User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 55

  1. #41
    Senior Member TenebrousReflection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INFp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spirilis View Post
    Naturally, I find myself associating things in very direct, "logical" associations; when my impression of an idea or its relationship varies from others' view, I find it usually results from either a lack of information (in metaphorical terms, the interconnect had a few hops between them that I couldn't see until I was provided with new information), or the other person was simply using the opposite form of Ji to reach their end result (I do find this sort of phenomenon happens frequently when I view an FP type's point of view). In the latter case, I often find myself at an impasse and unable to natively comprehend their viewpoint, trying instead to reformulate it in my own way, but always ending up with something that sounds systematic and "logical." I love it when one of my INFP friends tells me (paraphrased) "you're thinking too scientifically, it's not like that... you have to feel it." My first impression is "uh, riiight. what's that joint doing in your mouth?" but in part thanks to my knowledge of MBTI and the functions, I know better than to dismiss such things as hogwash.
    I'm still reading from the beginning of this thread, so this may have been touched on, but I wanted to write this while it was still in my head. (my current inclination is to think I'm an INF_ and thinking more about this seems to support that)

    In an effort to better understand how i was using Si, I tried to look back at memories and found one thing to be consistent. When I try to remember things, thinking about the person I associate with the memory, then the location, then sometimes the time (but most of the time, just the person an location are enough for recall). When I do recall the memory, its the feeling, location and subject matter of the event that I recall most clearly and this also includes the feelings and concepts that lead up to the even that I remember. For example, I can think of one friend and the location a conversation took place and then the memory of what we were talking about, how it made me feel, and usually a fairly clear picture of the location are what I recall, but I don't recall exact words, and very seldom have more than a blurry image of any people in it (sometimes its as if the location was abandoned and I'm looking at the place it took place and reliving the feelings and concepts, but no words or people involved). If I continue to focus on the memory, I can move backward and forward in time to think of the events that led up to it and the ones that followed it, and sometimes jump to the next significant memory I have with that person even if it was months or years later. This is very different form how I dream/envision when I'm trying to imagine new things or events. When I'm trying to imagine scenarios that have not occurred, its almost the opposite, the conversations, faces and feelings are what are clear, but the environment and any concept of what led to the conversation is fuzzy at best most of the time. The only constant in both those cases is that there is a strong tie to either what I felt or what I think I might feel in an imagined conversation or situation.

    When I'm thinking about things that don't involve people, its just images and/or concepts that are recalled (I can't remember what a book said, but I'll probably remember what significance I took from it). When I try to envision a new project, it will be like a workbench in my mind. I'll just add and subtract things from it and test them in my mind until I get an image of what I want it to be. It can often be difficult for me to turn those visions into something that actually resembles the final image I had in my mind. When I actually start to try to create stuff, I think of new tweaks and adjustments as I go that were not in my original vision or sometimes have to remove stuff that seemed simple but turned out to be a lot more complicated than expected.

    Other times, I'll just have stuff pop into my head (these are the stereotypical "sometimes they just know things and know they are right" type of stuff) and if its something complex, I'll need to try to reverse engineer or backtrack to make sense of it (usually its pretty clear and straightforward stuff). Most of those are either stuff thats in my mind when I wake up (sometimes unnaturally in the middle of the night) or pop into my head when something triggers them. Some of those types of vision are feeling based (and when they are its a VERY strong feeling) but most of those type of visions are to do something that I'd likely have never thought to do without something prompting me. The way I describe them is more as compulsions. Things I "know" I'll regret if I don't follow through on.

  2. #42
    Senior Member TenebrousReflection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INFp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    449

    Default

    And now a followup post after reading the rest of the thread...

    One of the traits that is supposed to be common among INFPs is an ability to "read between the lines" which I interpret as taking all the information you have available to you and subconsciously cross referencing it with previous knowledge and experiences and reaching what seems like an instant conclusion. I believe this is an Ne process, but I'm not certain of that.

    This is something I do a lot and I think accounts for a good amount of my "I know I'm right about this" moments (unlike the above post reference, these are always conclusions that I "just know" and not visions or dreams). When I read or listen, I'm constantly putting that information into Si in a subconscious way just storing it there, then my Ne references that information to make conclusions, and if I want to actually connect the dots, I have to invoke the appropriate Xi function and backtrack through to figure it out.

    When I'm trying to problem solve, its a lot harder to describe. I think what I'm doing is taking ideas at random and follow through with that idea in my mind til I either get an idea that seems like it might work or reach a dead end. if I reach a dead end, then I grab another random idea and follow through on it. If I find an idea that seem like it might be a solution, then I can spend a lot of time thinking about it and analyzing its potential and flaws.

    Most of the things I tend to think about has an eventuality of leading to conversation, and I then go onto imagining how those conversations might play out, but I don't know what function I'd be using at that point when its more of a free flowing see where this leads thing at that point. The stuff leading up to this point all happens so fast and subconsciously that I have very little awareness of it until I concentrate on how the process seems to work for me.

    I don't know if this is worth noting or not, but a lot of my ideas are "so far outside the box" that bringing them up for suggestion to anyone thats not very open minded could be quite problematic (stuff that to me seems like very sensible and ethical solutions, but far enough outside of traditional values that it would have a high risk of being offensive to those that put social values above personal values). This is because all the scenarios I can imagine that play by traditional rules/values result in dead ends/unfavorable results so I have to dream big to think of even far out there solutions to some problems. I think I have a desire to extrovert these ideas, but restrain myself from doing so for fear of the repercussions.

  3. #43
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    A spreading web or just building bridges between buildings (foundation/pillars of knowledge)... nice to see that somebody has also been thinking about Ne.


    Now what makes you feel so certain that there will be a connection at the very end? Again perhaps it's the difference with Ne vs Ni... Ni truly takes nothing for granted. I haven't figure out why that is so while Ne isn't like that.

    I was thinking of sticking this on a blog... but it'll fit well in this thread.

    Ni vs Ne

    What exactly is Ne? I know Ne is externally focused compared to Ni. That it attempts to find patterns in the environment. Ne is grounded to the outside world while Ni is grounded internally. Thus Ne processing is probably more rapid than Ni. For in order to utilize Ni, the question and related ideas must be internalize prior to thinking. Take the example of random brainstorming. A comparison between a skill list for a new character class (science geek) generated by an ENTP compared to myself (INFJ). The things he came up with (I'm assuming it's from Ne) is significantly more variable than mine (Ni). I believe the process of internalization can lead to restriction on brainstorming. For when I think of "skills suited for a geek", I am influenced by preexisting knowledge about other class skills. Thus the list I came up with is far tamer than him. However, also because of the internalization process, Ni can create complex internal models far better than Ne can. Now here is the part I am not too certain about. Does Ni do better because of what it is... or does an Ne dominant person simply loses interest beforehand due to the P nature?


    Ni builds upwards while Ne spreads laterally. One explodes while the other implodes... as in one can take an idea and generate something elaborate from that (Ni), while the other can gather relating ideas together into one (Ne). I'm not describing it very well am I? Ni develops ideas vertically due to the inherent nature of internalization. The internalized idea, the seed, acts as the foundation of further thoughts. Ne is not limited to such and therefore the idea can move more flexibly across different subjects. But why can't/doesn't Ne dive deeper besides just coming up with linked ideas? *sigh* I still can't wrap my head around what exactly is Ne. Let's take another approach. N & S are perceiving functions... N notice relationship and meaning of objects, while S notice the physical form and qualities of objects. Se is easy to understand, sensing the physical attributes of an object in front of you. Holding a pen in your hands and noting the textures and feel of the grip and handle. Si is experiencing emotion and senses evoked by physical or mental triggers. Say that pen in your hand makes you think about other pens you have seen. What a prototypical pen should look and feel like, and perhaps bring to mind of some more unusual pens you have seen. Intuitive perception is more difficult to come in grips with. By definition, N deals with the more intangible aspects of an object. Using the pen example, Ni seeks the meaning of the pen. What makes a pen a pen? And also interactions between a pen and other objects comes into mind. A pen is used to write on flat surfaces such as paper. However some pens have been engineered to be able to write on more unusual circumstances... underwater, conditions with zero gravity (the space pen). Ni enjoys finding relationships where none is apparent. How a pen is related to outer space... space pens, the shape of a pen can be liken to a rocket etc. Now Ne is the hard part. Traditional descriptions of Ne say it tries to picture the pen in different context. Ah! Therefore Ne keeps the perception of the "pen" constant and alter the environment it is subjected to, while Ni keeps different environments constant and alter the perception of the "pen". This seemingly reverse what people say grounding should be. Or perhaps not... rather grounding of the object/idea is external in Ne. The pen is the pen, you're not changing it. Versus internal grounding in Ni. The pen is simply a representation... or rather the physical pen invokes an internal malleable model of a pen. And since a representation is used, you are not constrained to the physical aspects of the pen at hand while in thought. Thus it allows you to make non-linear connections between concepts.

    My mind is still not overly satisfied with that description. Yet I have to remind myself that chances are all the functions have nuances which are not readily identifiable. It's just that I so seldomly use Se and Si that I only know of their most basic elementary properties, while the automatic use of both Ni and Ne has been so entrenched in me that I have difficulty distinguishing the two apart.

    Rewrapping the issue. Ni first converts the external idea into an internal representation. Then seek to assess relationships of that representation with other known ideas/concepts. Ne takes the external idea as is and imagine placing that more tangible form
    into known concepts or scenarios.
    Perhaps, using the pen example, what Ne thinks of would be to think of other writing instruments; things that are not pens, but have similar attributes/in different environment, i.e. can write, like a quill pen or a fountain pen. This results in the P daydreaming and going to a more abstract level, as well as chaotic nature (always jumping).
    Ni, like nightning said, thinks internally; it links to stuff that are pens, but have different properties from the conventional pen, like the focus is still on pens. Instead of thinking how part of the pen is like something else, it thinks of how some other thing can be incorporated to the pen, e.g. space pen.

    Well, that, or I could be totally wrong.

  4. #44
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AniVisual View Post
    Perhaps, using the pen example, what Ne thinks of would be to think of other writing instruments; things that are not pens, but have similar attributes/in different environment, i.e. can write, like a quill pen or a fountain pen. This results in the P daydreaming and going to a more abstract level, as well as chaotic nature (always jumping).
    Ni, like nightning said, thinks internally; it links to stuff that are pens, but have different properties from the conventional pen, like the focus is still on pens. Instead of thinking how part of the pen is like something else, it thinks of how some other thing can be incorporated to the pen, e.g. space pen.

    Well, that, or I could be totally wrong.
    *is surprised that this old thread as been rediscovered*

    On topic of Ni/Ne, the more I think about it, the less I can distinguish between the two. I would love it if somebody can explain the nuances of the two for me.

    Your example with Ne: quill pen and fountain pen. I believe Ni can make such connections as well given the right context. There's so many different aspect to an object that Ni will just latch onto one and run away with it. It seems to me that the only difference in Ne, is its amorphous property... It quickly skims pass one idea after another. If you looked at sub's analogy of the boat... Ne is free to travel anywhere. Whereas Ni is tied down to the existing points: nodes of ideas that already in the mind.

  5. #45
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Ni and Ne are very similar. i think the web metaphor makes a lot of sense for both Ni and Ne. the difference is that since Ne is not motivated internally, it can give full attention to new external happenings. Ni doesn't care about what's external, which is why NJs are usually "slower" than NPs. it's also why the NJs ideas are much harder to explain -- they don't have any direct relation to the outer environment.

  6. #46
    homo-loving sonovagun anii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Enneagram
    9
    Socionics
    fuck
    Posts
    900

    Default

    Sometimes, I see Ne like this:



    When I stand back and see the big picture, it makes sense.

    Up close? It's just a confusing mess of unrelated dots.

    I also think the internet is a good metaphor. In my unscientific opinion, I believe more Ns than Ss have taken to the internet like fish to water. I have no clue re: those with preference for Ni vs. Ne. I suspect it's probably about even.
    There's reason to be afraid, and reason to open your heart. ~ Seal

    Refreshment for your ears: www.kexp.org

  7. #47
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Ne is like taking a loose thread and taking another loose thread and another and another and another and tying them all together. They may have been from completely different sweaters, but once Ne is done with them, they're all united with one knot.

    Ni, however, will take a thread and pull. He just wants to get to the bottom of this particular thread, no matter what the cost, and to the exclusion of all other threads.

    Ni will think that Ne is too hasty, too disorganized, and Ne will think Ni is too slow. Either way, Ne may miss that some of the threads aren't held onto anything substantial and thus fail, and Ni may completely unravel the sweater without finding anything substantial and thus fail.

    Well, this is the essence of it, anyway. I know people were arguing about 'which they use,' but that's inconsequential. Everyone uses all functions. If you're using this as an idea to try to get to the bottom of which type you are, sometimes it's best to go by which function you don't like (by shadow). Ni would be more likely to be annoyed when they're bombarded with Ne connections and would demand that Ne stop to smell the roses, and Ne would complain that Ni is thinking too hard and nothing good and useful will come of it.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  8. #48
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Ne is like taking a loose thread and taking another loose thread and another and another and another and tying them all together. They may have been from completely different sweaters, but once Ne is done with them, they're all united with one knot.

    Ni, however, will take a thread and pull. He just wants to get to the bottom of this particular thread, no matter what the cost, and to the exclusion of all other threads.
    Interesting take. Your analogy works for me.

    Well, this is the essence of it, anyway. I know people were arguing about 'which they use,' but that's inconsequential. Everyone uses all functions. If you're using this as an idea to try to get to the bottom of which type you are, sometimes it's best to go by which function you don't like (by shadow). Ni would be more likely to be annoyed when they're bombarded with Ne connections and would demand that Ne stop to smell the roses, and Ne would complain that Ni is thinking too hard and nothing good and useful will come of it.
    The "argument" here isn't in which a person uses... or even use more or less of. But towards identifying the functions in attempts to better our understanding.

    From the way you went about it though, it seems Ni and Ne should be distinct and its uses should be isolateable. I'm not so certain this is true.

  9. #49
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    The "argument" here isn't in which a person uses... or even use more or less of. But towards identifying the functions in attempts to better our understanding.

    From the way you went about it though, it seems Ni and Ne should be distinct and its uses should be isolateable. I'm not so certain this is true.
    Things in theory are always much clearer than they are in real life. The 'point' of each is distinct but if we were trying to separate what one form of perception from the other in actual practice, it could be extremely difficult. If we look at them as just concepts, though, they're extremely isolatable.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  10. #50
    Senior Member nemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    <3
    Socionics
    wtf
    Posts
    445

    Default

    I've never interpreted the cognitive functions as literally being cognitive functions, you know?

    That is, I don't view them so much being about cognition ("when you think this way you're using Ne, when you think like this you're using Ni") as much as being about someone's psychology. Jung called them "psychological types" and nowhere that I've read does he describe them on a purely cognitive level. They encompass much more than just that, and I think focusing on cognition isn't useful nor was it intended.

    So I always sort of viewed them as vague but self-contained "personality/psychological" types in a way.

    I don't know to whom I was directing this to or what relevance it has to this thread, but it popped into my mind and I typed it so now you guys get to read it.
    You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club. - Jack London

Similar Threads

  1. On the nature of ethics
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 04:55 PM
  2. The Nature of Values
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 02:42 PM
  3. The Nature of Fi -- a metaphorical visual
    By arcticangel02 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 07:12 PM
  4. The nature of certainty...
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 08:58 PM
  5. The Nature of Generosity
    By Mycroft in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 05:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO