Ne and Ni

[onemoretime]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[onemoretime]

what did you say about not constantly seeking possibilities?

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

 

[INTPness]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^ That's why we invoke the power of preference.

 

[Resonance]

^ That's why we invoke the power of preference.

Not what I'm reading into this thread.

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

 

[skylights]

Not what I'm reading into this thread.

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

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]

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. Sorry to clutter up the thread with something that doesn't add any clarity to the thread topic....

 

[21%]

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

 

[Resonance]

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. Sorry to clutter up the thread with something that doesn't add any clarity to the thread topic....

lol, you're not the first, don't worry ;D

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

 

[redcheerio]

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]

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).