc.

Resonance
07-05-2011, 05:23 AM
ADD and ADHD medications are over prescribed especially to children and teenagers.
I disagree, they help a lot even in conjunction with other treatments. but I do think they should be used as a supplement to environmental treatment, not a substitute.

Children begin to develop their personality at a very young age at about 3 or 4 y/o so yes you can type a child maybe not all out in full MBTI fashion, but you can get an idea whether they are introverted or extroverted etc.
yeh, you're right that some temperament traits are pretty obvious from early on, but for example they have very little capacity for abstract reasoning until age 7 or 8 usually, and that keeps developing well into teenagehood. :s

Orobas
07-05-2011, 07:58 PM
Let me try this...for Ne which links to Si...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3VGfpE3OnBQ/ThNqpRXYGWI/AAAAAAAAACo/W57wlSXLin4/s1600/Slide1.JPG

On the surface there are hops from subject 1 to subject 2 with no seeming connectivity, very quickly. It seems disjointed and in the moment. I marked these topics as Ne1, Ne2, Ne3, and Ne4.

As an example I might start talking about type expression at work (Ne1), suddenly mention type and communication (Ne2), then start telling a story about my ex-husband (Ne3), and then start talking about buying a new car (Ne4)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3aQynvlIrLY/ThNqtBQKZEI/AAAAAAAAACs/sj2WmLo29G4/s1600/Slide23.jpg


Underneath the Ne hops are actually riding along an Si framework of pre-established facts/ideas/judgment values/observations-universal truths already known and understood. The Si serves as a foundation. For Ne doms this would be TiSi or FiSi, however you would also see formation of TeSi and FeSi foundations as well.

Wen young the Si is fairly il defined, but as we age, it becomes much more resolved and strongly adhered to. Thus even as we hop from subject to subject externally, we strongly adhere to our internal Si known truths.

Part of Ne effective communication may require that the two parties share fairly similar Si frameworks. Since Si is described as part of the collective unconsciousness, if two people use the same judging function, then it seems many of their Si rules may be fairly similar.

Thus communication between two Ne-Si users will be back and forth calibration to allow for subtle modifications/realignments of the Si database via exchange of Ne possibilities.

Anew Leaf
07-05-2011, 08:31 PM
No, ADD is a real affliction. And I'm sure not all ENTPs have it. You can basically compare the socionics ILE to the MBTI ENTP to get an idea of the difference.

lol, it's pretty much impossible to type a child before they start forming their own identities (teenagehood). Their activities are much more shaped by their environment and the interactions they get with their parents than by personality at that age.

Looking back at how I was when I was younger (2-8), I was definitely an INFP in training.

And JMF - I gotcha! I could see that as being Ti. :D Thanks for the input!

Lady_X
07-05-2011, 08:35 PM
No, ADD is a real affliction. And I'm sure not all ENTPs have it. You can basically compare the socionics ILE to the MBTI ENTP to get an idea of the difference.

lol, it's pretty much impossible to type a child before they start forming their own identities (teenagehood). Their activities are much more shaped by their environment and the interactions they get with their parents than by personality at that age.

totally disagree with ya there...some are freakin obvious from early on.

Stanton Moore
07-05-2011, 11:29 PM
Ne: Sex
Ni: Masturbation

darude11
07-06-2011, 06:38 PM
Ne watches forward for all of the possibilities how could the concrete situation end (He can ask me about holidays, He can spill his coffee, She can run into office, The radio will now play this or that song etc.)

Ni chooses ONE of those possibilities (He will now spill his coffee, because she will run into office, because she heard in the radio something about the place, where he was on vacation, knowing it, because I [Ni user] have heard it in the radio too.).

Well, but I have never met Ni, so let's assume that this is pure theory of readed content from internet.

onemoretime
07-06-2011, 07:01 PM
Ne: Why?
Ni: Why.

Lady_X
07-06-2011, 07:03 PM
^^ ha love that!

Thursday
07-06-2011, 11:24 PM
Think of Ni as a sniper-rifle and Ne as a shotgun
Ni as a funnel and Ne as a sprayer

shortnsweet
07-07-2011, 02:40 PM
Ne watches forward for all of the possibilities how could the concrete situation end (He can ask me about holidays, He can spill his coffee, She can run into office, The radio will now play this or that song etc.)

Ni chooses ONE of those possibilities (He will now spill his coffee, because she will run into office, because she heard in the radio something about the place, where he was on vacation, knowing it, because I [Ni user] have heard it in the radio too.).

Well, but I have never met Ni, so let's assume that this is pure theory of readed content from internet.

hahahaha. This kind of reminds me of a funny situation I had once. I was sitting up on some rocks with friends, (on a little peninsula area surrounded by oceans, rocks with a lot of tide pools in them) and a lady started walking towards us. And then I said, "wouldn't it be funny if that lady just fell into that tidepool?" (and she did!!!)

skylights
07-07-2011, 03:11 PM
^ :laugh:!

yeah. Ne sometimes ends up "predicting" the future too, cause we have a broad view of possibility.

shortnsweet
07-07-2011, 03:15 PM
^ :laugh:!

yeah. Ne sometimes ends up "predicting" the future too, cause we have a broad view of possibility.

I know. Even a broken clock predicts right twice a day. :laugh:

Asterion
07-07-2011, 04:05 PM
Ni puzzles me, peoples descriptions of it are always vague and incomprehensible. The way I'd define it would be that Ni may take something from outside and explore every notion it holds gain as much insight from it as possible. So you might say to an Ni user, "is that skim milk?" and they might stew on it wondering why you asked, "no, don't worry, I'm going to the gym later". Ne might be more like "nope, squeezed straight from a cows udder". Either function might take a more passive role if it's not dominant.

Lady_X
07-07-2011, 04:17 PM
ne does seem to answer things that would make sense in some absurd reality like yesterday i texted my boss on the way to work to let him know i was driving 5 miles an hour on the highway and he responded lol hat time then? and i said yes definitely hat time....not sure why that example came to mind but i think that's a ne thing...yes? haha

Chiharu
07-07-2011, 04:38 PM
Quick, simplified description I'm shamelessly paraphrasing from ENFP/INFJ youtube video... Ne users plan to say something simple, have a clear plan of what they want to say, then wind up rambling when they actually start to speak, because they're discovering new connections/ideas/possibilities as the speak. Ni users have a lot going on in their head, but when they speak their idea generally come out more clear/succinct.

Also, Ne manifests as a series or web of connected ideas (ie: blue... sky... birds... trees... hands... people... cats... dogs... frogs... bogs... logs... mud... earth... Jupiter... gas... Saturn... rings... redwood trees... California... hate... my friends... the ocean... love... passion... fire...) where the connections are often only evident to the individual user. The above sequence is totally logical to me (err... well... I know it's not logical in the linear sense but it makes sense to me) where to a stranger would be bewildered.

Ni (from my own limited experience and what I've heard) manifests as a sudden image or message that sums everything up. (I THINK it's something like: chaotic flow of thoughts/problem solving... weird single image... EUREKA!). Ni users feel free to refine/contradict.

Stanton Moore
07-07-2011, 05:03 PM
Ni doesn't make much sense to me. What am I being untuitive about? An internal process? Digestion? Circulation? The fact is that everything I have an intuitive thought about is external to me, or made so because I need to concretize it in order to have an object to contemplate. And anyway, intuition requires more than one object in order to happen at all. Otherwise you're simply noting sensory information ('the sky is blue', it's raining) or remembering.

Oaky
07-07-2011, 05:33 PM
Ne



Ni
Barely anyone who enters the thread will read it. Be slightly more tactful and summarise to allow those who do not understand to understand things in a more 'for dummies' way.


Most have Ne down correctly.
But as for Ni...
Ni is not: "poof" an idea, which appears out of nowhere.

It is the analysis of the object within different dimensions to be able to see what the object may or may not be.

Let us take an object:

Humans:

- Homosapiens
- Molecules
- Moving objects
- Assembly of organs
- Tools of war

All such thoughts are what humans could be. Note: Every thought is connected to the object.

Cartoon:

- Lines and colours
- Light
- Pleasing sensory perceptions
- Distorted beings
- Many pictures
- Surrealism

All the such thoughts are what cartoons are, in different perceptions. Again, every thought is connected to the object. Not move on tangents as Ne tends to do.

skylights
07-07-2011, 05:43 PM
it seems like Ne and Ni move opposite. i've heard all the functions + attitudes described as "conveyor belts" which can be switched clockwise/counterclockwise before, and i can see this on an "N" belt.

Ne, clearly, moves outward. you start at one point and look out into all the things it could be.

Ni, as oaky has demonstrated, moves inward. it takes all the points and finds the least common denominator.

they both share the philosophy that all things are, in essence, one thing. for Ne, one thing can become many things. for Ni, many things are, when distilled, one thing.

INTPness
07-07-2011, 05:45 PM
Barely anyone who enters the thread will read it. Be slightly more tactful and summarise to allow those who do not understand to understand things in a more 'for dummies' way.


Most have Ne down correctly.
But as for Ni...
Ni is not: "poof" an idea, which appears out of nowhere.

It is the analysis of the object within different dimensions to be able to see what the object may or may not be.

Let us take an object:

Humans:

- Homosapiens
- Molecules
- Moving objects
- Assembly of organs
- Tools of war

All such thoughts are what humans could be. Note: Every thought is connected to the object.

Cartoon:

- Lines and colours
- Light
- Pleasing sensory perceptions
- Distorted beings
- Many pictures
- Surrealism

All the such thoughts are what cartoons are, in different perceptions. Again, every thought is connected to the object. Not move on tangents as Ne tends to do.

Is this to say that Ne creates connections that springboard (or grow) in an outward direction from the object in question, while Ni creates connections going inward and directed towards the object?

Anew Leaf
07-07-2011, 05:48 PM
Barely anyone who enters the thread will read it. Be slightly more tactful and summarise to allow those who do not understand to understand things in a more 'for dummies' way.


Most have Ne down correctly.
But as for Ni...
Ni is not: "poof" an idea, which appears out of nowhere.

It is the analysis of the object within different dimensions to be able to see what the object may or may not be.

Let us take an object:

Humans:

- Homosapiens
- Molecules
- Moving objects
- Assembly of organs
- Tools of war

All such thoughts are what humans could be. Note: Every thought is connected to the object.

Cartoon:

- Lines and colours
- Light
- Pleasing sensory perceptions
- Distorted beings
- Many pictures
- Surrealism

All the such thoughts are what cartoons are, in different perceptions. Again, every thought is connected to the object. Not move on tangents as Ne tends to do.

Great break-down of Ni, Oaky. I think the reason why I have thought of it as "poof" is simply because I don't see their process at all... being that it is introverted... so it comes out as being "poof! magic solution!"

I really value my INXJ friends for this ability... I find it works great with my Ne to find really good solutions to problems. :)

Edit/Addition:


it seems like Ne and Ni move opposite. i've heard all the functions + attitudes described as "conveyor belts" which can be switched clockwise/counterclockwise before, and i can see this on an "N" belt.

Ne, clearly, moves outward. you start at one point and look out into all the things it could be.

Ni, as oaky has demonstrated, moves inward. it takes all the points and finds the least common denominator.

they both share the philosophy that all things are, in essence, one thing. for Ne, one thing can become many things. for Ni, many things are, when distilled, one thing.

what is also significant is how they rest on their partner functions - Se and Si - as i believe orobas has already touched upon. Ne needs the concrete detail of Si to anchor it in space, so that it can look around it and consider all of the possibilities that exist at that singular moment. it negates time as a factor, essentially. Ni needs the concrete detail of Se to anchor it in time, so that it can look around it at that singular location. it negates space as a factor. Ne is a coronal section while Ni is a sagittal section.

Ne appears more "random" to us in the present moment because of the negation of time. all those possibilities can exist, but they are not necessarily pertinent when we consider practicality and probability, and change over time. whereas Ni can seem "out of nowhere", because of the negation of what i'm calling "space" - physical presence, if you will. while Ni may well be correct in its distillations, they might not be pertinent to the present moment - yet.

Good job Sky! :D

That is one of the best descriptions I have read yet. It definitely explains a big piece of the way I tend to think where I do ignore time completely. I also love reading stories that aren't linear for the same reason.

For one shining moment Ne and Ni made perfectly clear sense in my head. :heart:

xpersephonex
07-07-2011, 05:48 PM
Ni focuses on imagination and creating different contexts. Ne focuses on reality and connecting similar contents. Both draw the contents from Si and Se.

Lady_X
07-07-2011, 05:49 PM
it seems like Ne and Ni move opposite. i've heard all the functions + attitudes described as "conveyor belts" which can be switched clockwise/counterclockwise before, and i can see this on an "N" belt.

Ne, clearly, moves outward. you start at one point and look out into all the things it could be.

Ni, as oaky has demonstrated, moves "inward". it takes all the points and finds the least common denominator.

they both share the philosophy that all things are, in essence, one thing. for Ne, one thing can become many things. for Ni, many things are, when distilled, one thing.

really like this way of putting it.

INTPness
07-07-2011, 05:49 PM
it seems like Ne and Ni move opposite. i've heard all the functions + attitudes described as "conveyor belts" which can be switched clockwise/counterclockwise before, and i can see this on an "N" belt.

Ne, clearly, moves outward. you start at one point and look out into all the things it could be.

Ni, as oaky has demonstrated, moves "inward". it takes all the points and finds the least common denominator.

they both share the philosophy that all things are, in essence, one thing. for Ne, one thing can become many things. for Ni, many things are, when distilled, one thing.

Woah! That was freaky. I posted my response and then read your response.

INTPness
07-07-2011, 05:53 PM
Also, Ne manifests as a series or web of connected ideas (ie: blue... sky... birds... trees... hands... people... cats... dogs... frogs... bogs... logs... mud... earth... Jupiter... gas... Saturn... rings... redwood trees... California... hate... my friends... the ocean... love... passion... fire...)

Yeah, definitely.

skylights
07-07-2011, 05:55 PM
Woah! That was freaky. I posted my response and then read your response.

:hifive:

--

anyway i think what is also significant is how they rest on their partner functions - Se and Si - as i believe orobas has already touched upon. Ne needs the concrete detail of Si to anchor it in space, so that it can look around it and consider all of the possibilities that exist at that singular moment. it negates time as a factor, essentially. Ni needs the concrete detail of Se to anchor it in time, so that it can look around it at that singular location. it negates space as a factor. Ne is a coronal section while Ni is a sagittal section.

Ne appears more "random" to us in the present moment because of the negation of time. all those possibilities can exist, but they are not necessarily pertinent when we consider practicality and probability, and change over time. whereas Ni can seem "out of nowhere", because of the negation of what i'm calling "space"... i don't really know how to describe it, but i essentially mean "headspace" - room for expansion. room for differentiation. while Ni may well be correct in its distillations, they might not be pertinent to the present moment - yet. in other words, it may still be more useful to see the particle as a particle instead of a wave-particle, because it's still behaving like a particle in this particular situation.

okay, i'm not sure what i'm talking about anymore. i think my N is getting ahead of me. :laugh:

-- ooh right. it's like the N functions use the S "data points" to draw their big pictures from. Ne isolates a singular Si point and draws lines outward to other Si points (fire --> red + heat + smoke + etc), while Ni gathers a series of Se points and draws one line from them connecting to a new point - but Se points aren't things, they're processes (acorn growing on tree then falling off + mom having a baby + pregnant seahorse producing little seahorses --> life produces new life via creating a smaller version of itself).

*clearly you can see that i am Ne here... i have trouble describing Ni using the right words, even though i think i basically understand it in images in my head...

Anew Leaf
07-07-2011, 06:00 PM
:hifive:

--

anyway i think what is also significant is how they rest on their partner functions - Se and Si - as i believe orobas has already touched upon. Ne needs the concrete detail of Si to anchor it in space, so that it can look around it and consider all of the possibilities that exist at that singular moment. it negates time as a factor, essentially. Ni needs the concrete detail of Se to anchor it in time, so that it can look around it at that singular location. it negates space as a factor. Ne is a coronal section while Ni is a sagittal section.

Ne appears more "random" to us in the present moment because of the negation of time. all those possibilities can exist, but they are not necessarily pertinent when we consider practicality and probability, and change over time. whereas Ni can seem "out of nowhere", because of the negation of what i'm calling "space"... i don't really know how to describe it, but i essentially mean "headspace" - room for expansion. room for differentiation. while Ni may well be correct in its distillations, they might not be pertinent to the present moment - yet. in other words, it may still be more useful to see the particle as a particle instead of a wave-particle, because it's still behaving like a particle in this particular situation.

okay, i'm not sure what i'm talking about anymore. i think my N is getting ahead of me. :laugh:

You have won the thread, sky! :D

I understand my Si ability the least actually... So it is very intriguing to see how it fits into my Ne ability as a helper. And it definitely makes sense when I am talking to my Ni-dom friends about things and wondering where the heck they are coming up with stuff. :)

Oaky
07-07-2011, 06:04 PM
it seems like Ne and Ni move opposite. i've heard all the functions + attitudes described as "conveyor belts" which can be switched clockwise/counterclockwise before, and i can see this on an "N" belt.

Ne, clearly, moves outward. you start at one point and look out into all the things it could be.

Ni, as oaky has demonstrated, moves inward. it takes all the points and finds the least common denominator.

they both share the philosophy that all things are, in essence, one thing. for Ne, one thing can become many things. for Ni, many things are, when distilled, one thing. Yes, great stuff Skylights. Far better clearing things.

Is this to say that Ne creates connections that springboard (or grow) in an outward direction from the object in question, while Ni creates connections going inward and directed towards the object?
Oh yes, absolutely.


Great break-down of Ni, Oaky. I think the reason why I have thought of it as "poof" is simply because I don't see their process at all... being that it is introverted... so it comes out as being "poof! magic solution!"

I really value my INXJ friends for this ability... I find it works great with my Ne to find really good solutions to problems. :) Ah, well it certainly it can be perceived in such a way. Especially when one wonders where the thoughts moving inwards would appear from. This is where people get confused on the matter.

INTPness
07-07-2011, 06:07 PM
it's like the N functions use the S "data points" to draw their big pictures from. Ne isolates a singular Si point and draws lines outward to other Si points (fire --> red + heat + smoke + etc), while Ni gathers a series of Se points and draws one line from them connecting to a new point - but Se points aren't things, they're processes (acorn growing on tree then falling off + mom having a baby + pregnant seahorse producing little seahorses --> life produces new life via creating a smaller version of itself).

Yeah, that makes sense to me. It's like Ne wants to go from one thing to MANY THINGS. And Ni wants to go from many things to ONE THING (or towards one conclusion).

skylights
07-07-2011, 06:09 PM
Yes, great stuff Skylights. Far better clearing things.

only built upon your clarity, so thank you :)

Lady_X
07-07-2011, 06:17 PM
love it sky...beautiful translation

INTP
07-07-2011, 06:22 PM
Barely anyone who enters the thread will read it. Be slightly more tactful and summarise to allow those who do not understand to understand things in a more 'for dummies' way.

its their problem if they wont read it. if they read it, but are not interested of understanding it, then they dont want to understand it hard enough.

Anew Leaf
07-07-2011, 06:24 PM
its their problem if they wont read it. if they read it, but are not interested of understanding it, then they dont want to understand it hard enough.

I simply don't have time or patience for a giant wall of text that can be better explained in 20 words or less. Distilled down versions give me a better snapshot than a bunch of self important words being tossed in the air.

I thank Oaky and Sky for giving me the "Ne-Ni for Dummies" lesson I sorely needed. :bunnyglee:

INTPness
07-07-2011, 06:31 PM
Maybe something like this?

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/5523/nenia.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/830/nenia.png/)

onemoretime
07-07-2011, 06:34 PM
Barely anyone who enters the thread will read it. Be slightly more tactful and summarise to allow those who do not understand to understand things in a more 'for dummies' way.


Most have Ne down correctly.
But as for Ni...
Ni is not: "poof" an idea, which appears out of nowhere.

It is the analysis of the object within different dimensions to be able to see what the object may or may not be.

Let us take an object:

Humans:

- Homosapiens
- Molecules
- Moving objects
- Assembly of organs
- Tools of war

All such thoughts are what humans could be. Note: Every thought is connected to the object.

Cartoon:

- Lines and colours
- Light
- Pleasing sensory perceptions
- Distorted beings
- Many pictures
- Surrealism

All the such thoughts are what cartoons are, in different perceptions. Again, every thought is connected to the object. Not move on tangents as Ne tends to do.

Interesting. This makes Ni much more comprehensible, and indeed, much more like Ne as I experience it, compared to other descriptions.

Ne takes an object and explores all the possibilities available within a static category. Ni explores meaningfulness of relation within the interaction of static points of data.

Ne wants to take an object and fulfill its potential within specific, appropriate categories. This is why, even though it seems random to others, the person engaging Ne generally can explain how topic A reached tangent Z. Ni, on the other hand, wants to take that object and understand something about it that isn't immediately apparent, not to satisfy any purpose, but for its own sake.


it seems like Ne and Ni move opposite. i've heard all the functions + attitudes described as "conveyor belts" which can be switched clockwise/counterclockwise before, and i can see this on an "N" belt.

Ne, clearly, moves outward. you start at one point and look out into all the things it could be.

Ni, as oaky has demonstrated, moves inward. it takes all the points and finds the least common denominator.

Not sure I'm 100% with you on this one. Both Ne and Ni are concerned with an object's essential nature. Ne, though, seeks to grasp everything that the object's essential nature says about the object itself, i.e. its "possibilities." Ni, on the other hand, seeks to grasp everything that the object itself says about its essential nature.


they both share the philosophy that all things are, in essence, one thing. for Ne, one thing can become many things. for Ni, many things are, when distilled, one thing.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's "all things are, in essence, one thing." I'd say that the unifying principle is that an object's essential nature transcends what is immediately perceptible. For Ne, that essential nature means that one thing doesn't so much become many things, as it already is many other things. For Ni, the slightest details can radically alter what an object's essential nature is, and thus fundamentally shift its relationship with other things in the world.


what is also significant is how they rest on their partner functions - Se and Si - as i believe orobas has already touched upon. Ne needs the concrete detail of Si to anchor it in space, so that it can look around it and consider all of the possibilities that exist at that singular moment. it negates time as a factor, essentially. Ni needs the concrete detail of Se to anchor it in time, so that it can look around it at that singular location. it negates space as a factor. Ne is a coronal section while Ni is a sagittal section.

Si anchors Ne by providing categories. Without those categories, there is no way of knowing what data point A already needs. Se anchors Ni by paying attention to detail. Without that detail, there is no way to understand the essential distinction between things, and thus no way to determine the true essence.


Ne appears more "random" to us in the present moment because of the negation of time. all those possibilities can exist, but they are not necessarily pertinent when we consider practicality and probability, and change over time. whereas Ni can seem "out of nowhere", because of the negation of what i'm calling "space"... i don't really know how to describe it, but i essentially mean "headspace" - room for expansion. room for differentiation. while Ni may well be correct in its distillations, they might not be pertinent to the present moment - yet. in other words, it may still be more useful to see the particle as a particle instead of a wave-particle, because it's still behaving like a particle in this particular situation.

Ne only seems random because other people can't see the categories in play. The category may be valid, but it may also be of little relevance to the immediate reality.
Ni only seems spacey because other people can't see the importance of the essential understanding. The understanding may be true, but of little practical use.

cascadeco
07-07-2011, 06:35 PM
Well, yeah, Ni is about focusing/honing in on something. Sticking to an idea, building upon it, taking other seemingly unrelated (but related) things to build upon that same idea. Not branching out into multiple ideas. It's always honing inwards and focusing on something, and sticking to that - aiming to grasp that 'one thing'/'truth' relevant to the situation at hand. Wanting that closure/resolution/finality/'answer' to that thing.

Anyway, I think this is my all-time favorite Ni thread on the forums... http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/36241-ni-what-hell.html

skylights
07-07-2011, 06:35 PM
Maybe something like this?

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/5523/nenia.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/830/nenia.png/)

perfect!!

and thank you saturned... admittedly half my "explanations" are me trying to explain things to myself :blush:

but INTPness' diagram - makes it easy to see why Ne doms are Ps and Ni doms are Js, no? Ne doms inherently move away from closure, whereas Ni doms move towards it.

Lady_X
07-07-2011, 06:37 PM
Maybe something like this?

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/5523/nenia.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/830/nenia.png/)

omg that's perfect. see...no words necessary explanation...love it.

INTPness
07-07-2011, 06:39 PM
perfect!!

and thank you saturned... admittedly half my "explanations" are me trying to explain things to myself :blush:

but INTPness' diagram - makes it easy to see why Ne doms are Ps and Ni doms are Js, no? Ne doms inherently move away from closure, whereas Ni doms move towards it.

Yeah, helps me understand why INTJ's are so driven and focused and don't tolerate much goofing around outside of the things they are focused on. Whereas, Ne users want to goof around and explore all the time - always new things, new things, new things.

skylights
07-07-2011, 06:41 PM
Ne, though, seeks to grasp everything that the object's essential nature says about the object itself, i.e. its "possibilities." Ni, on the other hand, seeks to grasp everything that the object itself says about its essential nature.

i'm not sure i understand how what you are saying is different from what i am saying?

what is the difference between the object and its essential nature? is its essential nature not the object itself?

it would seem that the object and the essential nature are always the same. just like you can't ever not "be yourself", even though people like to say "be yourself". you are always being yourself.


Si anchors Ne by providing categories. Without those categories, there is no way of knowing what data point A already needs. Se anchors Ni by paying attention to detail. Without that detail, there is no way to understand the essential distinction between things, and thus no way to determine the true essence.

what data point A needs? i am not sure what you mean. as in what is needed to make it "whole"?

it seems to me that Se data points indicate endings and beginnings for Ni to work with. time spans. processes. becomings. is this what you mean?

i think mostly i am confused by the differentiation of an object and its "essence".

Anew Leaf
07-07-2011, 06:42 PM
perfect!!

and thank you saturned... admittedly half my "explanations" are me trying to explain things to myself :blush:

but INTPness' diagram - makes it easy to see why Ne doms are Ps and Ni doms are Js, no? Ne doms inherently move away from closure, whereas Ni doms move towards it.

:heart: skylights. :)

Visual Aids = so much win!

And it does explain why the Ne dom/aux people are P's and why Ni dom/aux is J.

*passes out ribbons to all participants* Everyone did extremely well in this thread, but some did more well than others. *pins shiny pink glitter bow onto Skylights*

skylights
07-07-2011, 06:44 PM
Well, yeah, Ni is about focusing/honing in on something. Sticking to an idea, building upon it, taking other seemingly unrelated (but related) things to build upon that same idea. Not branching out into multiple ideas. It's always honing inwards and focusing on something, and sticking to that - aiming to grasp that 'one thing'/'truth' relevant to the situation at hand. Wanting that closure/resolution/finality/'answer' to that thing.

Anyway, I think this is my all-time favorite Ni thread on the forums... http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/36241-ni-what-hell.html

any chance you could pull a few really good posts out of that? 35 pages... so... much... information o_____o

:heart:

cascadeco
07-07-2011, 06:46 PM
Yeah, helps me understand why INTJ's are so driven and focused and don't tolerate much goofing around outside of the things they are focused on. Whereas, Ne users want to goof around and explore all the time - always new things, new things, new things.

Well, yeah... I think NJ's in general want there to a 'point'/end-goal/focus to discussion, since we're naturally more driven to closure and wanting to hone in on one topic and discuss/explore in depth. Reaching clarity/understanding on that one theme.

cascadeco
07-07-2011, 06:49 PM
any chance you could pull a few really good posts out of that? 35 pages... so... much... information o_____o

:heart:

hehe... the problem is that I find TONS of posts in that thread brilliant - it's a thread full of Ni-doms discussing all of the nuances/facets of Ni in depth; I'm not sure which facet would be most helpful to anyone here! The thread in its entirety is epic and the posts add meaning and understanding atop each other; isolate one and you don't grasp the entirety. (Perhaps that's indicative too of Ni. It's why Ni-er's might seem voodoo/'poof' -- it's much simpler to state one or two vague summary sentences than 35+ pages that explains all of the nuances of it). :heart: :Focus: ;)

INTPness
07-07-2011, 06:50 PM
Well, yeah, Ni is about focusing/honing in on something. Sticking to an idea, building upon it, taking other seemingly unrelated (but related) things to build upon that same idea. Not branching out into multiple ideas. It's always honing inwards and focusing on something, and sticking to that - aiming to grasp that 'one thing'/'truth' relevant to the situation at hand. Wanting that closure/resolution/finality/'answer' to that thing.

Anyway, I think this is my all-time favorite Ni thread on the forums... http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/36241-ni-what-hell.html

Very interesting. So, what do you do once you find 'the answer' - once the problem at hand is resolved. Like, I work with INTJ scientists. They spend their whole lives working towards cures, answers, discoveries to very specific problems. What happens if they find the answer or finally solve the problem. Is it "mission accomplished - time to retire"? Or is it just simply, "move on to another problem"? Cuz, for instance, one of them truly believes that understanding one small bodily protein will unlock huge mysteries of the human body and health. He dedicates his entire existence to understanding this one object because he *knows* how important it is to overall human health. If he does make *the big discovery*, what would he do next? Just bask in his glory as a well-respected scientist? Or would he then "take up a new agenda"?

skylights
07-07-2011, 06:51 PM
^ maybe it's just me but i have a lingering belief that there is one underlying truth that explains everything in existence. it's just, as Ne dom, i seek it by trying to find everything. the more i find, the more i know. the more i know, the closer i am to understanding the One. perhaps that is essentially what he seeks also.

and of course, if the One was discovered, the rules of everything would be changed. all would be illuminated.


It's why Ni-er's might seem voodoo/'poof' -- it's much simpler to state one or two vague summary sentences than 35+ pages that explains all of the nuances of it

:laugh:

yeah, that's kind of my problem with the Ni threads. i don't get what anyone's saying half the time. it took me until reading orobas' explanation of Ni - maybe a few months after first reading about Ni? - to finally start grasping it.

*will try to focus for once*

cascadeco
07-07-2011, 06:55 PM
Very interesting. So, what do you do once you find 'the answer' - once the problem at hand is resolved. Like, I work with INTJ scientists. They spend their whole lives working towards cures, answers, discoveries to very specific problems. What happens if they find the answer or finally solve the problem. Is it "mission accomplished - time to retire"? Or is it just simply, "move on to another problem"? Cuz, for instance, one of them truly believes that understanding one small bodily protein will unlock huge mysteries of the human body and health. He dedicates his entire existence to understanding this one object because he *knows* how important it is to overall human health. If he does make *the big discovery*, what would he do next? Just bask in his glory as a well-respected scientist? Or would he then "take up a new agenda"?

I don't really know what he'd do. The nature of some problems are such that it could/would take a lifetime to learn, or else it might never be possible to reach full resolution.

He'd probably move onto another project after basking for a bit? lol. Or maybe by that point could bask in his inferior-Se-ness for good since he accomplished his life work. I doubt though he'd bask... I think NJ's need things to move towards & accomplish; not good at kicking back.

Anyway, in that thread it was discussed also that the whole 'Discovery' process is both exhilarating -- keeps you going, and keeps mental juices flowing and alive and excited because things are still a bit of a mystery and unesolved -- but also depending on the problem at hand, anxiety-provoking simply because we DO want that answer/closure. Once closure is reached, yeah, there might be a momentary lull where it's like, 'Now what?', but typically in life there are soon other things brewing and situations to figure out.

INTPness
07-07-2011, 06:58 PM
I don't really know what he'd do. The nature of some problems are such that it could/would take a lifetime to learn, or else it might never be possible to reach full resolution.

He'd probably move onto another project after basking for a bit? lol. Or maybe by that point could bask in his inferior-Se-ness for good since he accomplished his life work.

Anyway, in that thread it was discussed also that the whole 'Discovery' process is both exhilarating -- keeps you going, and keeps mental juices flowing and alive and excited because things are still a bit of a mystery and unesolved -- but also depending on the problem at hand, anxiety-provoking simply because we DO want that answer/closure. Once closure is reached, yeah, there might be a momentary lull where it's like, 'Now what?', but typically in life there are soon other things brewing and situations to figure out.

Ah, i see. This might also explain where I've seen INFJ's say, "I loved getting to know my husband. He was so intriguing and mysterious. And he's great guy and I'm really lucky to have him, but now that I know everything about him, I sometimes get bored and feel unsatisfied." Ahaaa!!!! I'm on to you guys now!! :D

cascadeco
07-07-2011, 07:03 PM
Ah, i see. This might also explain where I've seen INFJ's say, "I loved getting to know my husband. He was so intriguing and mysterious. And he's great guy and I'm really lucky to have him, but now that I know everything about him, I sometimes get bored and feel unsatisfied." Ahaaa!!!! I'm on to you guys now!! :D

:peepwall: I have always been kind of worried about really longterm relationships for this very reason. :( I like to think/hope/believe that I would be ok and satisfied and the relationship would just keep evolving/growing, but sometimes I do worry.

INTP
07-07-2011, 07:06 PM
I simply don't have time or patience for a giant wall of text that can be better explained in 20 words or less. Distilled down versions give me a better snapshot than a bunch of self important words being tossed in the air.

I thank Oaky and Sky for giving me the "Ne-Ni for Dummies" lesson I sorely needed. :bunnyglee:

i dont think it can be explained better in 20 words. dummie versions doesent explain the whole thing and to understand at least near the whole thing from dummie versions, you need to read alot more of them than what i posted.

ill try to cut things out of it.

Ne:
Intuition as the function of unconscious perception(opposed to Se, which is direct perception to conscious) is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was [p. 462] 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay in the object.
Intuition..which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out.
The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways.
Intuition seeks to discover possibilities in the objective situation; hence as a mere tributary function (viz. when not in the position of priority) it is also the instrument which, in the presence of a hopelessly blocked situation, works automatically towards the issue, which no other function could discover. Where intuition has the priority, every ordinary situation in life seems like a closed room, which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking outlets and fresh possibilities in external life. In a very short time every actual situation becomes a prison to the intuitive; it burdens him like a chain, prompting a compelling need for solution. At times objects would seem to have an almost exaggerated value, should they chance to represent the idea of a severance or release that might lead to the discovery of a new possibility. A fact is acknowledged only in so far as it opens up fresh possibilities of advancing beyond it and of releasing the individual from its operation.

Ni:
Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious.
Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things.
Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.
Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation.
Introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images.
Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive.
Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless fantasies. But, since these images represent possible ways of viewing life, which in given circumstances have the power to provide a new energic potential.. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel.
Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum(Latin term whose literal meaning is "dead head" or "worthless remains"), but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences.


cant really make it much shorter and there would be stuff that id like to add, but then it would be too long. or is this too long already?

INTPness
07-07-2011, 07:06 PM
Ni is now cooler than I ever imagined. I couldnt grasp it, no matter how much I read about it. Now the light bulb has gone off. Thanks to all who contributed to that. I have a new found respect for the processes of Ni. Not that I didn't respect my colleagues/co-workers before, but now I understand better why they are so focused and determined toward one conclusion, outcome, resolution. Whereas I'm like, "what about this? what about that? Have you considered this? Ohh, look, a bird. Ahhh, science is cool, but I also like art. Oh, what's on TV? I like seafood. What's your name? His name is Bob. I have a fishing bob. Have you ever gone fishing? Fishing = seafood = mmmm!" And the INTJ's are like: :shrug:

redcheerio
07-07-2011, 07:08 PM
Very interesting. So, what do you do once you find 'the answer' - once the problem at hand is resolved. Like, I work with INTJ scientists. They spend their whole lives working towards cures, answers, discoveries to very specific problems. What happens if they find the answer or finally solve the problem. Is it "mission accomplished - time to retire"? Or is it just simply, "move on to another problem"? Cuz, for instance, one of them truly believes that understanding one small bodily protein will unlock huge mysteries of the human body and health. He dedicates his entire existence to understanding this one object because he *knows* how important it is to overall human health. If he does make *the big discovery*, what would he do next? Just bask in his glory as a well-respected scientist? Or would he then "take up a new agenda"?

My husband is an INTJ scientist, but he does the numerical/computer programming side of science, so he gets to contribute to many scientific problems. My impression is that if he solved one major problem, he would take time out to celebrate the victory, and then move on to the next big problem. It's also how he deals with his daily work. He likes to focus on one problem at a time, and once he has finished one major task, he'll take a quick break and move onto the next.




yeah, that's kind of my problem with the Ni threads. i don't get what anyone's saying half the time. it took me until reading orobas' explanation of Ni - maybe a few months after first reading about Ni? - to finally start grasping it.

*will try to focus for once*

:laugh: I have this problem, too. I find I "get" the explanations written by Ne users pretty much instantaneously, but with the Ni explanations, I have to really focus and read them a number of times to get them. :coffee: I usually find myself skimming most of it for something that stands out. I also find it WAY more difficult if they don't put enough paragraph breaks in. :/

INTPness
07-07-2011, 07:10 PM
:peepwall: I have always been kind of worried about really longterm relationships for this very reason. :( I like to think/hope/believe that I would be ok and satisfied and the relationship would just keep evolving/growing, but sometimes I do worry.

Haha. I didn't mean to make you worry. We're all capable of finding contentment in long-term r'ships. I think Ne users are just as vulnerable as Ni'ers, because we're always going to be like, "Honey, I know you just had 2 kids and we just bought this house, but can we move to the Bahamas now? I'm bored here." You guys are vulnerable because the intrigue wears off. We're vulnerable because we don't want to stop and sit down - we want to keep exploring ze new things (not new women!!!), but just new environments, new experiences, new scenery, etc.

kyuuei
07-07-2011, 07:46 PM
i dont think it can be explained better in 20 words. dummie versions doesent explain the whole thing and to understand at least near the whole thing from dummie versions, you need to read alot more of them than what i posted.

Anything that cannot be summarized in 20 words or less isn't really worth saying or mentioning. The details may be off, yes, but people can create details as needed. Someone can create details, and then think, "I understand that will tie into all of this.. but what about x?" and simply ask for the details they are missing. Everyone's mind works differently, and walls of text aren't the best way of communicating. Ask Solitary Walker.

INTP
07-07-2011, 07:49 PM
Anything that cannot be summarized in 20 words or less isn't really worth saying or mentioning. The details may be off, yes, but people can create details as needed. Someone can create details, and then think, "I understand that will tie into all of this.. but what about x?" and simply ask for the details they are missing. Everyone's mind works differently, and walls of text aren't the best way of communicating. Ask Solitary Walker.

but because this isnt so simple, you need to add some details to direct the other persons mind into creating the right details to form deeper understanding about the subject

onemoretime
07-07-2011, 07:51 PM
i'm not sure i understand how what you are saying is different from what i am saying?

what is the difference between the object and its essential nature? is its essential nature not the object itself?

Not in the least bit. The object itself is the immediately perceptible symbol. It can be the visual data of an image, the kinesthetic data of a reaction to applied force, the auditory data that constitutes a word's sound, and so on. The perceiving functions ascribe meaning to this data.

Sensing functions largely concern themselves with the consequential and interactive meaning of information. In other words, what will happen because of a certain set of data points. Se mainly concerns itself with discovering consequences through interaction, while Si concerns itself with predicting consequences through the application of experienced interactions.

Intuition, on the other hand, focuses on the essential meaning of information. In other words, what exactly it is that the perceived symbol represents. Ne mainly concerns itself with recognizing an object's belonging within any of several broad essential classifications (or "models," "theories," etc.), and thus how the object can manifest itself in several different ways, because of existing within that classification. Ni mainly concerns itself with what the concurrent perception of one or many points of data means in and of itself, as a particular entity, and how the modification of that data changes that very meaning.


it would seem that the object and the essential nature are always the same. just like you can't ever not "be yourself", even though people like to say "be yourself". you are always being yourself.

Ne looks at that phrase, recognizes it as a substantively meaningless social phrase, a contradiction, and something that nevertheless works for some people, and then applies it to various hypothetical scenarios within a given category in order to perceive how the manifestation of the symbol changes, and whether the categorization is correct. Ni looks at that phrase, then the context of the statement, then the various contexts in which the statement often comes up, then the grammatical structure, then what it means to be oneself, then what it means to be, then what is meant by the self, and the deeper and deeper we go, the more abstractly symbolic the interaction becomes, as we deconstruct past the symbolism of language itself. Then, once this process ends, what's left is the fundamental, essential connection that phrase has with the rest of the universe.

Both approaches ultimately come to the same conclusion: the essential meaning of that phrase has nothing to do with a person reflexively existing.


what data point A needs? i am not sure what you mean. as in what is needed to make it "whole"?

That was a typo. I meant to say, "without those categories, there is no way of knowing what data point A already means."


it seems to me that Se data points indicate endings and beginnings for Ni to work with. time spans. processes. becomings. is this what you mean?

Perhaps, but I don't see it in linear terms such as those. Instead, Se data points are the extremely detailed, resolved bits of symbolism that Ni grasps upon to recognize fine distinctions in essential meaning. For example, a colorblind person favoring Si would understand that when the top light is illuminated, cars must stop, and when the bottom light is illuminated, cars may go, and that furthermore, the top light is called the "red light", corresponding with a certain color that others informed you of, and the bottom one the "green light", also so corresponding. If that person were favoring Ni, that person may also notice that the color distinction is meaningless: since in the absence of an Se color distinction, the essential meaning of the traffic light's symbols do not change, that distinction has no relevance to the light's essential meaning. Instead, it is the position of the illuminated light that carries the essential distinction. What's more, the two symbols could be any color, and still be called the "red light" and the "green light," because the phrases' essential meaning have nothing to do with color, and everything to do with people stopping or going in reaction to them. As long as "red light" means stop, and people stop in response to the illumination of the top lamp, that lamp could have any color whatsoever, and still be the "red light."


i think mostly i am confused by the differentiation of an object and its "essence".

Hope that helped.

kyuuei
07-07-2011, 07:53 PM
but because this isnt so simple, you need to add some details to direct the other persons mind into creating the right details to form deeper understanding about the subject

:laugh: Do you treat everyone like they are five? Katsu and Sky seemed to do it just fine. I understand you want people to be accurate in their details.. but not everyone really cares for accuracy. I'm sure someone appreciated the wall of text, truly. But there's a saying we use called KISS, where you keep things as simple as possible because simplicity is an art form in and of itself. Too many details distracts people from forming their own conclusions.. relying on your details could mean forgetting things that aren't their own, which defeats the purpose of teaching.

onemoretime
07-07-2011, 07:55 PM
but because this isnt so simple, you need to add some details to direct the other persons mind into creating the right details to form deeper understanding about the subject

I think this is more of a Ti/Fi distinction than anything. Fi doesn't value definitional precision to the same level that Ti does.

INTP
07-07-2011, 08:03 PM
I think this is more of a Ti/Fi distinction than anything. Fi doesn't value definitional precision to the same level that Ti does.

yep. but because this particular matter needs the precision(not to make sense in some level, but to fully understand it), if the precision is not appreciated, that means that the understanding between Ni and Ne is not appreciated enough to focus on the precision(like i mentioned before). maybe Fi needs more value for the matter to look into more precise descriptions, but that just shows that those Fi people who dont want the precision doesent value the deeper understanding about this enough. im ok with that, like i said, i dont mind if someone doesent want to read the whole text

onemoretime
07-07-2011, 08:30 PM
yep. but because this particular matter needs the precision(not to make sense in some level, but to fully understand it), if the precision is not appreciated, that means that the understanding between Ni and Ne is not appreciated enough to focus on the precision(like i mentioned before). maybe Fi needs more value for the matter to look into more precise descriptions, but that just shows that those Fi people who dont want the precision doesent value the deeper understanding about this enough. im ok with that, like i said, i dont mind if someone doesent want to read the whole text

Not sure I agree with normative statements like "valu[ing] the deeper understanding about this enough." It may be that their deeper understanding of the subject is simply different from, and not inferior to, our own. At the same time, I'm not criticizing the "Ne-outward; Ni-inward" distinction solely because it's imprecise, but because that imprecision, to me, misrepresents the core of the essential meaning, and presents an image of Ne-dominance that drastically differs from my own experience of it. I don't "constantly seek possibilities" so much as I pick up fairly quickly that one thing means a whole lot of other things, and that those things could mean even more. I'm not always looking to the future; I'm also often looking to the past to make sense of how we got to where we are today, and what pieces of the puzzle I'm missing. Ne, for me, is playful, but it's not childish or childlike in the least bit, as portrayals often make it out to be.

Lady_X
07-07-2011, 08:40 PM
absurd could be described as childlike tho and i do see many ne users who appreciate absurdity but it doesn't mean that is the only expression of it.

INTP
07-07-2011, 08:44 PM
Not sure I agree with normative statements like "valu[ing] the deeper understanding about this enough." It may be that their deeper understanding of the subject is simply different from, and not inferior to, our own. At the same time, I'm not criticizing the "Ne-outward; Ni-inward" distinction solely because it's imprecise, but because that imprecision, to me, misrepresents the core of the essential meaning, and presents an image of Ne-dominance that drastically differs from my own experience of it.

see below


I don't "constantly seek possibilities" so much as I pick up fairly quickly that one thing means a whole lot of other things, and that those things could mean even more. I'm not always looking to the future; I'm also often looking to the past to make sense of how we got to where we are today, and what pieces of the puzzle I'm missing. Ne, for me, is playful, but it's not childish or childlike in the least bit, as portrayals often make it out to be.

this is exactly the point. you say that you dont constantly seek possibilities, but the reason why you say that, is because you dont understand the whole point what jung meant with 'constantly seeking possibilities'. its not merely trying to figure out what you can do with an action figure and matches, its what creates the essentials needed for the underlined parts. jung is talking about the essentials of pretty much everything(which effect the whole mind in many different ways and in order to have deep understanding abut his work, you need to understand the essentials correctly), not the things more in the "surface"(like the underlined).

not being precise enough about stuff this complicated is the reason why the misconceptions about words happen, like in your case with the 'constantly seeking possibilities'. without precise explanations words get their meaning from who ever is interpreting them and because jung is so precise on his wording, giving even slightly wrong meaning to some words could distort the meaning of the whole thing(or some essential parts of it).

Anew Leaf
07-07-2011, 09:15 PM
yep. but because this particular matter needs the precision(not to make sense in some level, but to fully understand it), if the precision is not appreciated, that means that the understanding between Ni and Ne is not appreciated enough to focus on the precision(like i mentioned before). maybe Fi needs more value for the matter to look into more precise descriptions, but that just shows that those Fi people who dont want the precision doesent value the deeper understanding about this enough. im ok with that, like i said, i dont mind if someone doesent want to read the whole text

OR

We get "it" already and don't need a longer explanation.

Oaky's post + Sky's post + INTPness' visual aid = epiphany, understanding, and a bowl of mango slices.

:)

Lady_X
07-07-2011, 09:19 PM
the bunE has a point

shortnsweet
07-07-2011, 09:22 PM
Barely anyone who enters the thread will read it. Be slightly more tactful and summarise to allow those who do not understand to understand things in a more 'for dummies' way.


Most have Ne down correctly.
But as for Ni...
Ni is not: "poof" an idea, which appears out of nowhere.

It is the analysis of the object within different dimensions to be able to see what the object may or may not be.

Let us take an object:

Humans:

- Homosapiens
- Molecules
- Moving objects
- Assembly of organs
- Tools of war

All such thoughts are what humans could be. Note: Every thought is connected to the object.

Cartoon:

- Lines and colours
- Light
- Pleasing sensory perceptions
- Distorted beings
- Many pictures
- Surrealism

All the such thoughts are what cartoons are, in different perceptions. Again, every thought is connected to the object. Not move on tangents as Ne tends to do.


it seems like Ne and Ni move opposite. i've heard all the functions + attitudes described as "conveyor belts" which can be switched clockwise/counterclockwise before, and i can see this on an "N" belt.

Ne, clearly, moves outward. you start at one point and look out into all the things it could be.

Ni, as oaky has demonstrated, moves inward. it takes all the points and finds the least common denominator.

they both share the philosophy that all things are, in essence, one thing. for Ne, one thing can become many things. for Ni, many things are, when distilled, one thing.


Maybe something like this?

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/5523/nenia.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/830/nenia.png/)


Well, yeah, Ni is about focusing/honing in on something. Sticking to an idea, building upon it, taking other seemingly unrelated (but related) things to build upon that same idea. Not branching out into multiple ideas. It's always honing inwards and focusing on something, and sticking to that - aiming to grasp that 'one thing'/'truth' relevant to the situation at hand. Wanting that closure/resolution/finality/'answer' to that thing.

Anyway, I think this is my all-time favorite Ni thread on the forums... http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-other-personality-matrices/36241-ni-what-hell.html

Thank you guys for the above posts. I had the Ne down, but Ni is always so vague and up for interpretation. This is all very applicable, I'm understanding a lot better now. (Posts all happen to compliment each other nicely too, each post helping the other- complete with pictures! :laugh:) :hifive:

onemoretime
07-07-2011, 09:33 PM
absurd could be described as childlike tho and i do see many ne users who appreciate absurdity but it doesn't mean that is the only expression of it.

It's funny, because for me, a childlike view is to take the world for what it is, uncritically. It's only when you get older, and understand that things generally follow from one another, that a person can appreciate the absurd.


this is exactly the point. you say that you dont constantly seek possibilities, but the reason why you say that, is because you dont understand the whole point what jung meant with 'constantly seeking possibilities'. its not merely trying to figure out what you can do with an action figure and matches, its what creates the essentials needed for the underlined parts. jung is talking about the essentials of pretty much everything, not the things more in the "surface"(like the underlined).

The part you're not seeing, though, is that I do understand how Jung meant it. However, I'm also not in a discussion with Jungian experts, but rather, a bunch of lay people who are interested in learning more about themselves, and about others. So, while Jung might mean one specific thing when he wrote in German, I notice a lot of people interpreting it in another way in English.

Let's also return to the word itself: Möglichkeit. Yes, "possibility" is a common way to translate this word. However, one may also translate it as "option," "chance," "eventuality," or "capability." Indeed, it means all of these things wrapped up together. I would agree that my experience of Ne involves seeking one or all of these principles in any given situation. However, simply limiting it to the connotation and denotation of "possibility" prevents it from hitting the mark. Those options, chances, eventualities, and capabilities all arise from categorizations, after all.


not being precise enough about stuff this complicated is the reason why the misconceptions about words happen, like in your case with the 'constantly seeking possibilities'. without precise explanations words get their meaning from who ever is interpreting them and because jung is so precise on his wording, giving even slightly wrong meaning to some words could distort the meaning of the whole thing(or some essential parts of it).

Honestly, I think it's the language divide more than anything. German nouns, especially for the philosophical and the psychological, have such distinct differences in their shades of meaning compared to their English equivalents.

Lady_X
07-07-2011, 09:44 PM
sure yeah i can agree with that maybe i misunderstood your meaning then??

uumlau
07-07-2011, 09:52 PM
Ni is now cooler than I ever imagined. I couldnt grasp it, no matter how much I read about it. Now the light bulb has gone off. Thanks to all who contributed to that. I have a new found respect for the processes of Ni. Not that I didn't respect my colleagues/co-workers before, but now I understand better why they are so focused and determined toward one conclusion, outcome, resolution. Whereas I'm like, "what about this? what about that? Have you considered this? Ohh, look, a bird. Ahhh, science is cool, but I also like art. Oh, what's on TV? I like seafood. What's your name? His name is Bob. I have a fishing bob. Have you ever gone fishing? Fishing = seafood = mmmm!" And the INTJ's are like: :shrug:

This is good. I like hearing what kind of explanation works for non-Ni people.

You probably won't like me for this, but there's an extra twist to the "one conclusion, outcome, resolution." The conclusion "wiggles."

We don't know what the "right conclusion" is, yet, so we kind of fire "tracer bullets" and see where they land. (This is totally inside our heads, but occasionally our friends will hear this stream of consciousness thought pattern if we feel safe enough to share.) When the bullets miss, it looks like we just totally changed topics, or that we're going after a different goal, which isn't the case at all. Rather, the goal itself is very simple, usually along the lines of "any concrete resolution that satisfies the following conditions," which can be any of several disparate targets.

It's why INTJs have the reputation for "contingency planning": something happens to make a target unachievable. We already have (or can quickly conceive of) several other targets that will satisfy the conditions, and we pick whichever one of those that looks most favorable and head towards it.

Oh, and the goal can wiggle even more, due to other possibilities. E.g., given the list of conditions, we aren't above deleting a condition and checking whether it makes easier targets appear. This is no different than noting that of, say 10 requirements, 9 of them take all of 3 minutes to accomplish, but the 10th would take about a week. Is it worth a week to achieve that last requirement? Is that requirement totally necessary? Is a 3-minute, 90% solution satisfactory? Very often, the answer is "yes." And, sometimes, the answer is no, and we're stuck slogging our way to the goal for a week.

INTP
07-07-2011, 10:04 PM
The part you're not seeing, though, is that I do understand how Jung meant it. However, I'm also not in a discussion with Jungian experts, but rather, a bunch of lay people who are interested in learning more about themselves, and about others. So, while Jung might mean one specific thing when he wrote in German, I notice a lot of people interpreting it in another way in English.

but why not just read jung? i mean its the knowledge that you are after anyways


Let's also return to the word itself: Möglichkeit. Yes, "possibility" is a common way to translate this word. However, one may also translate it as "option," "chance," "eventuality," or "capability." Indeed, it means all of these things wrapped up together. I would agree that my experience of Ne involves seeking one or all of these principles in any given situation. However, simply limiting it to the connotation and denotation of "possibility" prevents it from hitting the mark. Those options, chances, eventualities, and capabilities all arise from categorizations, after all.

Honestly, I think it's the language divide more than anything. German nouns, especially for the philosophical and the psychological, have such distinct differences in their shades of meaning compared to their English equivalents.

i know this, but the translation is done by professional jungian analysts, not just some random folks who do translations for living. its translated by H.G. Baynes, he was jungs apprentice. it was translated 1923(two after original), so i bet jung has reviewed the translation before it was published. if you read the text, you will see that its not just possibility, its all that you mentioned.. this is just another reason why precision is needed.

onemoretime
07-07-2011, 10:31 PM
but why not just read jung? i mean its the knowledge that you are after anyways

1. Already have
2. Don't speak German, so I'd lose something in translation
3. Books are unfortunately dead and static
4. I'm not after knowledge so much as understanding. I understand much more from formulation than recitation.
5. If I should read anything, it would be the last 300 years of German philosophy, in the original German, to have the proper context. That's a monumental task, and I don't have the time right now.


i know this, but the translation is done by professional jungian analysts, not just some random folks who do translations for living. its translated by H.G. Baynes, he was jungs apprentice. it was translated 1923(two after original), so i bet jung has reviewed the translation before it was published. if you read the text, you will see that its not just possibility, its all that you mentioned.. this is just another reason why precision is needed.

Right, but that comes back to the twenty-word problem: English isn't a language that welcomes rumination. It much favors speed and clarity, which is why English appropriates loanwords so often - it's the concept that's important, and not the meaning thereof. Even if those translations are done by professionals, they ultimately represent an interpretation of Jung's work, and not the fullness of meaning embodied within the original text. Especially when we're talking about a language like German, where the placement of practically every word in the sentence impacts not only comprehension, but meaning, and words must be understood not only in light of their dictionary translation, but also the meaning of each component root.

Point is, that's why the English translation of the text is of limited use. Deep, philosophical German's meant for rumination, but English is meant for debate and discussion.

INTP
07-07-2011, 10:46 PM
Even if those translations are done by professionals, they ultimately represent an interpretation of Jung's work

but at least the interpretation is from someone who was thought by jung, someone who had one of the most precise and deepest understanding about what jung really meant ;)

onemoretime
07-07-2011, 11:07 PM
but at least the interpretation is from someone who was thought by jung, someone who had one of the most precise and deepest understanding about what jung really meant ;)

True. Now, figure out how to say it in English. Then, figure out if you feel the meaning in the same way that Jung did. Then, have Jung read over it again, even though his own words will be muddled by translation at this point.

I mean, how do you explain to him that "possibility" means what he wrote, but is just slightly off in a way that I can't really describe? You really can't - he'd have to rewrite the whole damn thing in English just to convey the necessary shades of meaning. When dealing with dense material such as this, those shades make all the difference.

INTP
07-07-2011, 11:12 PM
True. Now, figure out how to say it in English. Then, figure out if you feel the meaning in the same way that Jung did. Then, have Jung read over it again, even though his own words will be muddled by translation at this point.

I mean, how do you explain to him that "possibility" means what he wrote, but is just slightly off in a way that I can't really describe? You really can't - he'd have to rewrite the whole damn thing in English just to convey the necessary shades of meaning. When dealing with dense material such as this, those shades make all the difference.

what did you say about not constantly seeking possibilities? :D

onemoretime
07-07-2011, 11:21 PM
what did you say about not constantly seeking possibilities? :D

I'd say that's more "eventualities," thank you much! :tongue:

INTPness
07-08-2011, 12:35 AM
This is good. I like hearing what kind of explanation works for non-Ni people.

You probably won't like me for this, but there's an extra twist to the "one conclusion, outcome, resolution." The conclusion "wiggles."

We don't know what the "right conclusion" is, yet, so we kind of fire "tracer bullets" and see where they land. (This is totally inside our heads, but occasionally our friends will hear this stream of consciousness thought pattern if we feel safe enough to share.) When the bullets miss, it looks like we just totally changed topics, or that we're going after a different goal, which isn't the case at all. Rather, the goal itself is very simple, usually along the lines of "any concrete resolution that satisfies the following conditions," which can be any of several disparate targets.

It's why INTJs have the reputation for "contingency planning": something happens to make a target unachievable. We already have (or can quickly conceive of) several other targets that will satisfy the conditions, and we pick whichever one of those that looks most favorable and head towards it.

Oh, and the goal can wiggle even more, due to other possibilities. E.g., given the list of conditions, we aren't above deleting a condition and checking whether it makes easier targets appear. This is no different than noting that of, say 10 requirements, 9 of them take all of 3 minutes to accomplish, but the 10th would take about a week. Is it worth a week to achieve that last requirement? Is that requirement totally necessary? Is a 3-minute, 90% solution satisfactory? Very often, the answer is "yes." And, sometimes, the answer is no, and we're stuck slogging our way to the goal for a week.

I see. That helps. Thanks for expanding on the topic. I was going to say, "As an Ne user, I totally relate to your example of choosing 9 out of 10 requirements because 90% is good enough for a given task" - but, the more I think about it, I think that's a Ti thing that I do. Ti would think something very similar: "Dude, you can be done in 3 minutes with a very high quality outcome...don't even bother with requirement 10...it would take you all week. That would be stupid and inefficient. Now get to work, you bum!" And, certainly, Ti would go ahead and complete requirement #10 if not completing it would greatly sacrifice quality or compromise the overall goal.

And I also relate to the "quickly seeing a new target" - kind of. What Ne/Ti do, is they get together and have a meeting.

Ti: OK, Ne, we're going back to grad school. We need to find a good program. 1. Affordable, 2. decent reputation, 3. Coursework that we're interested in and that will help us with the direction we want to go, 4. In a place with good weather.
Ne: I'll begin a nationwide search of all institutions and report back to you tomorrow morning, sir.
Ti: Make it happen!
*******
Next morning:
Ne: OK, there's several good programs out there. But, I've narrowed it down to the top 5 based on your parameters. There's a good program in California - weather is A+, a little expensive, close to family.......
Ti: Yeah, we already lived in California. We're moving on to bigger and better things. What's next on your list?
Ne: Texas. Good school, good reputation, affordable...
Ti: Yeah, and what's the weather like in Houston right now? I didn't think so. Next?
Ne: Florida.
Ti: Next.
Ne: Oklahoma.
Ti: Continue.
Ne: Good school, good reputation, fairly affordable, decent weather.
Ti: Hmmm...not much to do in Oklahoma these days, but tell me where #5 is located.
Ne: Virginia. Good reputation, good program - been gaining more notoriety in the field in recent years, very affordable, decent weather, fairly close to other northeast metro areas.
Ti: OK. Give me the link for Oklahoma and Virginia so I can investigate. Now get out of my hair and leave me alone for a month.
*****Ti spends the next 1 month dissecting every single thing about the programs in Virginia and Oklahoma. Makes numerous phone calls, talks to friends, colleagues, etc.
1 month later:
Ti: Book it, Danno! We're going to Virginia.
Ne: Took you long enough!

Now, if Virginia fell through, then Ti knows that Oklahoma is plan B, Texas is plan C, etc, etc. But, we do a lot of investigating, researching, thinking, pondering, considering until we know the programs like the back of our hand - we do all that investigating on the front side - before we ever make a single move. 85% of the excruciating research and in-depth analysis is done "up front". Now it's all done - everything we need to know has been "found out" - and now we can move into action with 99% certainty that it's going to go very smoothly, just how we expected it to. More times than not, it ends up being a breeze because we did our homework. When Ti does it's due diligence, does it's homework on the front side, it is extremely confident that it comes to the right decision based on the wealth of information that it took in on the topic. It's like showing up for a test knowing that you're going to ace it. You left no leaf unturned, so there is absolutely no way you'll get a B on the test. A+ is almost guaranteed. A- is worst case scenario. Only if Ti doesn't check everything out do things sometimes fall apart - because there are holes in the analysis - there are "unknowns" that will be revealed as surprises later on.

But, if something doesn't go right, then Ne simply goes, "No problem, Ti. We've got lots of options. Do you want me to go back and do more searching? Search in Canada maybe? Europe? Hawaii? Alaska? Back to California? There are millions of options here, just let me know which direction you'd like me to go in!"

uumlau
07-08-2011, 04:08 AM
Well, the 3 minutes vs 1 week is obvious when it's pointed out. What I've noticed, however, is that INTPs will tend toward the "of course the 1-week task is necessary -- if I omit any of these 10 requirements then I wouldn't achieve my goal." Usually, in a business context, I get feedback from an INTP along the lines of, "Well, OK, I see your point, but it's really annoying that we can't spend the week and do it right."

For instance, notice your example plan didn't include, "How about I take a year or two and do some real life work? I could easily take a job as an intern or an entry-level programmer." Such an option would be especially attractive if financial aid or other practical circumstances didn't work out. No, your goal was constrained to "go to college", where a more Ni perspective would be "How could I best improve my knowledge and experience?" or even as general as "What is the best thing I could do next with my life?" See how "college" is more "concrete"? Also, Ti/Ne is, as you put it, more meticulous: it looks at all of the different "concrete" options, analyzes them all carefully, and picks the best one. The Ni/Te version is, interestingly enough, more like "winging it", almost instinctively knowing what option is next best should the selected option become unavailable. INTJs, in this regard, are more "reckless" than INTPs. Sort of.

I never studied my options that meticulously. I knew that I'd not really have enough information. I just knew, in a general way, which I wanted based on broad brushstrokes. I will generally wait until I need to make the decision in order to have enough information to make it - almost as if I'm procrastinating, except I'm not.

This is why, btw, that it can often be difficult to tell the difference between INTJs and INTPs. Logically, they arrive at very similar conclusions. The path to get there, however, is often very different for each.

Such Irony
07-08-2011, 04:59 AM
Well, the 3 minutes vs 1 week is obvious when it's pointed out. What I've noticed, however, is that INTPs will tend toward the "of course the 1-week task is necessary -- if I omit any of these 10 requirements then I wouldn't achieve my goal." Usually, in a business context, I get feedback from an INTP along the lines of, "Well, OK, I see your point, but it's really annoying that we can't spend the week and do it right."

For instance, notice your example plan didn't include, "How about I take a year or two and do some real life work? I could easily take a job as an intern or an entry-level programmer." Such an option would be especially attractive if financial aid or other practical circumstances didn't work out. No, your goal was constrained to "go to college", where a more Ni perspective would be "How could I best improve my knowledge and experience?" or even as general as "What is the best thing I could do next with my life?" See how "college" is more "concrete"? Also, Ti/Ne is, as you put it, more meticulous: it looks at all of the different "concrete" options, analyzes them all carefully, and picks the best one. The Ni/Te version is, interestingly enough, more like "winging it", almost instinctively knowing what option is next best should the selected option become unavailable. INTJs, in this regard, are more "reckless" than INTPs. Sort of.

I never studied my options that meticulously. I knew that I'd not really have enough information. I just knew, in a general way, which I wanted based on broad brushstrokes. I will generally wait until I need to make the decision in order to have enough information to make it - almost as if I'm procrastinating, except I'm not.

This is why, btw, that it can often be difficult to tell the difference between INTJs and INTPs. Logically, they arrive at very similar conclusions. The path to get there, however, is often very different for each.

Interesting, I never thought of it quite that way but it does make sense. According to this I'm more like the INTP.

Resonance
07-08-2011, 05:11 AM
What I still don't get is that every brain does both of these, no matter how you describe it. (abstract rules from set of experiences, imagine possibilities from rules).

:/

People are saying "oh, well, I don't experience Nx so I can't speak for it but -" and then give something common to everyone.


My husband is an INTJ scientist, but he does the numerical/computer programming side of science, so he gets to contribute to many scientific problems. My impression is that if he solved one major problem, he would take time out to celebrate the victory, and then move on to the next big problem. It's also how he deals with his daily work. He likes to focus on one problem at a time, and once he has finished one major task, he'll take a quick break and move onto the next.
This for example is just the behaviour pattern exhibited by a person motivated by a fixed-ratio reward schedule.


I see. That helps. Thanks for expanding on the topic. I was going to say, "As an Ne user, I totally relate to your example of choosing 9 out of 10 requirements because 90% is good enough for a given task" - but, the more I think about it, I think that's a Ti thing that I do.
Case #2. You're taking two processes that are fundamentally subconscious and identical, and framing them as different 'cognitive functions'. Ok, so one is Ti and one is Ni. "But Claire," you protest! "What's important is how it happens!" Nay, I say, because you don't know how it happens, you post-rationalize. How it happens is the data is distributed to a bunch of relevant neural circuits, processed based on data that already exists in those circuits, and then and only then does an answer pop into your conscious mind where you can observe it. Sure, you can sort of check what memories and rules and what-not might have been activated, but this still doesn't give you a detailed mechanistic process, only a snapshot.

INTPness
07-08-2011, 05:49 AM
Well, the 3 minutes vs 1 week is obvious when it's pointed out. What I've noticed, however, is that INTPs will tend toward the "of course the 1-week task is necessary -- if I omit any of these 10 requirements then I wouldn't achieve my goal." Usually, in a business context, I get feedback from an INTP along the lines of, "Well, OK, I see your point, but it's really annoying that we can't spend the week and do it right."

For instance, notice your example plan didn't include, "How about I take a year or two and do some real life work? I could easily take a job as an intern or an entry-level programmer." Such an option would be especially attractive if financial aid or other practical circumstances didn't work out. No, your goal was constrained to "go to college", where a more Ni perspective would be "How could I best improve my knowledge and experience?" or even as general as "What is the best thing I could do next with my life?" See how "college" is more "concrete"? Also, Ti/Ne is, as you put it, more meticulous: it looks at all of the different "concrete" options, analyzes them all carefully, and picks the best one. The Ni/Te version is, interestingly enough, more like "winging it", almost instinctively knowing what option is next best should the selected option become unavailable. INTJs, in this regard, are more "reckless" than INTPs. Sort of.

I never studied my options that meticulously. I knew that I'd not really have enough information. I just knew, in a general way, which I wanted based on broad brushstrokes. I will generally wait until I need to make the decision in order to have enough information to make it - almost as if I'm procrastinating, except I'm not.

This is why, btw, that it can often be difficult to tell the difference between INTJs and INTPs. Logically, they arrive at very similar conclusions. The path to get there, however, is often very different for each.

Yeah, that all makes sense. You guys are N-dom (with S 4th), while we are T-dom (and S 3rd) and so you guys, like ENTP's, are more "winging it". While INTP's and ENTJ's are more concrete. We appear to be winging it because we are so spacy and Ne. People see INTP's and they think "he's out to lunch, nutty professor" - but internally, things are very logical and orderly. And yes, sometimes we will do step #10 because we want perfection. That is true. We're still about efficiency though. I've certainly seen situations where I believe I'm being much more efficient than an INTJ co-worker. Yes, it happens. I know INTJ's don't like to believe it, but it does happen. There are times where I think, "in the time it took you to work your way through that, I could have been done 10 times over". Not often - INTJ's are efficient folks - but I'm just saying - as often as you think that your way is better than ours, is probably as often as we think our way is better than yours. Just sayin.

The one thing you did get wrong in your post, however, is that I'm in my 30's with a well-established work history and will be holding down a full-time job while attending grad school. So, it's more of "how can I fit grad school into my working life" rather than a 22-year-old "I need an internship to boost my resume". And the specific states/details were examples to illustrate the process.

But, yeah, thanks again for your explanations. Helped quite a bit!

uumlau
07-08-2011, 05:52 AM
What I still don't get is that every brain does both of these, no matter how you describe it. (abstract rules from set of experiences, imagine possibilities from rules).

:/

People are saying "oh, well, I don't experience Nx so I can't speak for it but -" and then give something common to everyone.


It's about which PATH one's thinking takes. The set of experiences applied are different. Ni takes Se-type experiences. Thus in-the-moment data can change the Ni-perception. Ne takes Si-type experiences. Thus only strongly embedded data affect the Ne-perception. All of the Ne perceptions must fit Si. Even if one is Ne dominant, the Si inferior limits where the Ne can "go". All of the Ni perceptions must fit Se.

The overall effect is that Ne tends to relate "objects" to each other, or (w/r to INTPs) one conceives of an overall ideal system that describes everything that is, was, or could be. Ni tends to relate "processes" to each other, thus can match very dissimilar objects as being "the same" because they "work the same" in spite of being completely different things.

Resonance
07-08-2011, 05:58 AM
It's about which PATH one's thinking takes. The set of experiences applied are different. Ni takes Se-type experiences. Thus in-the-moment data can change the Ni-perception. Ne takes Si-type experiences. Thus only strongly embedded data affect the Ne-perception. All of the Ne perceptions must fit Si. Even if one is Ne dominant, the Si inferior limits where the Ne can "go". All of the Ni perceptions must fit Se.

The overall effect is that Ne tends to relate "objects" to each other, or (w/r to INTPs) one conceives of an overall ideal system that describes everything that is, was, or could be. Ni tends to relate "processes" to each other, thus can match very dissimilar objects as being "the same" because they "work the same" in spite of being completely different things.
Okay, but I'm pretty sure everyone is capable of thinking in both modes...

ReflecTcelfeR
07-08-2011, 06:03 AM
^ That's why we invoke the power of preference.

Resonance
07-08-2011, 06:06 AM
^ That's why we invoke the power of preference.
Not what I'm reading into this thread. :unsure:

"I don't understand Ni! I don't use Ni at all! What is it!" yes you do, you silly goose. :shrug:

skylights
07-08-2011, 07:16 AM
Not what I'm reading into this thread. :unsure:

"I don't understand Ni! I don't use Ni at all! What is it!" yes you do, you silly goose. :shrug:

translation being, i don't understand Ni as described in the words Ni-primary users choose to explain it. you'll note that many times, Ni-over-Ne users prefer to be more succinct, and to leave their essential conclusions out of their writing. they often prefer to read less information, and choose to see that information in many lights, as opposed to the Ne preference of being given a lot of data to sift through, and presenting the conclusions up front. whereas Ni users may find that style to be muddied with too much information.

it's like someone trying to describe a foreign fruit to you in a foreign language. it's not that you don't get the concept of fruit, but you have trouble recognizing it in the format being presented to you. the MBTI concept of N is a theoretical abstraction in itself... it's really no surprise that we have trouble communicating what we think it is, much less agreeing on a single conceptualization.

redcheerio
07-08-2011, 08:05 AM
Very interesting. So, what do you do once you find 'the answer' - once the problem at hand is resolved. Like, I work with INTJ scientists. They spend their whole lives working towards cures, answers, discoveries to very specific problems. What happens if they find the answer or finally solve the problem. Is it "mission accomplished - time to retire"? Or is it just simply, "move on to another problem"? Cuz, for instance, one of them truly believes that understanding one small bodily protein will unlock huge mysteries of the human body and health. He dedicates his entire existence to understanding this one object because he *knows* how important it is to overall human health. If he does make *the big discovery*, what would he do next? Just bask in his glory as a well-respected scientist? Or would he then "take up a new agenda"?


My husband is an INTJ scientist, but he does the numerical/computer programming side of science, so he gets to contribute to many scientific problems. My impression is that if he solved one major problem, he would take time out to celebrate the victory, and then move on to the next big problem. It's also how he deals with his daily work. He likes to focus on one problem at a time, and once he has finished one major task, he'll take a quick break and move onto the next.



What I still don't get is that every brain does both of these, no matter how you describe it. (abstract rules from set of experiences, imagine possibilities from rules).

:/

People are saying "oh, well, I don't experience Nx so I can't speak for it but -" and then give something common to everyone.


This for example is just the behaviour pattern exhibited by a person motivated by a fixed-ratio reward schedule.


Well that's true, and it's what I would do, also. So, it's true that it doesn't say much about Ne vs Ni.

But, I was just answering INTP's question about INTJ scientists, since I'm married to one. :shrug: Sorry to clutter up the thread with something that doesn't add any clarity to the thread topic.... :laugh:

21%
07-08-2011, 08:27 AM
I realized a while ago when I was running some tests for my research that Ni is a bit like statistics. You're given a pile of raw data -- overwhelming pile of data -- and you have no idea what it means. Then you slowly run tests, one by one, to see if anything yields anything significant. Then you work out your meanings from there. It might sound a bit weird and if you've never been dumped with a pile of raw data, so here's a more concrete elaboration:

Let's say you're doing a study where you give 10,000 people a questionnaire about their various beliefs (religious, social, political, ethical, etc.). You also collect data about their age, gender, socio-economic stuff, MBTI types, etc. So now, you have that pile of raw data on your desk and it's your job to figure out what it all means.

There is no way on earth you're going to read through the 10,000 questionnaires and comprehend it. So all you can do is look at the data from different angles to see if there is anything you can conclude from it. How do you start? Select some variables and run a test. There are obvious things you can test, such as whether people from different age groups would hold different degrees of religious beliefs, or whether males or females are more left-winged or right-winged. But, with Ni, you are compelled to understand all there is to understand. So once the obvious ones have been exhausted, you start going to the less obvious ones, the really obscure ones, like whether Ti-doms are more likely to challenge their religious beliefs than other groups (which perhaps will send you filtering for subjects who test as IXTPs who were raised in religious families who answer "strongly agree" on the statement "I am very interested in learning in depth about other religions") -- no, but wait. Maybe the questions are not well-worded. Let's see if these Ti-doms came from areas with exposure to other religions to rule out the factor that being exposed to other religions from a very young age might have an effect. But, wait, maybe that's not right. Maybe people associate the statement with being 'tolerant'. Now let's look at these people's answers on statements concerning tolerance...

... and so on.

In the end, what Ni is trying to get at, is the perfect understanding of all there is. In this study, you'll be at peace once you understand the effects resulting from each and every factor (and combinations of factors) you can find. Then, you will be able to understand the factors themselves. You will be able to define and describe everything -- and predict all the possible outcomes.

Sometimes you get obsessed and it's not fun :blush:

Resonance
07-08-2011, 09:01 AM
Well that's true, and it's what I would do, also. So, it's true that it doesn't say much about Ne vs Ni.

But, I was just answering INTP's question about INTJ scientists, since I'm married to one. :shrug: Sorry to clutter up the thread with something that doesn't add any clarity to the thread topic.... :laugh:
lol, you're not the first, don't worry ;D

in fact, if you had, you would be, IMO >.>

redcheerio
07-08-2011, 09:13 AM
lol, you're not the first, don't worry ;D

in fact, if you had, you would be, IMO >.>

Haha, I hear ya. I find the descriptions written by Nis difficult to follow sometimes. I thought there were some good posts in here, though!

the state i am in
07-09-2011, 06:26 PM
the language is almost more of a hindrance than a helpful tool when trying to describe the seemingly invisible, imperceptible processes of perception while conveying and preserving the most useful, most relevant context that surrounds so many interactive processes embedded within larger processes (and all the while to others who have such qualitatively/fundamentally different ways of constructing and attending to experience). and the language itself is only prior usages and distinctions that must always be remade in order to more efficiently rank and organize contexts to provide the maximum meaning, most useful compression possible, in order to preserve scale and avoid errors of logical type. this is why it is so difficult to abstract Ne out of a larger system or Ni out of the context of Je while also trying to manage the linguistic possibilities of interpretation with words that can lose their essential meaning and in turn be rendered dead and hollow (so many "logical type" errors!). if you want to puzzle over Ni, read gregory bateson or douglas hofstadter (i would like more intjs in my life).

it is also frustrating because language plays a more central role/somewhat different role? in organizing our learning. we store the contexts, the frames we construct, as semantic information, as psuedo-objective knowledge that is tagged within the existing language-culture infrastructure we have internalized, but we have made so many changes, an infinite number, that nothing quite means what it used to mean or what it may mean in the larger circulation pool. so we use language at a different stage in the process, not for definitional clarity like Ti, but for instituting conceptual blending grammatically, recursively, in order to build more complex, multi-faceted representations, models, that we keep and use to orient ourselves to what is (when the noise is focused, tuned into a more perfect schema, when new scales of understanding can be created to organize the depth field and reveal the essence underlying all possible meanings that we have been able to collectively create, investigate, test, and synthesize so far).

Ne seems to use language more via previously stored historical contexts (Ji), a kind of decision structure event registry that primes Ne, or what i am currently calling the similarity finder, to generate (flood awareness with) all possible (unique to individual) ways of essentializing an object or process in the world with likes that could replace and be used to organize possible ways around, through, or past individual decisions (the Ji work part). it creates the most fluid, experimental story-process unfolding decision by decision, event by event (still selected based on parameters and discovery of relevance).

Anew Leaf
07-09-2011, 08:56 PM
What I have learned:

Ne is a super nova.
Ni is a black hole.

Rail Tracer
07-11-2011, 03:53 AM
What I have learned:

Ne is a super nova.
Ni is a black hole.

Something... Something. Something to that effect was what I got in mind.

From what I remember learning about Ni and Ne, both can be never-ending in some strange direction. If you were to give a Ni and Ne user any type of word, and tell both users to give a use for it, Ni will bring everything into that one word. Ne, on the other hand, would bring that one word into everything. So Ni, in a sense, contracts. While, on the other hand, Ne expands. But I like Saturned's definition :D.

Ni is the all for one, while Ne is the one for all. Ni tries to converge ideas, while Ne tries to diverge an idea.

The most concrete example I can think of is "diseases." For example diabetes, obesity, and heart attacks.

How it is grouped into diabetes, obesity, and heart attack could possibly be considered a Ne approach.

But once you begin saying that those who have obesity are more likely to have diabetes and heart attacks, that is when you are converging the three ideas (which can be seen as a Ni approach.)

In both cases, they both work. Not all people who have obesity gets diabetes or a heart attack. People who don't even have obesity gets diabetes or a heart attack etc etc... [fill in the never ending comparison.]

redcheerio
07-11-2011, 04:45 AM
Something... Something. Something to that effect was what I got in mind.

From what I remember learning about Ni and Ne, both can be never-ending in some strange direction. If you were to give a Ni and Ne user any type of word, and tell both users to give a use for it, Ni will bring everything into that one word. Ne, on the other hand, would bring that one word into everything. So Ni, in a sense, contracts. While, on the other hand, Ne expands. But I like Saturned's definition :D.

Ni is the all for one, while Ne is the one for all. Ni tries to converge ideas, while Ne tries to diverge an idea.

The most concrete example I can think of is "diseases." For example diabetes, obesity, and heart attacks.

How it is grouped into diabetes, obesity, and heart attack could possibly be considered a Ne approach.

But once you begin saying that those who have obesity are more likely to have diabetes and heart attacks, that is when you are converging the three ideas (which can be seen as a Ni approach.)

In both cases, they both work. Not all people who have obesity gets diabetes or a heart attack. People who don't even have obesity gets diabetes or a heart attack etc etc... [fill in the never ending comparison.]

Yeah, I agree that's a great way to describe it! It also shows the connection between Ni and Js, and Ne and Ps.

INTPness made a diagram to illustrate this earlier in this thread, cool, hey?


Maybe something like this?

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/5523/nenia.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/830/nenia.png/)

paisley1
07-11-2011, 05:09 AM
For the TV addicts:

NE - Michael Weston
NI - Paul Weston

.........see what I did there.......come on, you guys don't watch enough TV, even though I'm still 100% accurate.
http://collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Burn_Notice/jeffrey_donovan_michael_weston_123.jpghttp://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/paul-weston-photo_432x324.jpg

Mal12345
07-11-2011, 05:27 AM
I know the question of what distinguishes Ne from Ni comes up a lot and everyone has different perspectives, so if nothing else just post your own idea of what it is, and we can see about discussing and at least make sure everyone's perspectives are out there so we can pick what seems 'right' to us.

There are probably some older threads on the topic, but I looked through some pages and only saw more specialized discussions.

----

The reason I'm wondering about this is because I've pretty much 'locked in' that I use Fe with people IRL and Ti for analysis/debates/work/etc, regardless of what meaning I'm going by. And N has always been unquestionably tops. So that leaves either Ni-Fe-Ti-Se (INFJ) or Ne-Ti-Fe-Se (ENTP).

Based on my apparent overuse of Ti, many people want to pin me as ENTP. But on the other hand, a lot of comparisons consist of "Ni-Te" vs "Ne-Ti" interactions - in debates and humour and so on, so it's hard to discern where Ti ends and some sort of N begins. I'd rather leave it up to a more general examination of Ni vs. Ne, because I feel like that's really the crux of the difference. In my case, I'm interested in the interactions of Ni-Fe, Ni-Ti, Ne-Ti, and Ne-Fe, but the inverse is probably relevant to some other people so by all means, go all-out.

For this reason, please don't just post "You seem [type/function] to me" unless it will help contextualize your explanation.

I think the problem is simply that you want to be "pinned" as one type. It should be recognized that the ANSIR typology system uses a 3-tier typing system. You could be the same type in all three, or a different type in each. I strongly suspect you would score differently in at least two of them.

Consider this: "The reason I'm wondering about this is because I've pretty much 'locked in' that I use Fe with people IRL and Ti for analysis/debates/work/etc." You have implied all three ANSIR categories in one sentence: thinking, working, and emoting. You use Fe with people - Emoting; and you use Ti for analysis/debates/work - Thinking and Working.

So just stop trying to lock yourself in. You are INFJ with people, and (let's say) ENTP with debate, work, and analysis. That's about the same idea as scoring Synthesist-Realist - polar opposites - on the Harrison/Bramson InQ test, it's just not a problem until the MBTI demands that 6,000,000,000 people have to be exactly one type and only one type out of sixteen.

Resonance
07-11-2011, 10:25 AM
I think the problem is simply that you want to be "pinned" as one type. It should be recognized that the ANSIR typology system uses a 3-tier typing system. You could be the same type in all three, or a different type in each. I strongly suspect you would score differently in at least two of them.

Consider this: "The reason I'm wondering about this is because I've pretty much 'locked in' that I use Fe with people IRL and Ti for analysis/debates/work/etc." You have implied all three ANSIR categories in one sentence: thinking, working, and emoting. You use Fe with people - Emoting; and you use Ti for analysis/debates/work - Thinking and Working.

So just stop trying to lock yourself in. You are INFJ with people, and (let's say) ENTP with debate, work, and analysis. That's about the same idea as scoring Synthesist-Realist - polar opposites - on the Harrison/Bramson InQ test, it's just not a problem until the MBTI demands that 6,000,000,000 people have to be exactly one type and only one type out of sixteen.
That's cool, I'll check this other typology out. Thanks! :)

Still, that's a totally new and unrelated context, so I don't expect it to have much effect on the discussion >.< But yah it sounds like it'll give me a more concise way of expressing it I guess~

Rail Tracer
07-11-2011, 07:23 PM
INTPness made a diagram to illustrate this earlier in this thread, cool, hey?

Yep, apparently everyone thought what I thought.

Anew Leaf
07-11-2011, 07:32 PM
Something... Something. Something to that effect was what I got in mind.

From what I remember learning about Ni and Ne, both can be never-ending in some strange direction. If you were to give a Ni and Ne user any type of word, and tell both users to give a use for it, Ni will bring everything into that one word. Ne, on the other hand, would bring that one word into everything. So Ni, in a sense, contracts. While, on the other hand, Ne expands. But I like Saturned's definition :D.

Ni is the all for one, while Ne is the one for all. Ni tries to converge ideas, while Ne tries to diverge an idea.

The most concrete example I can think of is "diseases." For example diabetes, obesity, and heart attacks.

How it is grouped into diabetes, obesity, and heart attack could possibly be considered a Ne approach.

But once you begin saying that those who have obesity are more likely to have diabetes and heart attacks, that is when you are converging the three ideas (which can be seen as a Ni approach.)

In both cases, they both work. Not all people who have obesity gets diabetes or a heart attack. People who don't even have obesity gets diabetes or a heart attack etc etc... [fill in the never ending comparison.]

Haha, I kind of came up with that on the fly.... I did some research last night into super novas, black holes, neutron stars, event horizons, singularities... So interesting... that I got lost in the main reason why I was looking those topics up.

I really like how Ne and Ni work together. I have two INFJs that work for me. On the days we are all three together, we do a lot of talking about various topics. One of the INFJs is a mother of 5 and one of her sons is having problems. We talked an entire day about this issue. I tossed out about 20 scenarios I could see as to why he was acting this way. (His dad lives in Australia and ignores him, his older brother moved off to NY for college last fall, he's a middle child and with all of the action going on he has gotten lost in the shuffle, he's feeling lost at school, etc etc) The two INFJs sifted through what I said and explored whether what I was saying was a good match or not. We get a lot done in these chats usually.

the state i am in
07-11-2011, 08:37 PM
I really like how Ne and Ni work together. I have two INFJs that work for me. On the days we are all three together, we do a lot of talking about various topics. One of the INFJs is a mother of 5 and one of her sons is having problems. We talked an entire day about this issue. I tossed out about 20 scenarios I could see as to why he was acting this way. (His dad lives in Australia and ignores him, his older brother moved off to NY for college last fall, he's a middle child and with all of the action going on he has gotten lost in the shuffle, he's feeling lost at school, etc etc) The two INFJs sifted through what I said and explored whether what I was saying was a good match or not. We get a lot done in these chats usually.

this is how i feel. most of my friends are nps, and the opportunity to consistently engage and explore so many possibilities, to refine them, to generate new questions, to build understanding is, i think, mutually rewarding. especially when discussions unfold that allow each person to independently advance their own ideas while testing them within something that is collectively unfolding. maybe even more so, i just know it brings out my best, and i know i am getting better at bringing out the best in others in these situations and kind of parsing out the problems to be solved in ways that fit with what we all do best and all like to do.

with other sx types, it's usually more independent writing and just taking turns to see what you can do with the context that has been built up while being somewhat cognizant that it might not be relevant to the other person and as a result at least trying to create good energy so that interest remains high.

onemoretime
07-11-2011, 11:26 PM
Games that help describe both functions:

Ne - TriBond - take three seemingly-different concepts, determine the common essential characteristic of the three

Ni - Scribblish - take a non-sensical picture, and determine how it developed through multiple iterations of interpretation

Resonance
07-12-2011, 12:01 AM
Games that help describe both functions:

Ne - TriBond - take three seemingly-different concepts, determine the common essential characteristic of the three

Ni - Scribblish - take a non-sensical picture, and determine how it developed through multiple iterations of interpretation
This seems to be basically the opposite of how others describe them?

Ginkgo
07-12-2011, 12:06 AM
I get the sense that Ne oriented people tend to spread ideas in hopes of revolutionizing what's already known. I mean, on the surface, it looks like they're just building on concepts and flying on the hinges of every tangent that's even remotely related to prior contexts. However, the motivation, at least in my mind, is to bring about death and destruction.

Resonance
07-12-2011, 12:12 AM
I get the sense that Ne oriented people tend to spread ideas in hopes of revolutionizing what's already known. I mean, on the surface, it looks like they're just building on concepts and flying on the hinges of every tangent that's even remotely related to prior contexts. However, the motivation, at least in my mind, is to bring about death and destruction.
what
this is how i feel. most of my friends are nps,

most of my friends are nips too

Ginkgo
07-12-2011, 12:16 AM
what

most of my friends are nips too

Not really. :D

But maybe secretly.

FunnyDigestion
07-12-2011, 01:12 AM
However, the motivation, at least in my mind, is to bring about death and destruction.

That's a very strange thing to say. A lot of creativity is partly vengeful, intrigued with vilifying things as they are... but I know I'm personally too much of a pussy to really want to kill anything.

But then, that that even makes sense-- that shying from wanting to bring death could be at all like cowardice, is only further infuriating to me... so maybe you have something there. But now I sound like a crazy person.

onemoretime
07-12-2011, 02:37 AM
This seems to be basically the opposite of how others describe them?

That's because most of the time, people don't pay attention to direction. The first is Ne, because it's concerned with the essential connection "out there." You're not looking for what's the true meaning of those three words within, but what's the connection that already exists out there. The second is Ni, because it involves the hidden truth that's been obscured by four levels of interpretation, and shifting one's perspective of the final image to work toward the thematic core that unites the original phrase with the ultimate drawing.

Rail Tracer
07-12-2011, 03:11 AM
This seems to be basically the opposite of how others describe them?

Not quite, how it is being describe sounds confusing. Somehow, it sounds like the opposite approach to describing Ni and Ne... which also works :D

Scribblish:
Non-sensical picture: Ne, some "random" picture
How it developed through multiple iterations of interpretation: Ni, the missing links from point A, B, C , D. it goes something like A<B<C<D<"random" picture
Ne>Ni

This one was a bit easier to understand why onemoretime said it was Ni, to me I thought of it as a line of thought, it heads from 1 spot to another 1 spot. How I see it is that it isn't branching out like a tree, thus the Ni. Someone can suppose that it is Ne because the random picture could be seen as 1 idea while the iterations could be seen as 4(thus branching out.)

Real life example? Let's go back in history. You can call that "chain of events." Events meaning many, chain being connected.

Tribond: (This one is a little harder for me to describe)
Seemingly different concepts: Ni, since we're being vaguely told there is a link. We are to come up with ideas as to what the link is.
Common essential characteristic: Ne, finding the one thing that tied them together to form the Ni bond.
Ni>Ne

Real life example? Liquid, Gas, Solid. (bad example... I know...)
How one person may see it is that these three have a word to describe them but now they are trying to find what that word is (Ne)

But how another person interprets this scenario could be Ni (which I did beforehand until I decided why onemoretime says it is Ne.) The way I thought was, these are three items. I need to find how these three items are connected (Ni.)

It is how you approach the concept that decides whether it is Ni or Ne.

edited

Am I running on a tangent or am I not? You decide :D

Anew Leaf
07-12-2011, 03:13 AM
Ne = Supernova.

Both create elements heavier than oxygen.
Both expand outward in a significant lightyearesque fashion from the starting point.
Both are luminous.



Ni = Black Hole

Both are in tune to the gravity of a situation.
Both gather in information.
Both arrive to a single, magical point.


I haz won ze thread!!

JAVO
07-12-2011, 03:25 AM
Ne = Supernova.

Both create elements heavier than oxygen.
Both expand outward in a significant lightyearesque fashion from the starting point.
Both are luminous.



Ni = Black Hole

Both are in tune to the gravity of a situation.
Both gather in information.
Both arrive to a single, magical point.


I haz won ze thread!!

Good job! :yes:

Beware though: Should the supernova result in black hole formation, it will implode this analogy and change your type!

Anew Leaf
07-12-2011, 03:34 AM
Good job! :yes:

Beware though: Should the supernova result in black hole formation, it will implode this analogy and change your type!

My kind of Ne starts with stars that are capped at 8x the mass of our Sun.

Rail Tracer
07-12-2011, 03:43 AM
My kind of Ne starts with stars that are capped at 8x the mass of our Sun.

Supernova, black hole, time warp, white hole, blue giant, supernova, black hole?

Assuming white holes exist. :laugh:

Ginkgo
07-12-2011, 03:58 AM
That's a very strange thing to say. A lot of creativity is partly vengeful, intrigued with vilifying things as they are... but I know I'm personally too much of a pussy to really want to kill anything.

But then, that that even makes sense-- that shying from wanting to bring death could be at all like cowardice, is only further infuriating to me... so maybe you have something there. But now I sound like a crazy person.

Dude it was a drypan joke. Don't hurt yourself. Maybe that was a bad idea.

Ne extrapolates
Ni interpolates
Ne sees how the scene changes
Ni sees behind the scenes
Ne juggles multiple possibilities, but needs some degree of external input to affirm what's in the mind's eye
Ni gathers a hunch so strong that external input is scarcely needed to lend the image to one's mind's eye

Both deal with vague, "big picture" perceptions. They are "big" in that they are bound to symbols and interpretations, reflecting personal significance rather than a file cabinet of detailed sense perceptions.