NT/NF: Probability vs Possibility?

[ThatGirl]

(EDIT: Let's try again! ~ Jennifer)

NT/NF vs Probability/Possibility

How does it relate?

Go!

 

[Athenian200]

My guess is that NFs focus on possibility, while NTs focus on probability.

 

[Skyward]

To OP:

My guess is that NFs focus on possibility, while NTs focus on probability.

To ongoing thread joke:

She lost her real asshole, so she had a new asshole made out of thread, and she has a message woven into it. She wants us to read it, because she can't see back there, and can't figure out how to read stuff backwards in the mirror.

I focus on probability quite a lot. Does that make me an NT?

 

[Athenian200]

I focus on probability quite a lot. Does that make me an NT?

Maybe. But that would be very general, of course. Remember that it includes 4 different NF types, half of which are NFPs.

You could just be an exception to the rule. Can't make a generalization like that without having a few exceptions come up.

 

[entropie]

It's more about the nature of probability, probability itself is just a mere instrument.

You can say for example: his behaviour will lead to his demise. But basing it on, not to all participants visible facts. And then you can say: I am 75% sure it will.

 

[Skyward]

It's more about the nature of probability, probability itself is just a mere instrument.

You can say for example: his behaviour will lead to his demise. But basing it on, not to all participants visible facts. And then you can say: I am 75% sure it will.

With THAT description, then yeah, I guess I'm more NF than NT according to Athenian's description. I focus less on the actual values of the probably rather than which possibility is more favorable: 'So X is less likely than Y but rewards better, but if I look at it, Y, on average, is better.'

I'm an NF that's good at mental math, but not anything more complex than a variable. Throw a square root in there or a negative exponent as a denominator and I collapse twitching.

 

[Totenkindly]

Obviously all people are capable of both, but is there any patterns or experiences in which this particular constrast of focus exists or where it might play out?

For example, in a relationship I'm in with an INFP, we've had this very discussion. There are things that I think might be deal-breakers in the future, but he wants to try anyway... and the whole thing could be boiled down in a nutshell to him being focused on the possibilities ("This could happen, and it feels so right") and I'm looking at probabilities ("Yes, we do mesh like you say, but the deal breakers are bad enough that probability-wise, i don't think it's likely.") We've almost used the exact words probability/possibility here.

He is far more inclined to "try anyway" because it "should work since it's so right" and I'm less inclined to try because even though i can see what he believes so firmly in, I also see it as probably dissipating.

I guess for him he is being true to himself by chasing this vision that feels right to him. The probability doesn't matter as much as the possibility and that it aligns with how we "connect." For me, the truth is just the hard reality and no matter how hard I try or how well we connect, there are constraints that cannot be modified and hence chances aren't so hot. Possibility is not probability, and while I am very aware of possibility, the probability of something really overrides the possibilities.

... so... any ideas how this occurs due to functional analysis or any other thoughts?

 

[Tyrant]

Ni is usually associated with probability, and Ne with possibilities. Ni is about underlying cause and effect relationships; a focus on what this situation is really the result of and what this action will result in. Ne is about the inward potential or possibilities of a person/thing/etc.

 

[Totenkindly]

Ni is usually associated with probability, and Ne with possibilities.

So then here is my question: Why the differentiation between N functions? Wouldn't N be "possibility" and S "probability" if we wanted to go that route?

Ni is all about infinite numbers of frameworks and ways to view a situation, Ne is all about infinite ways to springboard and connect seemingly disparate points. Neither seems to be much about "probability," in order to discuss probability you have to access a judging function (T or F) to evaluate the possibilities (since possibilities are perceived).

EDIT: Just saw your edit... still thinking about that.

 

[Tyrant]

So then here is my question: Why the differentiation between N functions? Wouldn't N be "possibility" and S "probability" if we wanted to go that route?

What do you mean? Ni and Si are dynamic, irrational elements, whereas Se and Ne are static, irrational elements.

Ni: Underlying cause and effect relationships; a focus on what this situation is really the result of and what this action will result in.
Si: Immediately apparent cause and effect relationships; how events affect one's inner state; sensations, what one experiences physically.

Ne: The inward potential or possibilities of a person/thing/etc.
Se: The outward characteristics of a person/thing/etc.; form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower, mobilization, the location of objects in space

Ni is all about infinite numbers of frameworks and ways to view a situation.

Sounds like your describing Ti.

 

[Totenkindly]

Sounds like your describing Ti.

Uh.... no.

T is a judging function.

When it's coupled with S, it tends to see "one" reality -- the singular internal one or the raw data stream outside. When it's coupled with N, it tends to see "infinite" reality -- all the possibilities between said data points.

What Ti will do is create a model of reality. The S model is pretty singular, the N model allows for "fuzzy points" and weighs possibilities, not just concrete data.

 

[Tyrant]

Ti precisely defines, correlates, and catalogues concepts, ideas, things, methods, etc. It provides a framework to think in - it focuses on creating a framework through which to view and correlate events, and involves looking at different sides of an issue. What you were describing wasn't Ni.

One thing I don't understand is how a P (an irrational type ...) type could be a Ti dominant. Silly Myers Brigg p/j addition.

 

[Eric B]

Yeah, the difference sounds like Ne being used with Ti vs Fi. In both cases, Ne looks at the possibility and probability (which still includes some uncertainty, hence it's still really just a possibility, only with more likelihood of coming true). Yet the actual decision to be made in what to do with it is going to be by the judging function, of course. Ti will judge based on the way things work, and from there channel the possibility into a probability based on the internal knowledge. Fi will go by what feels right or lines up with what one likes or believes in. Hence, it will stick with just the possibility, hoping its "faith" will get it through.

One thing I don't understand is how a P (an irrational type ...) type could be a Ti dominant. Silly Myers Brigg p/j addition.

Because J/P is about what is used externally, rather than dominantly, which does make a lot of sense. Internal vs external judging makes a big noticeable difference in personality. That's what others will be affected by the most.

 

[Tyrant]

Because J/P is about what is used externally, rather than dominantly, which does make a lot of sense.

I'm well aware, hence my comment "Silly Myer Briggs p/j addition." It doesn't make sense (it differs from both Jung's typology and Socionics), and has led to many problems with type descriptions.

 

[Totenkindly]

Because J/P is about what is used externally, rather than dominantly, which does make a lot of sense. Internal vs external judging makes a big noticeable difference in personality. That's what others will be affected by the most.

To put it another way, we can only observe the external. The rest we're guessing at. So it was easier to type people based on what they externalize.

I'm well aware, hence my comment "Silly Myer Briggs p/j addition." It doesn't make sense (it differs from both Jung's typology and Socionics), and has led to many problems with type descriptions.

It's okay, I don't like Socionics.

Is the disagreement we had earlier on terminology based on using different systems to define out terms?

This is primarily an MBTI site, so we generally use those definitions.

 

[Tyrant]

EDITED: I have lost interest in this thread.

 

[Totenkindly]

Sorry the MBTI thing isn't working out for you.

Anyway... other feedback is appreciated.

 

[teslashock]

I would say that any N type in general views the world through a possibility lens. Probability is just a way to streamline possibilities into the ones that are the most relevant and attainable given a certain context. It may be that NTs are more likely to discriminate between possibilities and probable possibilities, but only if they actively attempt to make this discrimination. As an NT, I see possibilities galore and only streamline them when I am trying to apply possibilities to my external world. I think NFs also have the ability to discriminate between the probable possibilities and the not-so-probable possibilities, but they are less likely to mold their actions or goals based on that discrimination.