User Tag List

View Poll Results: Which functions are easier to understand?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Extrovert: Xe functions

    3 10.71%
  • Extrovert: Xi functions

    2 7.14%
  • Extrovert: No discernible difference

    2 7.14%
  • Introvert: Xe functions

    3 10.71%
  • Introvert: Xi functions

    6 21.43%
  • Introvert: No discernible difference

    7 25.00%
  • All cognitive functions are nonsensical

    5 17.86%
First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 53

  1. #31
    mrs disregard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    7,855

    Default

    I have trouble grasping the sensing and intuiting ones. I pretty much ignore them.

  2. #32
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I do think Ni is difficult to understand entirely as an Ne-user. To me, Ne seems expansive and continual... it's always generating possibilities that lead away from the current focus of attention.

    Ni seems to be more connective, sudden and intermittent (at least to me). It suddenly links things from different contexts together, showing a pattern and a meaning that wasn't apparent before. I'm reminded of these trash sculptures:





    Where a seemingly random assemblage of junk suddenly has pattern and meaning when seen from the right perspective. Different pieces of information suddenly align and what appeared difficult and messy suddenly makes sense.
    An interesting perspective, Seymour, and while I think you might be onto something, I don't think you've got a firm grasp of it.

    Your description of Ne as "expansive and continual" and "always generating possibilities that lead away from the current focus of attention" is very accurate, but it also works as a very good description for Ni (with the one possible exception being the description of it as "expansive", depending on what you mean by it, although, to be honest, I believe Ni to be EXTREMELY expansive, particularly in terms of its ability to understand everything from as many different perspectives as possible, and thus think your description is basically that of N, not specifically Ne or Ni).

    I'm not sure whether I really like the description of N as "leading away from the current focus of attention", though, so much as N taking the current focus of attention, whatever it may be, and always generating further possibilities from it. I'm not sure whether it "leads away", so much as offers other unique insights into it, and into other related possibilities.

    I also don't think it's on point to describe Ni as "intermittent"...

  3. #33
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Hmmm... two Ne users who can't figure out the difference between Ni and Ne. What a surprise...

    Tamske: your theory is crap. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Here's a hint: look at my avatar. That's Ni. Not Ne. That much should be obvious.

    I put it this way once: "Ne is like a camera, Ni is like the light."
    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    What do you see when you look at your avatar?
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I see my godlike existence.

    More seriously, though, HP, I see my connection to all of the universe via my intuition, I see the Godhead running through me, the relationship of myself and the universe as the same as that of a mirror looking at itself through its own reflection.

  4. #34
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamske View Post
    There is this one function called Ni. Whenever I try to describe it, I end up with Ne or Si.

    I have a theory. There are only seven mental functions: N, Ti, Fe, Si, Te, Fi and Se. (presented here in the order I use them) People split N up in Ne and Ni to make things symmetrical and the theory more beautiful; but really they are one and the same.
    Or they are linked this strongly you can't discern them.
    I'm of a similar mind, except that I also think Si and Se are just S. You just get Si or Ni with Te or Fe, and Se or Ne with Ti or Fi. In particular, I think that S is "perceives/remembers actual real world details" and N is "perceives/remembers patterns and implications". So the "voodoo" of Ni is that one is remembering patterns and applying them to whatever is at hand, and the "randomness" of Ne is the spotting of patterns in real time.

    When you're using Te or Fe, then you are remembering either real-world details ("Si") or patterns/implications without details ("Ni"). When using Fi or Ti, you're either processing real-world details ("Se") or instantaneously perceiving patterns/implications ("Ne").

    The core difference between S and N is this whole detail vs pattern way of looking at things.

  5. #35
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I'm of a similar mind, except that I also think Si and Se are just S. You just get Si or Ni with Te or Fe, and Se or Ne with Ti or Fi. In particular, I think that S is "perceives/remembers actual real world details" and N is "perceives/remembers patterns and implications". So the "voodoo" of Ni is that one is remembering patterns and applying them to whatever is at hand, and the "randomness" of Ne is the spotting of patterns in real time.

    When you're using Te or Fe, then you are remembering either real-world details ("Si") or patterns/implications without details ("Ni"). When using Fi or Ti, you're either processing real-world details ("Se") or instantaneously perceiving patterns/implications ("Ne").

    The core difference between S and N is this whole detail vs pattern way of looking at things.
    You don't find this characterization of S and N problematic in that it is often the little details about which N is finding patterns and implications?

    I think it's more accurate and useful to define S as the taking in of information in a concrete, right-in-front-of-your-face kinda way, whereas N is the taking in of and and attempt to look for all kinds of abstract patterns and implications that could be generated from said information...

    Basically, it's just concrete vs. abstract...

  6. #36
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    An interesting perspective, Seymour, and while I think you might be onto something, I don't think you've got a firm grasp of it.

    Your description of Ne as "expansive and continual" and "always generating possibilities that lead away from the current focus of attention" is very accurate, but it also works as a very good description for Ni (with the one possible exception being the description of it as "expansive", depending on what you mean by it, although, to be honest, I believe Ni to be EXTREMELY expansive, particularly in terms of its ability to understand everything from as many different perspectives as possible, and thus think your description is basically that of N, not specifically Ne or Ni).
    I was careful to say "to me." I'm an Ne user, so my grasp of Ni is clearly going to be more tenuous, and it's going likely be less reliable (assuming I have access to it at all). My only real understanding can come from applying written descriptions to introspection, so I'm not going to have the same perspective as an Ni-dom. So, to me, Ne is constantly generating things, but Ni needs a kind of detachment, a waiting emptiness to fill. An Ni-dom probably has a different perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I'm not sure whether I really like the description of N as "leading away from the current focus of attention", though, so much as N taking the current focus of attention, whatever it may be, and always generating further possibilities from it. I'm not sure whether it "leads away", so much as offers other unique insights into it, and into other related possibilities.
    Maybe it's unfair to say it always leads away, but because it is associative it does tend to lead from one association to another. It typically moves further and further away from the starting point unless some pruning or redirection happens. One can sometimes see this in an Ne-heavy conversation, where not only are there digressions, but the digressions have digressions and the original starting topic is never returned to (if anyone bothers to remember it).

    In contrast, Ni seems more likely to incorporate the current focus into a larger perspective or chain of associations.

    They are both expansive, but I think Ne generates options from the point of focus, while Ni expands the perspective to see the point in context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I also don't think it's on point to describe Ni as "intermittent"...
    Perhaps intermittent wasn't the best word. It does, to me, seem more bursty, with a sudden insight connecting a whole chain of associations and placing things into a larger perspective. Ne seems more continuous, with each chunk of perceived association smaller. Ni seems more inherently cross contextual (although clearly both can associate between contexts).

    Again, I'm not an Ni-dom, so I don't know if they perceive Ni as being more continuous or not.

  7. #37
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    ^ phenomenal post, Seymour.

    Good to meet you.

  8. #38
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Btw, Trinity, sorry for kinda hi-jacking your thread with all this Ni-related talk...

    As for the OP, I've read enough good descriptions from different people and places to find most all of the functions pretty understandable.

    I don't know whether I find there to be a greater or lesser difficulty in understanding the introverted or extroverted attitudes of functions, but I do subscribe to a good (extroverted) friend's theory that the introverted attitude of functions have more depth/substance to them.

  9. #39
    Nickle Iron Silicone Charmed Justice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Puppy View Post
    What do you see when you look at your avatar?

    As an Ne-Monster I dont notice what it is or even care-I notice the pattern in the lines and question where does each line go?
    So there's no strong message that you get when looking at that avatar, or it just doesn't matter much one way or another?
    There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.

  10. #40
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EnFpFer View Post
    So there's no strong message that you get when looking at that avatar, or it just doesn't matter much one way or another?
    Not really-not at first. I see the patterns overwhelmingly. Honestly I didnt even recognize it as a person for awhile-just a bunch of lines that made up a very complex pattern-the pattern had meaning and places to explore. The gaps, the intersections, the variations of content.

    Once I look at it I could Ne a bunch of potential meanings behind the symbolism of the drawing, but I am not focused upon that symbolism in any way.

    I am a bit odd though (haha). I also have issues with facial recognition sometimes. I will have met someone a few times, then see them someplace-like the airport on a trip-and I wont quite be sure it's the same person.

    I also cant read Fe facial expressions properly-to the point that an ENTP I was traveling with suggested I had aspergers after I didnt pick up on a guy checking me out. Fi facial expressions? Those are really easy.

    I dunno, gotta ton of Ne though.

Similar Threads

  1. Fudjack/Dinkelaker Functional Preferences Instrument
    By heart in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 384
    Last Post: 07-24-2017, 12:04 PM
  2. Which function is the hardest for you to grasp?
    By Hard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-18-2016, 11:30 AM
  3. Functions
    By labyrinthine in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 11:35 PM
  4. Confusing Functions.
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-02-2007, 02:57 PM
  5. How has developing your secondary function changed you?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 10:44 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