Ne/Si

[INTP]

It should be noted that Ne and Si are the two sides of the same coin and im talking about the coin here, not about one side or another.

And i should give a proper definitions for both S and N.

S is simply defined as perception of what is, a fact.

N is defined as perception via unconscious and seeing where something came from and wher it might be going to/possibility over time. This possibility over time is acquired from comparison between external world and Si(what is inside). These possibilities come in form of instincts, unless the internal counterpart(to the external perception) is seen consciously.

I should also tell you what i mean by object. Object can be other than just physical object, it can be anything you can process, a group of certain people, certain person, certain idea, concept(concrete or abstract) etc.

NeSi is looking for an internal counterpart for external perceptions. This comparison happens more or less unconsciously.
When Ne is preferred over Si, the internal counterpart(memory/internalized fact) is less conscious and the matching comparison results usually on perceiving an instinct or gut feeling about where the perceived object might be going to(its possibility over time). When Si is preferred over Ne, the gut feeling of possibility over time is not perceived as easily, the treshold for seeing the connection between external object and internal counterpart is higher, thus comes to consciousness less often, but when it does, the internal object is seen more clearly. One major difference between the types(np vs sj) is that for sj types clarity of internal counterpart is more of a reguirment for comparison to be taken seriously, while for np types the internal counterpart doesent need to be seen so clearly, since for np the internal counterpart isnt as differentiated(distinguished from others) in the first place, but is more mixed up with others.

This leads to stronger bias towards perceptions(compared to Se users), because external perceptions are modified by 'what is' inside. How this perceptual bias happens reguires bit of explanaining. The perception itself is lacking compared to Se, because S in introverted attitude is removing what is unconsciously seen as irrelevant on the external perception. Ne adds possibility and connection between objects perceived to this partial perception, building an big picture perception with connection between things and possibility over time.

Sj types naturally use their Je function more consciously in order relate to their external world, so even tho they arent adding/seeing possibility of external objects so clearly, it doesent mean that they would relate to external world less consciously, they just do so with judgment more than np types.

I think thats all for now.

Any comments?

 

[Owfin]

Really really like this description. It's putting in text a lot of my thoughts about Ne and Si.

 

[highlander]

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] - Interesting thread and description.

I must admit to being a bit confused about the "dual functions" - like SiNe for the ISTJ or NeSi for the ENFP. It seems a bit strange to use a poorly developed function in combination with a well developed one. How do you think this works? Do we do it all the time? Do we use it only in certain cases?

 

[skylights]

i like to think of Si points in my Ne matrix. wouldn't have a matrix if there wasn't anything to anchor it around...

i just happen to attend more to the overall landscape of the matrix than the points that establish it. whereas ESFJ mom pays more attention to the points. she is more in tune with reality (better at directions... better at data... better with details... ) but i am better at seeing big overall patterns.

 

[INTP]

[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] - Interesting thread and description.

I must admit to being a bit confused about the "dual functions" - like SiNe for the ISTJ or NeSi for the ENFP. It seems a bit strange to use a poorly developed function in combination with a well developed one. How do you think this works? Do we do it all the time? Do we use it only in certain cases?

Well, i dont think we use those poorly developed functions all the time(on every thought), but we do use them more than we are aware of.
The way brains function is that it splatters action potential(libido in jungian terms) all over and if it gets on areas that are well developed(on processing the thought we get) the signal gets strenghtened and once its strong enough, it travels easily to areas where consciousness is formed. But when this info travels to areas that arent well developed it gets shut off before it travels to areas that form consciousness, but nevertheless it shapes the neural connections on those not so well developed areas in a way that enables the thought to be processed easier when the next signal comes.
Consciousness "ticks"(is able to receive action potential) about 250 times a second, because we arent aware of things between of these "ticks", it gets merged into one continuous flow of thought.
Now because this "tick rate" is so fast, it can push info into consciousness from not so well developed areas also and combine it with info coming from well developed areas. Its like the not well developed areas(unless you have learned to process some particular things with those areas) need more "ticks" to do one conscious participation on your thoughts.
But also because the brain shapes itself all the time, those not so well developed areas are able to sort of shape themselves into processing info in future "ticks", remember this future ticks can be just 250th second away or much longer, not sure how fast ununsed connections get cut out, but generally some unconscious thoughts(thoughts that are processed only to some degree, but never formed strong enough to become conscious) are said to even come from childhood to adult life.

But the thing with N is that it doesent seem to be any particular areas that do them, but it seems to be more like an pattern of action on areas used for other functions. Ne being random activation of all areas, most likely projected on visual and auditory areas(therefore effecting the external perception. Ni being more focused activity gathering info from sides of the brain moving to center(not affecting the external perception, but gathering(reading markings from) already experienced external perceptions and perceiving them from within.

Because of this N function is bit different from other functions(which are basically specific areas working together).

But it seems that when using intuition Sj and Np types tend to gather the information in this random sense, using sort of cross-contextual thinking(comparing things being processed to other areas processing the same thing), while Nj and Sp use this more focused way of gather the information(centering the thought) from within(think a wave of action potential starting from edges of brain and centering in the middle).

Now the difference between Np and Sj types usage of this Ne function is just that it doesent get activated as often in Sj types. I think Sj types are able to get the boost from single areas(processing some particular thought) easier thats needed for it to become conscious, so this comparison between areas(Ne) isnt needed as often and most importantly, because the single thoughts are more refined(as its processed further, getting more specific doing so), its harder to find the "equilevant" from other areas. Compared to Np types who go into refining a fact less often, making it less specific, thus being more easily compared to other areas processing the same thing. Enabling us to make bigger intuitive leaps, but on the down side its not as specific.

 

[INTP]

i like to think of Si points in my Ne matrix. wouldn't have a matrix if there wasn't anything to anchor it around...

i just happen to attend more to the overall landscape of the matrix than the points that establish it. whereas ESFJ mom pays more attention to the points. she is more in tune with reality (better at directions... better at data... better with details... ) but i am better at seeing big overall patterns.

Yea well, imo this is whats it about.

You could think it as this sort of map:

Sj types go further refining a single path on this map and these more refined paths come into consciousness easily. Np types on the other hand do less refining(doesent look as deeply into one path) of these paths, but compare these reference points to other reference points alike more.

Think that you need an intense enough tought for it to come to consciousness.
Now when Sj types gain the intensity for a thought more from following a single path, Np types gain the intensity by comparison. Now when you compare an pathway to another that already exists, its easier to think how this path being compared to similar one might go.
-> Np types get more frequent ideas of where something might be leading to and where it propably came from and more connections between things perceived. But these are just asumptions based on the contents of your unconsciousness. Sj types have more refined and clear single paths, but less Ne comparison.

 

[Owfin]

Sj types go further refining a single path on this map and these more refined paths come into consciousness easily. Np types on the other hand do less refining(doesent look as deeply into one path) of these paths, but compare these reference points to other reference points alike more.

Actually, SJ types focus more on individual points on the path.

 

[INTP]

Actually, SJ types focus more on individual points on the path.

Well i think it as one path being the refinement of an though. The well defined individual points are at the end of the path and they include the previous points. Also its not just one path that becomes a thought, its the ends of multiple paths that are merged into single thought. Remember at each actionpotential "tick" the actionpotential is spreading all over where its not repressed(not let through an neuron/individual point).

 

[chris1207]

It should be noted that Ne and Si are the two sides of the same coin and im talking about the coin here, not about one side or another.

And i should give a proper definitions for both S and N.

S is simply defined as perception of what is, a fact.

N is defined as perception via unconscious and seeing where something came from and wher it might be going to/possibility over time. This possibility over time is acquired from comparison between external world and Si(what is inside).

I think time is something I would associate more with Ni/Si. It's the result of mapping and remapping similar perceptual stuff (either patterns or detail depending.) Ne/Se are all about perceiving in the present but have a totality and nuance to their perception that Ni/Si don't. I would say Ne is more correlation of known details from Si. Seeing the connections in between them and correlating resultantly similar patterns across a diverse variety of, apparently, disparate topics.

These possibilities come in form of instincts, unless the internal counterpart(to the external perception) is seen consciously.

I like the use of instincts here. I think of Se as being the essence of what one speaks of when they refer to instincts. It's good to see a correlation to the other Pe.

I should also tell you what i mean by object. Object can be other than just physical object, it can be anything you can process, a group of certain people, certain person, certain idea, concept(concrete or abstract) etc.

Kind of. Object = externalized or at least, perceived externalities that one appeals to and coordinates with. That which is outside oneself vs internalized, interpolated data (Pi).

NeSi is looking for an internal counterpart for external perceptions. This comparison happens more or less unconsciously.
When Ne is preferred over Si, the internal counterpart(memory/internalized fact) is less conscious and the matching comparison results usually on perceiving an instinct or gut feeling about where the perceived object might be going to(its possibility over time). When Si is preferred over Ne, the gut feeling of possibility over time is not perceived as easily, the treshold for seeing the connection between external object and internal counterpart is higher, thus comes to consciousness less often, but when it does, the internal object is seen more clearly. One major difference between the types(np vs sj) is that for sj types clarity of internal counterpart is more of a reguirment for comparison to be taken seriously, while for np types the internal counterpart doesent need to be seen so clearly, since for np the internal counterpart isnt as differentiated(distinguished from others) in the first place, but is more mixed up with others.

I really like the last point. That strikes me as true. A more developed function is going to have an inherently stronger structure. Higher sensory discernment = greater nuance with regards to detail distinctions whereas higher conceptual dynamism = greater ability to see patterns that have similar images despite containing disparate elements with regards to detail.

The over-time stuff, as I mentioned above, not so much. Plus, look at real-life examples. SJ's have a much better perception of time, hence they're tendency to create and appeal to schedules, though this incorporates Je decision-making, as well.

This leads to stronger bias towards perceptions(compared to Se users), because external perceptions are modified by 'what is' inside. How this perceptual bias happens reguires bit of explanaining. The perception itself is lacking compared to Se, because S in introverted attitude is removing what is unconsciously seen as irrelevant on the external perception. Ne adds possibility and connection between objects perceived to this partial perception, building an big picture perception with connection between things and possibility over time.

Actually, reason that Se users seems less anchored to perception is the fact that expressing ones perspective requires utilizing details and impersonal rationale ('words'). Because the depth of perception with Si/Ne users lies with details, this goal is more easily accomplished. With Se/Ni users, we must incorporate a juxtaposition of conceptually distinct examples to illustrate Ni, which may be lost on the listener.

Sj types naturally use their Je function more consciously in order relate to their external world, so even tho they arent adding/seeing possibility of external objects so clearly, it doesent mean that they would relate to external world less consciously, they just do so with judgment more than np types.

I think thats all for now.

Any comments?

Pretty good overall. A little convoluted but your subsequent posts were much clearer in expressing what you mean.

 

[chris1207]

Well i think it as one path being the refinement of an though. The well defined individual points are at the end of the path and they include the previous points. Also its not just one path that becomes a thought, its the ends of multiple paths that are merged into single thought. Remember at each actionpotential "tick" the actionpotential is spreading all over where its not repressed(not let through an neuron/individual point).

No. Owfin is right. To reference your diagram: Si focuses on refining the nodes, which themselves are constructed of details. Ni focuses on refining the pathways. Se focuses on the totality of immediate sensory input, all of the nodes which exist within range of the immediate senses, thus, e.g., not a firetruck behind a house, with regards to vision. Ne focuses on the totality of the connections and, using Si, the perceived similarity between certain clusters.

So Ne may see a connection between the colors yellow, orange and red from the diagram and sunrises, sunsets, and clouds, on account of the similarity between the two sets of nodes, with regards to the shape that relates them. It's worth pointing out, though, that I am merely using strict interpretation of the example to draw these conclusions for sake of example. This example may have no literal relevance to any Ne/Si user.

Ni can do that for Se as well. With a dearth of visual input, Ni can leverage other sense, using Se, such as hearing, to see behind objects. So, in the example one might hear the sound of the firetruck's horn or the spraying of high-pressured water and infer the existence of the firetruck behind the house. This is especially likely, if that house also happens to be on fire. The two elements, a burning house and a firetruck, being intimately and intuitively connected via Ni.

 

[INTP]

I think time is something I would associate more with Ni/Si. It's the result of mapping and remapping similar perceptual stuff (either patterns or detail depending.) Ne/Se are all about perceiving in the present but have a totality and nuance to their perception that Ni/Si don't. I would say Ne is more correlation of known details from Si. Seeing the connections in between them and correlating resultantly similar patterns across a diverse variety of, apparently, disparate topics.

Well then you associate it wrong. N is by definition function that looks further from the immidiate reality(which is the function of S), looking for possibility over time.
N in introverted attitude uses judgments and external perceptions of immidiate reality(Se) to compile these possibilities.
N in extraverted attitude uses judgments and internal perceptions of known subjective facts(Si) in this process and perceives these possibilities in external world, since its the external world that triggered them.

Jung himself defined N by 'seeing where something came from and where it is going to' this can be translated as possibility over time and pretty much everyone aknowledges N(i and e) as being the function of time, not Si.

I like the use of instincts here. I think of Se as being the essence of what one speaks of when they refer to instincts. It's good to see a correlation to the other Pe.

I dont understand this Se thing here.

Kind of. Object = externalized or at least, perceived externalities that one appeals to and coordinates with. That which is outside oneself vs internalized, interpolated data (Pi).

I said im defining what i mean by object, and object can be internal or external when using the word in this isntance.

I really like the last point. That strikes me as true. A more developed function is going to have an inherently stronger structure. Higher sensory discernment = greater nuance with regards to detail distinctions whereas higher conceptual dynamism = greater ability to see patterns that have similar images despite containing disparate elements with regards to detail.

The over-time stuff, as I mentioned above, not so much. Plus, look at real-life examples. SJ's have a much better perception of time, hence they're tendency to create and appeal to schedules, though this incorporates Je decision-making, as well.

I dont understand at all what you are trying to say in the first part.

This possibility over time isnt at all about estimating time, its about possibility what can happen over time..

Actually, reason that Se users seems less anchored to perception is the fact that expressing ones perspective requires utilizing details and impersonal rationale ('words'). Because the depth of perception with Si/Ne users lies with details, this goal is more easily accomplished. With Se/Ni users, we must incorporate a juxtaposition of conceptually distinct examples to illustrate Ni, which may be lost on the listener.

I dont think Se users seem less anchored to perceptions, quite the contrary when Se is dominating or aux..

 

[INTP]

No. Owfin is right. To reference your diagram: Si focuses on refining the nodes, which themselves are constructed of details. Ni focuses on refining the pathways. Se focuses on the totality of immediate sensory input, all of the nodes which exist within range of the immediate senses, thus, e.g., not a firetruck behind a house, with regards to vision. Ne focuses on the totality of the connections and, using Si, the perceived similarity between certain clusters.

So Ne may see a connection between the colors yellow, orange and red from the diagram and sunrises, sunsets, and clouds, on account of the similarity between the two sets of nodes, with regards to the shape that relates them. It's worth pointing out, though, that I am merely using strict interpretation of the example to draw these conclusions for sake of example. This example may have no literal relevance to any Ne/Si user.

Ni can do that for Se as well. With a dearth of visual input, Ni can leverage other sense, using Se, such as hearing, to see behind objects. So, in the example one might hear the sound of the firetruck's horn or the spraying of high-pressured water and infer the existence of the firetruck behind the house. This is especially likely, if that house also happens to be on fire. The two elements, a burning house and a firetruck, being intimately and intuitively connected via Ni.

Look at the diagram again, you didnt seem to understand it. Refining nodes is moving along the map, this is how brains functions

Se does not equal seeing and hearing.

Ne isnt just seeing connections between details, its also seeing connections between two whole paths.

But overall, this post doesent make much sense to me and seems like nonsense babble with fancy words. Hurts my brains to read this and i cba to use another hour figuring out what you are trying to say and /or what i should responce.

 

[Owfin]

Well then you associate it wrong. N is by definition function that looks further from the immidiate reality(which is the function of S), looking for possibility over time.
N in introverted attitude uses judgments and external perceptions of immidiate reality(Se) to compile these possibilities.
N in extraverted attitude uses judgments and internal perceptions of known subjective facts(Si) in this process and perceives these possibilities in external world, since its the external world that triggered them.

Yes, I agree, N is the time one.

 

[chris1207]

Lol! If N is the time one, why do SJ's concern themselves with the past through history and tradition? That my friends is time. That focus on the past which NJ's focus on complex, distinct possibilities, which also happen to embody the future. Also, why do P's 'live in the present' more so than J's? That's something I hear over and over again in type descriptions.

'seeing where something came from and where it is going to' I think he was referring to abstract associations and the relation between things, not the literal meanings of those words inherent in the first being a past tense and the second being the future.

"I dont understand this Se thing here."

Just saying it was interesting that u used the word 'instinct' to describe Ne. Se = instinct in the form of athleticism, reacting in the moment, sex. It is physical and sensory dynamism. It provides an array of data that anchor and objectively define what the world is for the user and allow Ji to make distinctions that help build a logical framework for action.


"I said im defining what i mean by object, and object can be internal or external when using the word in this instance."

By object, would you perhaps mean fact or detail? Se and Si.

The other quote may be clarified:

Sensory discernment = Si
Sensory dynamism = Se
Conceptual discernment = Ni
Conceptual dynamism (though I'm hesitant to use that word, as I am still unsure as to the nature of Ne) = Ne

 

[chris1207]

Look at the diagram again, you didnt seem to understand it. Refining nodes is moving along the map, this is how brains functions

Se does not equal seeing and hearing.

Ne isnt just seeing connections between details, its also seeing connections between two whole paths.

But overall, this post doesent make much sense to me and seems like nonsense babble with fancy words. Hurts my brains to read this and i cba to use another hour figuring out what you are trying to say and /or what i should responce.

I think that you are encumbered with outdated theories. Just because that's the way that Jung conceived of things doesn't mean that that's the best, most-refined way of thinking about cognitive functions. I thought my post was quite succinct and that you'd be able to accept the logic behind it despite the inherent differences in the way we perceive.

"Look at the diagram again, you didnt seem to understand it. Refining nodes is moving along the map, this is how brains functions

Se does not equal seeing and hearing.

Ne isnt just seeing connections between details, its also seeing connections between two whole paths."

I would say that refining nodes as you take it to mean it, determining distinctions between otherwise similar things, is more a trait of Ti/Fi. I'm just talking about redefining each node in and of itself, based on new and substantively different data, which I believe is Si. Si sees the differences in details for real world objects that are otherwise grouped under the same name (like the differences between different kinds of dogs in terms of their fur color, etc.)

Yes both Se and Si incorporate senses. That wasn't my point. I was illustrating the interconnected nature of Ni/Se just as Si/Ne are connected and showing how I experience them.

Your last point is interesting. It's distinctly possible that that is all Ne is, a perception that compares a variety of real world scenarios and objects (Si) and nearly instantaneously is able to perceive the variety of ways that a single event could be occurring or could have occurred. Ne is simple compared to Ni in its conceptualization. Ni is much more about multiple events, one that could lead into others (implication). I believe that Ne sees multiple paths but that they lie concurrent to one another rather than in any kind of time relation.

It's worth pointing out that you implied earlier that your lower cognitive functions, like many other people's I believe, are bound up in one another. Perhaps this is why you can't see where Si stops and Ne begins.

 

[INTP]

Lol! If N is the time one, why do SJ's concern themselves with the past through history and tradition? That my friends is time. That focus on the past which NJ's focus on complex, distinct possibilities, which also happen to embody the future. Also, why do P's 'live in the present' more so than J's? That's something I hear over and over again in type descriptions.

'seeing where something came from and where it is going to' I think he was referring to abstract associations and the relation between things, not the literal meanings of those words inherent in the first being a past tense and the second being the future.

"I dont understand this Se thing here."

Just saying it was interesting that u used the word 'instinct' to describe Ne. Se = instinct in the form of athleticism, reacting in the moment, sex. It is physical and sensory dynamism. It provides an array of data that anchor and objectively define what the world is for the user and allow Ji to make distinctions that help build a logical framework for action.


"I said im defining what i mean by object, and object can be internal or external when using the word in this instance."

By object, would you perhaps mean fact or detail? Se and Si.

The other quote may be clarified:

Sensory discernment = Si
Sensory dynamism = Se
Conceptual discernment = Ni
Conceptual dynamism (though I'm hesitant to use that word, as I am still unsure as to the nature of Ne) = Ne

Isnt it obvious why Sj types prefer tradition? Basically when you get to use your dom function, you are happy, when things are repeated, you get to compare the current situation to these Si things.

I told you this one already, its the paths that are compared if you saw something happen 5 times and it went came from certain situation and led to certain situation, now you are in the middle of similar situation, Ne tells you where this situation came from and where it is going based on Si. This is possibility over time, i dont get how something so simple can be so hard to get.

You should read more psychology in general if you dont know whats meant with the word instinct:

Instinct An involuntary drive toward certain activities. (See also archetype and archetypal image.)

All psychic processes whose energies are not under conscious control are instinctive.["Definitions,""CW 6, par. 765.]

Instincts in their original strength can render social adaptation almost impossible.["The Transcendent Function," CW 8, par. 161.]

Instinct is not an isolated thing, nor can it be isolated in practice. It always brings in its train archetypal contents of a spiritual nature, which are at once its foundation and its limitation. In other words, an instinct is always and inevitably coupled with something like a philosophy of life, however archaic, unclear, and hazy this may be. Instinct stimulates thought, and if a man does not think of his own free will, then you get compulsive thinking, for the two poles of the psyche, the physiological and the mental, are indissolubly connected. ["Psychotherapy and a Philosophy of Life," CW 16, par. 185.]

Psychic processes which ordinarily are consciously controlled can become instinctive when imbued with unconscious energy. This is liable to occur when the level of consciousness is low, due to fatigue, intoxication, depression, etc. Conversely, instincts can be modified according to the extent that they are civilized and under con-scious control, a process Jung called psychization.

An instinct which has undergone too much psychization can take its revenge in the form of an autonomous complex. This is one of the chief causes of neurosis.["Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour," CW 8, par. 255.]

Too much of the animal distorts the civilized man, too much civilization makes sick animals.["The Eros Theory," CW 7, par. 32.]

Jung identified five prominent groups of instinctive factors: creativity, reflection, activity, sexuality and hunger. Hunger is a primary instinct of self-preservation, perhaps the most fundamental of all drives. Sexuality is a close second, particularly prone to psychization, which makes it possible to divert its purely biological energy into other channels. The urge to activity manifests in travel, love of change, restlessness and play. Under reflection, Jung included the religious urge and the search for meaning. Creativity was for Jung in a class by itself. His descriptions of it refer specifically to the impulse to create art.

Though we cannot classify it with a high degree of accuracy, the creative instinct is something that deserves special mention. I do not know if "instinct" is the correct word. We use the term "creative instinct" because this factor behaves at least dynamically, like an instinct. Like instinct it is compulsive, but it is not common, and it is not a fixed and invariably inherited organization. Therefore I prefer to designate the creative impulse as a psychic factor similar in nature to instinct, having indeed a very close connection with the instincts, but without being identical with any one of them. Its connections with sexuality are a much discussed problem and, furthermore, it has much in common with the drive to activity and the reflective instinct. But it can also suppress them, or make them serve it to the point of the self-destruction of the individual. Creation is as much destruction as construction.["Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour," CW 8, par. 245.]

Jung also believed that true creativity could only be enhanced by the analytic process.

Creative power is mightier than its possessor. If it is not so, then it is a feeble thing, and given favourable conditions will nourish an endearing talent, but no more. If, on the other hand, it is a neurosis, it often takes only a word or a look for the illusion to go up in smoke. . . . Disease has never yet fostered creative work; on the contrary, it is the most formidable obstacle to creation. No breaking down of repressions can ever destroy true creativeness, just as no analysis can ever exhaust the unconscious.["Analytical Psychology and Education," CW 17, par. 206.]

Instinct and archetype are a pair of opposites, inextricably linked and therefore often difficult to tell apart.

Psychic processes seem to be balances of energy flowing between spirit and instinct, though the question of whether a process is to be described as spiritual or as instinctual remains shrouded in darkness. Such evaluation or interpretation depends entirely upon the standpoint or state of the conscious mind."[On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 407.]

When consciousness become overspiritualized, straying too far from its instinctual foundation, self-regulating processes within the psyche become active in an attempt to correct the balance. This is often signaled in dreams by animal symbols, particularly snakes.

The snake is the representative of the world of instinct, especially of those vital processes which are psychologically the least accessible of all. Snake dreams always indicate a discrepancy between the attitude of the conscious mind and instinct, the snake being a personification of the threatening aspect of that conflict.["The Sacrifice," CW 5, par. 615.]

The firsr sentence "involuntary drive towards certain activity" is the key thing and is common in all phsychology. Se is not an instinct of any way.

By object i meant what i said, thats why i defined it, thats whats meant with object in this situation. Read the definition from op if you want to understand what i meant, not just go against it, because the definition differs from what you have heard the word used from..

 

[INTP]

I think that you are encumbered with outdated theories. Just because that's the way that Jung conceived of things doesn't mean that that's the best, most-refined way of thinking about cognitive functions. I thought my post was quite succinct and that you'd be able to accept the logic behind it despite the inherent differences in the way we perceive.

"Look at the diagram again, you didnt seem to understand it. Refining nodes is moving along the map, this is how brains functions

Se does not equal seeing and hearing.

Ne isnt just seeing connections between details, its also seeing connections between two whole paths."

I would say that refining nodes as you take it to mean it, determining distinctions between otherwise similar things, is more a trait of Ti/Fi. I'm just talking about redefining each node in and of itself, based on new and substantively different data, which I believe is Si. Si sees the differences in details for real world objects that are otherwise grouped under the same name (like the differences between different kinds of dogs in terms of their fur color, etc.)

Yes both Se and Si incorporate senses. That wasn't my point. I was illustrating the interconnected nature of Ni/Se just as Si/Ne are connected and showing how I experience them.

Your last point is interesting. It's distinctly possible that that is all Ne is, a perception that compares a variety of real world scenarios and objects (Si) and nearly instantaneously is able to perceive the variety of ways that a single event could be occurring or could have occurred. Ne is simple compared to Ni in its conceptualization. Ni is much more about multiple events, one that could lead into others (implication). I believe that Ne sees multiple paths but that they lie concurrent to one another rather than in any kind of time relation.

It's worth pointing out that you implied earlier that your lower cognitive functions, like many other people's I believe, are bound up in one another. Perhaps this is why you can't see where Si stops and Ne begins.

What i said here isnt what jung said exactly and im using todays neuro- and cognitive psychology as reference point as much as im using jung.

Even tho jungs theories were made long time ago, it doesent mean that they are outdated. Apparently you dont know that MBTI was made some hobby wanna be psychologist as a typology for dummies. Sorry to let you know, but MBTI(or other jung based typologies) arent any sort of updates for jungs work, they are jungs work displayed for general audience, mostly in forms of self help books, which jungs work is nothing like.

You need to think the nodes as neurons, if you dont know how brains function physically, go find out and then talk.

Here is another semantic network map that might make more sense:

Its really tireing to read your text for some reason, it seems like 1/4th you agree, but dont understand that you say the same thing as i do and say that you disagree. 1/4th you agree. 1/4th you disagree because lack of knowledge. 1/4th you say weird irrelevant things that make no sense or i dont see no reason saying them..

 

[Qlip]

Very interesting. Back before I had heard about cognitive functions, I wondered how I 'knew' things; it seemed like such an occult process, since a lot of what I knew just kind of jumped out of a dark place. Like, if I wanted to guess on how much something would cost retail, I'd rummange in my unconsciousness and pull out a number, which would be more or less accurate even though it wasn't something propery 'reasoned' out. I formed a mental model, like Focault's Pendulum where all my experiences would move a pendulum that would make paths in the sand of my mind.

Does this sound more like Ni, or Si?

 

[INTP]

Very interesting. Back before I had heard about cognitive functions, I wondered how I 'knew' things; it seemed like such an occult process, since a lot of what I knew just kind of jumped out of a dark place. Like, if I wanted to guess on how much something would cost retail, I'd rummange in my unconsciousness and pull out a number, which would be more or less accurate even though it wasn't something propery 'reasoned' out. I formed a mental model, like Focault's Pendulum where all my experiences would move a pendulum that would make paths in the sand of my mind.

Does this sound more like Ni, or Si?

Sounds like NeSi

 

[chris1207]

Isnt it obvious why Sj types prefer tradition? Basically when you get to use your dom function, you are happy, when things are repeated, you get to compare the current situation to these Si things.

I told you this one already, its the paths that are compared if you saw something happen 5 times and it went came from certain situation and led to certain situation, now you are in the middle of similar situation, Ne tells you where this situation came from and where it is going based on Si. This is possibility over time, i dont get how something so simple can be so hard to get.

You should read more psychology in general if you dont know whats meant with the word instinct:



The firsr sentence "involuntary drive towards certain activity" is the key thing and is common in all phsychology. Se is not an instinct of any way.

By object i meant what i said, thats why i defined it, thats whats meant with object in this situation. Read the definition from op if you want to understand what i meant, not just go against it, because the definition differs from what you have heard the word used from..

The bold is what I'm talking about. The time component isn't inherent in Ne. It's part of Ne referencing Si.