Grasping Functions

[Zarathustra]

Try these posts on for size, see if they fit

Vagrant, two things:

1. Your description of the relationship (or, better yet, disconnect) between INTJs and INTPs is very accurate.

The only problem is that you didn't mention that the INTJ is the correct one in that argument.

The INTP thinks the INTJ is "in a box", simply because the INTJ won't waste his time endlessly hammering about in the one place the INTP is determined to do so -- and why should he, when there are obviously more ways to understand the subject than the single one the INTP is obsessing about? -- but, in thinking so, the INTP is really just attempting/hoping to dismiss the INTJ's accurate rebuttals so that he can go back to his tunnel-vision tinkering without feeling like his activities are any less important (because, as an INTP, by nature, he likes to endlessly tinker, and he's gunna keep on tinkering regardless of what that annoying INTJ says ).

But, in all reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

The INTP is the one working within the smaller framework, trying to hammer away endlessly at the same point. The INTJ understands the INTP's point (intuitively), and sees all the problems inherent in taking just that one stance and only looking at the issue from that perspective. The INTP, conversely, thinks that the INTJ just needs to focus on the details the INTP is so happy to obsess over, and THAT THEN the INTJ would get it; but the fact of the matter is, the INTP has no perspective on the matter -- he's so deep inside the issue, so lost in the trees, that he can't see the forest for what it is.

Being of the vastly broader framework, the INTJ is definitely not the one "in the box". He is standing outside the INTP's small little box (ornate and detailed as it may be), looking squarely at him, shaking his head at the inanity of excessive overthinking and the loss of the vast array of alternative (and important) perspectives caused by being so deeply lost inside it (Ti).

2. Your descriptions of Ni and Ne are not very forceful. They may be (somewhat) accurate, but the expression really needs to be worked on.

 

[Zarathustra]

p.s. I'm not saying INTPs don't serve a purpose.

I respect them -- when they are able to see said forest, without getting so lost in the trees.

When one can use Ti AND not get lost in it, it is an extremely powerful tool.

Unfortunately, having Ti as their dominant function, they often can't help but get lost in it.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Vagrant, two things:

1. Your description of the relationship (or, better yet, disconnect) between INTJs and INTPs is very accurate.

I'd like to point out that I didn't actually write that part.

Also, remarking that I somehow forgot to mention which one was "correct" is missing the point of the illustration, I think.

2. Your descriptions of Ni and Ne are not very forceful. They may be (somewhat) accurate, but the expression really needs to be worked on.

"Not forceful enough" isn't much to work with. Could you be more specific?

 

[Zarathustra]

What do you see when you look at your avatar?

I see my godlike existence.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'd like to point out that I didn't actually write that part.

Hmmm, well, there goes my respect for you.

Also, remarking that I somehow forgot to mention which one was "correct" is missing the point of the illustration, I think.

Mayhaps...

But that's a point I've always wanted to enumerate, and your post (or whomever's post that was) opened the door for it... I had to step in.

"Not forceful enough" isn't much to work with. Could you be more specific?

Ummm, it doesn't really do a good job conveying the essence of the matter.

 

[Zarathustra]

Haha, no worries.

Your comment just got me thinking...

I said that I don't really understand Ni, but that's your dominant function as an INTJ. I mean, that must be pretty frustrating for you to hear: "I don't really understand how you think."

I don't "get" Ni at the moment, as far as I can tell, so my brain likes to shortcut it and lump it in with Ne...it's sad how that can be my first instinct sometimes...you know, oversimplifying things.

On a wider scale, going away from functions and into real world stuff...there are tons of viewpoints/ways of thinking/lifestyles I don't understand, meaning that there are plenty of people I don't understand.

I'm held back by my ignorance and limited perception.

It really frustrates me.

I'm working on it though, I promise.

you're cute

 

[Zarathustra]

Ni does exist.

...

When I use it out loud, people either think I'm baked, or that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Ha! Precisely.

I remember being totally sober one time (okay, I might have had a few beers) in Golden Gate Park (San Francisco's "Central Park") and describing the beautiful "flux" of a large swath of very full eucalyptus trees as they swayed in the wind, and how it was so beautiful to see the mathematics of life express itself through them, and how my otherwise very intelligent friend gave me a look of, "WTF are you talking about?", and asked if I was high (we were at a summer bluegrass festival, so it was understandable).

Note: Yes, I have done hallucinogens in the past.

 

[Seymour]

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.

 

[Dali]

Fi, Fe, Se, Si and Ne were quite easy to grasp.

Te took me a longer amount of time to truly understand as did Ni. The latter took me some time because my usage of it was deeply intertwined with Fi to which I had earlier assigned its workings.

Ti, I'm still not entirely sure I get.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Overall, I seem to grasp the concepts of introverted functions the best, whether I use them well or not. I'm always revisiting the concepts of extraverted functions, and I feel like I'm missing something when I think about how they work; that I'm not thinking expansively enough.


Haha, that might point to weak Ne; thinking abstractly about functions, and wondering if I'm 'seeing' everything.

 

[disregard]

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

 

[Zarathustra]

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"...

 

[Zarathustra]

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."

What do you see when you look at your avatar?

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.

 

[uumlau]

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

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...

 

[Seymour]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

^ phenomenal post, Seymour.

Good to meet you.

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

 

[Charmed Justice]

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?

 

[sculpting]

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.