User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 258

  1. #141
    Geolectric teslashock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Posts
    1,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    You're working from the definitions of the terms a priori. If the definitions say they aren't the same, then they aren't the same.
    Well, kind of. Conceptually, from an a priori stand point, the definitions cannot be proven the same, as they are defined to be different.

    I understand, however, that the definitions being conceptually different does not lend them merit to the personality theory without actually witnessing some sort of cognitive differences among individuals. In other words, if we can't apply the concepts in practice, then the concepts are moot.

    To make cognitive categories that have no basis in reality would be silly, I agree. It would be like extrapolating two subsets from the larger vegetable set and labeling these subsets as "vegetables that talk and don't walk" and "vegetables that walk and don't talk." Conceptually, the definitions of these categories logically necessitate that they be mutually exclusive, but considering that no vegetables walk and no vegetables talk, there's no point in really having these subsets in the first place, so they are kind of moot.

    If I'm understanding you correctly, that's how you feel about Ne and Ni. You understand the definitions, and you understand that the definitions are different in theory, but you've never actually seen cognitive manifestations within an individual that correspond exclusively to Ne or exclusively to Ni, thus you see no reason for the N subsets.

    I've seen N vs S. When I used to teach physics classes, I'd have to lines of patter, one aimed at "the memorizers" and one at "the thinkers" (an unfortunate name, but it's all I had at the time). For the memorizers, I'd just describe the kind of problem it is, and list the steps on how to solve it, and they'd understand it. For the thinkers, I'd say, "here's how it all works underneath the hood," and they'd just get it, without my having to get really specific.

    By using both methods, I was able to get everyone up to speed pretty quickly. These days, I know that the memorizers are S, and the thinkers are N, at least insofar as MBTI typing is concerned. It really didn't seem to matter whether it was NT or NF, there was a common understanding of the intuitive picture.
    I notice the same thing when I teach calculus and chemistry to students. I tweak my teaching style depending on the student.

    Since you don't feel like you've experienced a notable difference among S-ers and N-ers, then I'll try to lend you a bit of my own experience with teaching (I tutor small groups and one-on-one), and maybe that will help you see that perhaps there really is a reason to create S subsets and N subsets.

    Note: I'm offering a situational approach, rather than a theoretical/definitional one, because your main issue with functional theory is that you believe there's no empirical basis for it, due to the fact that you've never empirically witnessed cognitive differences within the S group and within the N group.

    The example is a bit long-winded, and I don't really feel like streamlining what I've already written to make it more concise, so if you don't want to sift through the details, then just scroll down a bit to what I've bolded. That pretty much sums it up.

    In calculus/math (as I'm sure you know, being a physics teacher), there are many different intertwining methods of describing a theory. Namely, we can show calculus theorems via graphs or via mathematical logic.

    I have students, like you, who seem more keen on memorizing mathematical theories rather than understanding why the theory is true from a broader lens. They don't care about how the theory can be witnessed in a graph, nor do care about how the theory can be witnessed through logical statements. They also don't care about how subsequent theorems and mathematical operations that they learn are related to former theorems. They care to look at the mathematical statement and memorize what it says, word by word, symbol by symbol, and recall what it says for the test. They just want to deposit pieces of data into their recall bank, independently from each other, and withdrawal these independent pieces of data for assignments/tests.

    Like you, I categorize these above students as sensors, but unlike you, I'd specifically label them as Si-ers, rather than the broader label of S (according to more traditional function theory). They learn by gathering details, memorizing details, and recalling details. They don't attempt to find connections between the details, how the details work, or ponder further on what the details imply; that's not how they learn, so that's not important to them.

    I also have students that learn solely by understanding the spatial meaning of mathematical theories (graphically). They are not memorizing, per say, but they cannot fully understand the theory until they see how it makes sense on a graph, and they put their understanding into practice by revisualizing (experiencing again, mentally) the spatial meanings in their heads. They can't really explain the underlying features that make the graph what it is, from an intuitive approach, but they seem to just *get* it once they see the graph. They learn by soaking in the details of what they are doing/seeing/experiencing physically (not memorizing, thus different from what I label as Si-ers). They don't remember every detail of every graph; rather, they understand the mechanisms by which graphs are formed, and they can figure out how physical details of graphs and/or how different graphs are related, and they can utilize this information for subsequent mathematical challenges. Without understanding these spatial mechanisms, they would not learn the material. They have to see it, experience it, before they will truly understand how math works, and once they experience it, understanding comes to them almost immediately.

    I would call these above students the Se-ers. They are sensing types, rather than intuiting types, because they learn from and value experiencing rather than conceptualizing. Yet, they learn differently from this other group of S's (the Si-ers) because they are not making a bank for future withdrawals; they are establishing a broad spatial frame of reference to which future challenges can be applied via their immediate experience with the space.

    However, in regards to learning style, what I deem the Se-ers, like the other S-types, are still different from intuitives. They don't attempt to understand the abstract inner workings of the mathematical theorem (how the written math applies to the graphical theory, perhaps). The physical experience is enough for them to understand/learn. The intuitives (I'm not going to distinguish what I've noticed as differences among what I deem Ne/Ni learning styles here, as Se/Si should be enough for the discussion at this point), however, do not learn/understand through memorization or through the graphical approach. They need something bigger, something more underlying. They understand calculus by both how the written math works, how the graph works, and how the the written math and graph are related to each other.

    I show the Si-ers an image of a graph, and they memorize every detail of it. (sensory details yield memorization yield learning)

    I show Se-ers an image of a graph, and they analyze the details and the relationship between the details of the graph to figure out how/why the graph looks the way it looks. (sensory details yield further corollary analysis yield learning)

    I show the Ns a graph, and it means nothing to them without further information, outside of the graph. (abstract information yields sensory details yield learning)


    I can categorize these different learning styles however I want. I see that the first two learning styles are similar in that they both rely on sensory details, yet different from the third learning style that relies more on abstract concepts. Since the first two are similar, I'll give them both the same label: S, and I'll distinguish the third by giving it a different label: N.

    However, the first two are still different enough to break them apart even further. I want to maintain the category that says they are the same, S, but develop a second sub-category, that shows they are different: e/i.

    Thus, the analysis of my experience shows me that there are notable differences among two things that share qualities, and that's one way that I justify Se/Si.

    (Personally, my experience with Se/Si does not give the basis for why I see merit in the function categories. I just laid that out for you to show that empirically, the categories can be witnessed some where.)

    So you can "prove" yourself right based on the Jungian definitions, but I'd rather make observations and actually see whether there is a luminiferous aether through which light propagates: in fact, if it is well-defined enough, then it is fairly easy to demonstrate or disprove through observation/experiment.
    Again, I was not trying to "prove" myself right (or prove you wrong). I was just asking for a more theoretical approach to justify your pet theory because the theoretical approach already in place makes sense to me from an a priori perspective, and that alone is enough reason for me personally to see merit in it. Thus, the way I personally saw fit for you to explain (and perhaps justify) your theory was via another good (or perhaps better) a prior theory. My request was based on nothing more than personal preference to how I approach/view typology.

    (You, however, deem this a priori approach completely trivial, so my request for an a priori justification for your pet theory will not be obliged, as your pet theory comes from empirical observation.)

    I think this represents a really great contrast between Ti (me) and Te (you).

    Hey, I'm not trying to "prove" my ideas to anyone. It's just observations I've made, and skepticism of my own w/r to MBTI. My "pet theory" is just that: it's my best guess for right now.
    I wasn't asking you to prove it to me. I just wanted to understand the basis of it; I was curious.

    I'm not passing judgment on your theory (yet) or extrapolating information about you based on what I know of your theory. I just found your assertion interesting, and I wanted more information, not so I could establish value regarding your assertion, but merely because it's fun to hear your side of the story. I'm a P, remember? That's what we do.

    If you can demonstrate what NeTe is like working together, with a good way to differentiate it from NiTe and NeTi, without asserting, e.g., that so-and-so is ENFP, therefore it has to be NeTe, because an ENFP doesn't have Ni, then we have something productive to discuss.
    Really, all that we'd need to do for you to see merit in having two different N and S categories is show empirically that NiTi and NeTi (or SiTi/SeTi or SiFi/SeFi or NiFe NeFe, etc.) are cognitively different. I have absolutely no idea how to do that (I tried it with my math story, but that probably means very little to someone who values empiricism as much as you seem to), considering that typology is not an empirical science and that I share no experiences with you, but maybe somebody else is willing to take on the challenge.

    One last food for thought:

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    [I believe I "use" both Ne/Ni] because I can follow SillySapienne's randomness of expression, Ne, on the fly, and can evoke the same should I wish. At the same time, I undeniably use Ni, in a much more focused way, with great accuracy.
    Just because you can follow random connections/Ne and/or develop random connections of your own, doesn't mean you're "using" Ne.

    It's about what led you to make those connections, not the act itself of making them.

    Two different personality types can behave in the same way and think the same things. When they arrive at similar behaviors/thoughts, this doesn't mean that they are using the same functions, though, as the path they took to get to these behaviors/thoughts could be notably different. The path is the function(s).

    So, rather than analyzing functions in terms of connecting them with what may be behavioral/mental manifestations of the functions, you should analyze the functions that define your cognition by analyzing how you think (rather than what you think) and how you arrive to your values (not what your values are).

  2. #142
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Thanks for this. This is pretty much how I perceive Si to work. Since it's such a mysterious function, would you care to elaborate more about what it's like? Or how you perceive it to work, especially in regards to T and F?

    It's only mysterious to those who don't use it often...

    ''I think he has some sort of extreme muscle memory...Once he's done a scene and got it right, if you're shooting coverage, he'll do things that you thought were just completely spontaneous at exactly the same speed and energy as many times as you want.''
    --Immortal Beloved director Bernard Rose on INFP Gary Oldman (and his use of Si)--

  3. #143
    Senior Member BlueGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Yes, you're right, and that's the weaker part of the analysis. I wanted some description of where Ni acquires its seed concepts, but it seems I made Ni users sound Ne-capable. I guess it is more likely to be that Ni users are attracted less to the environment as a source of abstractions, and more to places where abstractions already begin to exist--books, intellectual discussion, stories. And they add to this using the very occasional rip of information from immediate Se.



    That is interesting. This is memory of the thought or memory of having had the thought?
    I don't really understand the question but here's a further description. Say someone is wearing a blue shirt. I won't remember the blue shirt. However, if I consciously thought "they are wearing a blue shirt" I'll remember that thought very clearly.
    Ne > Ti > Si >> Te > Se >> Fe > Fi > Ni
    5 so/sp
    Chaotic Neutral/Evil

  4. #144
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    I don't really understand the question but here's a further description. Say someone is wearing a blue shirt. I won't remember the blue shirt. However, if I consciously thought "they are wearing a blue shirt" I'll remember that thought very clearly.
    So it would seem that Si is capable of "containing" more kinds of "things" than are normally casually referenced when talking of physical sense data. Memory of a thought is not memory of a stone or a birthday cake, for instance. And yet, there it is, apparently "in" Si. Now, I put "containing" and "things" in quotes in that first sentence, and "in" in quotes in that last sentence, because I personally needed something to gloss over what I don't understand too well, the actual Si mechanism, but it would seem that whatever that mechanism is, it can *in effect* perceive more than what I assume we'd call the merely physical. The range and variety of what counts as "physical data" would seem to be considerably larger and wider than we apparently normally suppose.

    The question of was it a memory of the thought or a memory of having had the thought was meant to draw out what exactly was stored in Si: the thought itself or some bundle of sensory tags that referenced the thought.


    Jeez, no, even that doesn't make sense..... if the stuff of Si is sensory record, then what's a thought doing in there? It's a discrete object or it's a bundle of tags that got joined to a lifetime's bundle of other tags which can be selected from later and named as if it were a single discrete object, rather like the tip of an iceberg is a discrete object........ I don't have enough ellipses to indicate just how much of an uncharted intuition this idea is........ WHAT IS MEMORY OF A THOUGHT DOING IN Si?!
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #145
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Continuing the discussion from before, rather than go in circles, I found this link from another forum.

    I relate well to both Ne and Ni, as described here. I tend to think of them as the same thing with different foci. When I'm trying to solve a problem, figure something out, then it's Ni, all the way, and what Ni does is tell me "Hey, dude, you're looking at it all wrong. Look at it this way." I look at it that way, and suddenly it all clicks together.

    Ne is more exploratory and patient. It's the same intuition, but it isn't demanding an answer, it's waiting for the answer to be revealed. It sees all the possibilities and probabilities, but it doesn't focus in and say, "Here, this is what is true."

    Both versions of N shuffle through all of the possibilities. Ni focuses in order to eliminate possibilities. Ne focuses to expand possibilities.

    I don't think there is any sort of dichotomy to having both attitudes. Just as everyone both feels and thinks, and intuits and senses, I see no reason to conclude that Ni should preclude Ne or vice versa. Of course, if I'm "using Ni" (intuiting to solve a problem), I'm certainly not "using Ne" simultaneously. That would be ridiculous. The direction is necessarily introverted or extroverted, eliminating possibilities or generating possibilities.

    Within a person, though, I believe there is an aptitude or preference for "navigating possibilities" (or patterns, or abstract ideas, or any of the other general names for that which intuition processes), or not. If that aptitude/preference is strong, then one is intuitive, and it's this "language of possibilities" that Ni and Ne share. I believe it is far easier for intuitives to appreciate that language in each other, whether Ne or Ni, than it is to appreciate the sensor "language of 'what is and isn't'" (for lack of a better description).

    This is why I regard Ni and Ne as "just N". I access both readily, with a distinct preference for Ni (I like solving problems), but with an aptitude for Ne (seeing all the places where an idea or feeling takes you, all on its own, without forcing it to be something in particular). I think it's why INTJs might experience Ne from others as "exciting" because the difficult part of Ni is that one can often run out of possibilities to eliminate, while ENFPs and other Ne types find Ni "calming" because it's often difficult to stop generating possibilities and settle upon a conclusion that resolves the matter.

    I hope this clarifies my "pet theory".

  6. #146
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Continuing the discussion from before, rather than go in circles, I found this link from another forum.

    I relate well to both Ne and Ni, as described here. I tend to think of them as the same thing with different foci. When I'm trying to solve a problem, figure something out, then it's Ni, all the way, and what Ni does is tell me "Hey, dude, you're looking at it all wrong. Look at it this way." I look at it that way, and suddenly it all clicks together.

    Ne is more exploratory and patient. It's the same intuition, but it isn't demanding an answer, it's waiting for the answer to be revealed. It sees all the possibilities and probabilities, but it doesn't focus in and say, "Here, this is what is true."
    I call this Ni too. I feel like Ni is very patient; I just sort of float along for months sometimes not really figuring a concept out, then one day *click* it all falls into place. In fact, I don't know that Ni works well with force. I perceive that to be more in line with Ne, scanning the environment for data to spawn thoughts to flesh out concepts or ideas.

    Both versions of N shuffle through all of the possibilities. Ni focuses in order to eliminate possibilities. Ne focuses to expand possibilities.

    I don't think there is any sort of dichotomy to having both attitudes. Just as everyone both feels and thinks, and intuits and senses, I see no reason to conclude that Ni should preclude Ne or vice versa. Of course, if I'm "using Ni" (intuiting to solve a problem), I'm certainly not "using Ne" simultaneously. That would be ridiculous. The direction is necessarily introverted or extroverted, eliminating possibilities or generating possibilities.
    I like your intent of simplifying a preference. I know you are not just trying to simplify it; but that you feel this is how it works, but if you can say this about N, shouldn't you be able to say this about the other dichotomies as well? T/F/S? Do you not see much difference in different attitudes of the same function?

    Within a person, though, I believe there is an aptitude or preference for "navigating possibilities" (or patterns, or abstract ideas, or any of the other general names for that which intuition processes), or not. If that aptitude/preference is strong, then one is intuitive, and it's this "language of possibilities" that Ni and Ne share. I believe it is far easier for intuitives to appreciate that language in each other, whether Ne or Ni, than it is to appreciate the sensor "language of 'what is and isn't'" (for lack of a better description).
    I'm not following you here.....

    This is why I regard Ni and Ne as "just N". I access both readily, with a distinct preference for Ni (I like solving problems), but with an aptitude for Ne (seeing all the places where an idea or feeling takes you, all on its own, without forcing it to be something in particular). I think it's why INTJs might experience Ne from others as "exciting" because the difficult part of Ni is that one can often run out of possibilities to eliminate, while ENFPs and other Ne types find Ni "calming" because it's often difficult to stop generating possibilities and settle upon a conclusion that resolves the matter.

    I hope this clarifies my "pet theory".
    I could call your description of Ne how I feel about Ni, for the most part; how I define Ni. It's all so very subjective in the end.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  7. #147
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    I've been totally absent from this discussion for about a week (as I haven't been able to spend any time on TypeC), and I'm not 100% caught up on the thread (Tesla's made some seriously dissertation-length posts...), but I'm gunna just inject myself back in with this latest post (which I found intriguing):

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I relate well to both Ne and Ni, as described here. I tend to think of them as the same thing with different foci. When I'm trying to solve a problem, figure something out, then it's Ni, all the way, and what Ni does is tell me "Hey, dude, you're looking at it all wrong. Look at it this way." I look at it that way, and suddenly it all clicks together.

    Ne is more exploratory and patient. It's the same intuition, but it isn't demanding an answer, it's waiting for the answer to be revealed. It sees all the possibilities and probabilities, but it doesn't focus in and say, "Here, this is what is true."

    Both versions of N shuffle through all of the possibilities. Ni focuses in order to eliminate possibilities. Ne focuses to expand possibilities.
    Interesting... Intriguing... But true...?

    Is that all Ni does? Focuses in order to eliminate possibilities?

    How about the generation of new ones? Does Ni not do this at all? And then does Te not take those internally generated possibilities and trim/hack them down, eliminating those which are unrealistic or unhelpful to Te-related goals, thus helping the INTJ to be a "supreme strategist".

    Is idea-elimination vs. idea-generation really the difference between Ni and Ne?

    I don't know...

    I much prefer Kra's delineation:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kra View Post
    Imagine, if you will, a sphere looking out in all directions. To my understanding, that is somewhat how Ne works, moving from origin and examining all around.

    Well, take the same sphere, and focus from the surface inward towards the core. That is Ni, attempting to see a single point from all possible sides.
    Now, I can see how one might be tempted to say that the latter (Ni) takes off from this stance of surrounding the single point to eliminate possibilities that shouldn't actually exist... but, as I alluded to before, is that only Ni? Or is that Ni working in concert with other functions (in an INTJ's case, particularly Te or Fi, or even Se...)?

    Furthermore, is that all Ni does? It might surround the object of perception like the walls of a sphere, looking at it from all sides, but is there really nothing more that Ni really does than eliminate possibilities?

    What about internally sourced idea-generation?

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I don't think there is any sort of dichotomy to having both attitudes. Just as everyone both feels and thinks, and intuits and senses, I see no reason to conclude that Ni should preclude Ne or vice versa. Of course, if I'm "using Ni" (intuiting to solve a problem), I'm certainly not "using Ne" simultaneously. That would be ridiculous. The direction is necessarily introverted or extroverted, eliminating possibilities or generating possibilities.
    This I thoroughly agree with.

    But here's a question for you, uumlau, that might have significant bearing on another thread I'm in the process of creating.

    How well balanced is your J/P?

    (Get back to me here, or, better yet, in a PM, cuz I'm of the growing belief that one's ability to use both attitudes of the same function is likely correlated with one's J/P balance, and, considering you believe you utilize both attitudes of N and T, you'd be a great addition to my [growing] observation set).

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    This is why I regard Ni and Ne as "just N". I access both readily, with a distinct preference for Ni (I like solving problems), but with an aptitude for Ne (seeing all the places where an idea or feeling takes you, all on its own, without forcing it to be something in particular).
    I generally don't like the equating of two things that indeed have differences -- it's like saying two things are the same in one way, but different in another, so we'll just call them the same -- but you used quotations around "just N", just spent time delineating the two concepts, and obviously have a respect for what you believe to be their differences, so I can't fault you much.

    I do still think, though, that such language tends to confuse things a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I think it's why INTJs might experience Ne from others as "exciting" because the difficult part of Ni is that one can often run out of possibilities to eliminate...
    Not to beat a dead horse, but...

    I find this really interesting, because I usually think of Ni as generating possibilities...

    I can see what you mean by "running out of possibilities to eliminate", but are you sure this is just Ni? This, to me, sounds more like Ni when anchored by Te or Fi...

    The way I usually look at it: Ni generates possibilities, Te then cuts them down into what's useful for Te-related purposes, or Fi does the same for Fi-related purposes.

    In my thinking, Ni isn't what's doing the eliminating...

    See my point? Thoughts? Other INTJs?

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    ... while ENFPs and other Ne types find Ni "calming" because it's often difficult to stop generating possibilities and settle upon a conclusion that resolves the matter.
    Hmmm, but I do think you have an interesting point here.

    Ne is definitely charmed by Ni in some way.

    Whether it's for the reason you're saying, I'm not sure.

    I'll have to ponder more...

    As always, though-provoking post, uumlau...

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I hope this clarifies my "pet theory".
    It does.

    I'm not sure whether I'm buying it, but it clarifies...


  8. #148
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I could call your description of Ne how I feel about Ni, for the most part; how I define Ni.
    I felt the same way you did.

    I'm not sure how I feel about uumlau's description of Ne as idea-generating vs. Ni as idea-eliminating...

    Glad to hear another Ni dom user got the same sense of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    It's all so very subjective in the end.
    INFJs and your obsession with subjectivity...


  9. #149
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Another crude, blind stab at succinctness:

    Si is all about physical safeguarding: a need to take guard of sensations and compare external stimuli to what is known or familiar, thereby knowing in advance what is or isn't trustworthy. Stands against Ne, which is all about contextual dialogue: being in tune with a greater, already existing context and trusting to follow new connections wherever they go.

    Ni is all about contextual frameworking: a need to identify and shift perspectives, thereby changing the meaning of symbols and knowing in advance the possibilities they suggest. Stands against Se, which is all about physical dialogue: being aware of and placing trust in one's physical relationship with the immediate environment, and simply reacting to things as they happen, in the moment.
    Hello

  10. #150
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    I function talk, so I can't help but to jump in. Ignore me if you like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post

    Is that all Ni does? Focuses in order to eliminate possibilities?

    How about the generation of new ones? Does Ni not do this at all? And then does Te not take those internally generated possibilities and trim/hack them down, eliminating those which are unrealistic or unhelpful to Te-related goals, thus helping the INTJ to be a "supreme strategist".
    Well, it's both. But perhaps (just brainstorming) a better way to describe it is to say that Ni is about refining; through eliminating and generating, and Ne is about producing; through connecting and networking. ?


    Now, I can see how one might be tempted to say that the latter (Ni) takes off from this stance of surrounding the single point to eliminate possibilities that shouldn't actually exist... but, as I alluded to before, is that only Ni? Or is that Ni working in concert with other functions (in an INTJ's case, particularly Te or Fi, or even Se...)?
    Well, strictly speaking, N and S don't DO anything, but provide a way to perceive data, so that the judging functions can do their work. My latest idea is that an Ni dom would use Te/Fe (opposite orientations of the dom) to judge. Our perceiving function makes us biased because it is only lending an introverted or extraverted or intuitive or sensate flavor to our judging functions. As I process a thought via Fe, or grapple with a problem via Fe, Ni 'helps' in its biased way for me to interpret the best course of action. I keep running Fe data through my Ni processor to arrive at the best solution. If the situation changes, then I would return to the world via Fe, and continue to process, or add to it. Same with Te for me.

    [[My new idea is that once these solutions are found, they solidify in my brain as Fi or Ti, because once I've found a particular solution to a particular problem, I am not going to want to do it again, and I want to catalogue it in my mind. Fi would be how I felt internally about some Fe issue. Ti would be what I figured out worked by using Te in a unique circumstance. I don't think I use S at all, except in the moment; but not enough to delineate attitude or assist my judging functions, but I'm still pondering all this, so.......]]



    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post

    INFJs and your obsession with subjectivity...

    Everyone's opinion is valuable, imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    Another crude, blind stab at succinctness:

    Si is all about physical safeguarding: a need to take guard of sensations and compare external stimuli to what is known or familiar, thereby knowing in advance what is or isn't trustworthy. Stands against Ne, which is all about contextual dialogue: being in tune with a greater, already existing context and trusting to follow new connections wherever they go.

    Ni is all about contextual frameworking: a need to identify and shift perspectives, thereby changing the meaning of symbols and knowing in advance the possibilities they suggest. Stands against Se, which is all about physical dialogue: being aware of and placing trust in one's physical relationship with the immediate environment, and simply reacting to things as they happen, in the moment.
    I think this is good.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


Similar Threads

  1. Ni vs. Si comparative Ni TEST
    By musttry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 10:36 AM
  2. Ni vs. Si comparative Si TEST
    By musttry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-30-2010, 11:35 AM
  3. Ni vs Si, and more
    By Cimarron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 11:58 AM
  4. Ni and Si Doms: What does the internal world look like?
    By BlueScreen in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 06:01 PM
  5. Ni and Si
    By run in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 11:42 AM

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