Ni v. Si - A Comparative Analysis

[teslashock]

You already ate it.

Yum. It's ever better when I can wash it down with your pissant drivel.

 

[uumlau]

So it seems to me like you're more interested in how the functions interact with each other to result in functional categories that are separate and distinct from the original broader function terms. You seem to think that Ne and Ni alone are no different but rather are just made different by their complementary judging functions, right?

I am interested in determining distinct "entities" for lack of a better word. N vs S seems to be more of a "scalar" entity, without an i/e direction, while Te/Fi/Fe/Ti seems to be more of a "vector."

I believe socionics is more geared at examining functional interplay and gives more definitive merit to how the functions interact when making its categories, but that's just what I've heard through the grapevine. I don't really know much about socionics (it seems rather messy and convoluted to me), truth be told, but you might find that it's worth looking into.

From what little I've read, I'm not very interested in socionics, and quite highly distrustful.

I think I'm understanding you, but correct me if I'm wrong. The premise behind your pet theory is that there are no discernible differences between Ne/Ni and Se/Si, but rather, the differences we see in cognition among SJ/SP and NJ/NP types come from the judging functions that affect the perceiving function in question. You believe this because 1) you think you personally use both N functions, and 2) the characteristics of the ENxP/INxJ dynamic point to shared cognitive values. According to your pet theory, 1 and 2 imply that Ne = Ni (and your theory says the same about Se = Si).

According to this categorization, that would mean that Pi paired with x judging function would cause the same cognitive values and attitudes that Pe paired with x judging function does (ie, PeTi = PiTi because Pi = Pe), right? If that's the case, then I'm going to have to disagree with your pet theory for now, lest you provide further support to back up your claim (though the part about implying that the examination of Ne, Se, Si, and Ni necessitates a complementary judging function for thorough understanding is interesting, and I'm inclined to agree). But in regards to Ni = Ne and Si = Se, I don't think that's the case (but I'm open to new ideas ).

You break an assumption of mine here, by imposing one of your own. You believe there is such a thing as PiTi. I've seen no evidence of that. Perhaps you have evidence of it. I suspect this is the core of our disagreement.

INJs and ENPs have completely different cognitive attitudes, even when they share judging functions, so this implies that there's something else going on that distinguishes these two types cognitively. The only reasons this could be the case, categorically speaking, would be function order and different perceiving functions (Ne vs Ni and/or Se vs. Si) that the two types possess.

Since your theory completely undermines the Pe/Pi dichotomies, this would mean that your theory has to support that the difference between INJs and their ENP complements is due solely to a discrepancy in Je/Ji order. How can your theory use this discrepancy, without also incorporating opposing N functions, to justify the cognitive differences between INJs and ENPs?

The rest of your argument is using circular reasoning: namely that Ne and Ni are different and distinct, thus cannot be the same thing. My pet theory is that there is a single entity, N, and that Ne vs Ni are different ways of channeling the same thing. In practice, Ne and Ni will appear different, but it's different usages of the same entity.

I was originally tempted to make the same assertion about the judging functions, but I see compelling evidence that Ti and Te are distinct, and that Fi and Fe are distinct, especially because I see Te/Fi and Fe/Ti as distinct sets of behaviors/attitudes, regardless of whether T or F is preferred. Insomuch as T and F are distinct ways of judging things, the direction of that judging is as big a deal as the whether it's mostly T or F.

There are a lot of people on this forum, myself included, that do not believe Ne/Ni can be healthily juxtaposed, as the two are definitively in opposition with each other. Why exactly do you think you "use" both?

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.

For me, Ne is essentially "uncontrolled Ni." More precisely, it's just intuition. The less I focus it, and let my thoughts go on their own, it "becomes Ne." The more I focus it, and focus my thoughts on a particular track, it "becomes Ni."

I detect no "juxtaposition" because there is no dichotomy to be juxtaposed, in my own experience.

To be very clear, I didn't start out as an MBTI aficionado. I was very skeptical, especially having been mistyped, originally. MBTI had to prove itself to me. The basics of MBTI have proven themselves to me, with the 16 types. The underlying Jungian functions have mostly proven themselves to me. I'd noticed the N/S difference decades ago, and the Te/Fi vs Fe/Ti differences almost as long, and MBTI put a name to all of that. MBTI describes real things and real interactions, and even if some of it is complete BS, it gives us a language with which to communicate and share ideas about personality traits and cognitive issues.

However, I remain very skeptical of those things I haven't observed. I've not observed NiTi, or NeTe, online or in real life. So my pet theory is for me. I'm not trying to push it on anyone else, just throwing it out there for evaluation. If you want to prove to me that Ne and Ni are "really different," to me, I'm happy to listen, but circular reasoning will get you nowhere. I need to see/hear examples/anecdotes where NeTe or NiTi is evident, for example, in such a way that it is clearly not NeTi or NiTe, but something very different.

(more circular reasoning)

So, again, why do you view this as evidence in support of your pet theory (rather than as evidence in support of Ne/Ni being different)?

Because I started from the point of view that MBTI had to prove itself to me. I am not trying to take MBTI and disprove it.

Te/Ti/Fe/Fi have proven themselves to me. N and S have proven themselves to me. I experience Ne and Ni as shades/foci of N. I cannot speak to Se/Si directly, but I see no evidence that it would be different. Ne is N in "real time", Ni is focused N, evaluating the patterns more carefully. Se is S in "real time", Si is focused S, evaluating the experiences more carefully.


PS - Tesla, I share Z's opinion of your posts and arguments. We may disagree, but you state your case very clearly.

 

[Jaguar]

Yum. It's ever better when I can wash it down with your pissant drivel.

Aw, I hurt your little Fe eeeeeeelings.
Want to send me another rep comment?

 

[teslashock]

@ uumalu: If you think my post is wrought with circular reasoning, then I'm pretty certain that you've misunderstood me.

I'm not backing up the fact that Ne/Ni are different because Ne/Ni are different doh. That would be utter foolishness.

I'm backing up the fact that Ne/Ni are different because as functional categories, the two have completely different definitions that cannot be intertwined, and we can see these two opposing definitions in practice by Js and Ps.

It's analogous to saying that fruits and vegetables are different because we define fruits to be products of plants that specifically come from a flower while we define vegetables to be products of plants that do not come from a flower. This characteristic of fruit vs. vegetable necessitates that, according to our labels, fruit and vegetable are different, and unless we can show that flowers (fruits), leaves/roots (vegetables) are all one in the same, then we can't completely belittle the differences between what we label as fruits and what we label as vegetables, thus the notable differences still hold.

Pe and Pi are different because we have defined them to be different, and we can justify these different definitions by witnessing them in what we define to be Js and what we define to be Ps. Considering that Pe/Pi are nothing but abstract concepts, unless you can show that the definitions of Se/Si and Ne/Ni actually mean the same thing conceptually, then your theory is loose and unfounded.

I'm at work right now and have to write this stupid paper on the bioethics of animal testing, so I can't respond in full to your post, but please reevaluate where you think you're seeing circular reasoning, because I assure you, there isn't any.

I was just asking you to elaborate on why you think Ne/Ni are the same (ie, why you believe the definitions of Ne/Ni have no notable differences and/or why you believe that NPs and NJs are different solely due to their judging function orientations).


And:

PS - Tesla, I share Z's opinion of your posts and arguments. We may disagree, but you state your case very clearly.

Thank you.

And I'm not trying to completely invalidate your pet theory and belittle your ideas. I'm just asking for elaboration, as I'm pretty skeptical at this point. But at the same time, I'm not completely up to speed with why you believe what you believe, thus the inquiry.

 

[teslashock]

Aw, I hurt your little Fe eeeeeeelings.
Want to send me another rep comment?

Phew! What a cruel Temper you've got there. It was really hard to see through all my tears enough to accommodate your request, but as you can see, I went above and beyond. *sniffle*

 

[Kalach]

This is exactly what Jung says about Ne.

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.

I wonder if the Ne/Si and Se/Ni combinations have some importance to this discussion as well.
When I use Si it's often applied to information received originally through Ne. This will alter how Si is working. I am very detail oriented when dealing with past events but those "details" will be very specific connections/thoughts/impressions rather than what most would consider details of the event. So while I can very easily see how Si was working others won't see it very clearly. I think this problem could exist for both Si and Ni to some extent.

That is interesting. This is memory of the thought or memory of having had the thought?

 

[uumlau]

@ uumalu: If you think my post is wrought with circular reasoning, then I'm pretty certain that you've misunderstood me.

I'm not backing up the fact that Ne/Ni are different because Ne/Ni are different doh. That would be utter foolishness.

I'm backing up the fact that Ne/Ni are different because as functional categories, the two have completely different definitions that cannot be intertwined, and we can see these two opposing definitions in practice by Js and Ps.

It's analogous to saying that fruits and vegetables are different because we define fruits to be products of plants that specifically come from a flower while we define vegetables to be products of plants that do not come from a flower. This characteristic of fruit vs. vegetable necessitates that, according to our labels, fruit and vegetable are different, and unless we can show that flowers (fruits), leaves/roots (vegetables) are all one in the same, then we can't completely belittle the differences between what we label as fruits and what we label as vegetables, thus the notable differences still hold.

OK, I get what you're saying, and why I would regard it as circular, while you wouldn't.

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.

I'm looking at it from a more empirical point of view. The definitions, the designations, might be wrong, at least insofar as hiding aspects of the truth.

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've not seen Ne vs Ni except as a degree of control, as I've described in a previous post. The more focused the thoughts (the more "J" the thoughts), the more Ni becomes apparent, while more scattered thoughts ("P") the more Ne. It's still all the same N, as far as I can tell.

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.

And I'm not trying to completely invalidate your pet theory and belittle your ideas. I'm just asking for elaboration, as I'm pretty skeptical at this point. But at the same time, I'm not completely up to speed with why you believe what you believe, thus the inquiry.

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. 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.

Otherwise it's six of one and half a dozen of the other: my pet theory isn't that divergent from classical Jungian functions. The main thing it adds is my own personal observation that I feel I understand and can invoke both Ne and Ni, and that others might be able to gain self-understanding from that.

 

[VagrantFarce]

As far as there being a clear-cut difference between Ni and Ne, I would say there is, but only based on my own experiences: I absolutely recognise Ne in my myself and my thoughts, whereas I can only appreciate Ni theoretically and from a distance (much like Se, Fi and Te: I understand them theoretically, and can at least recognise them in the behaviour of others, but if I'm honest with myself they're certainly not where my mind dwells).

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

thoughts about all attitudes being opposite the dominant function

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.

You have spawned a tendril of thought for me. Mustn't we originally perceive with an extraverted function? For example, if we solely perceive with Ni, and only Ni, where would we get anything to think about originally? Ni is, by definition, an introverted function that only needs imagination to work, it doesn't look outside. If we were born as lumps of blind, deaf, and dumb mutes who couldn't feel, and were Ni dom, we would have nothing to think about, except some thoughts of void. No, we must extravert first in some way, then use our preferred perceiving function to contemplate the data, and our preferred judging function to solidify it. What, then, would our original extraverted function be? Well, Ne,Se,Fe,Te, depending on our circumstances at the moment.

So, if I am hiking and notice the scenery and trees, smells, etc, and am extraverting with S, then I turn inward with my thoughts, I'm not going to think about the scenery at all anymore, nor objects at all. I'm going to begin thinking about my interactions with people. So, truly, for me, my Fe fuels my Ni. I am not going to see a tree and think about another object that it reminds me of and start going through my memory banks about how I feel about that tree and thoughts it spurs in me, as I imagine an Si dom would.

If, then, my aux function is Fe, what would happen if I could not fuel my Ni with Fe at all? What would happen? I would turn to T because to not be able to think (use Ni) would make me very uncomfortable and bored and maybe depressed. I would have to use my mind on thinking, so I'd turn to Te. I would have to read articles, or forums, or news, to solicit information that could allow Ni to ponder. It's not as interesting for me to use T, as I prefer F thoughts, thoughts of people, so I would probably feel drawn to articles involving the human element, how people interact, even if I were not personally interacting with them.

So, in this scenario, I really am not using Ti. I really am using Ni, which looks like Ti. I am not trying to really understand how the thing in the article works or why it works or it's intrinsic qualities; I am trying to glean some gem of insight about how it really exists in all its glory; trying to see something that isn't described, trying to understand its essence which isn't visible. That is Ni. Ni perceiving what Te has fed it.

Uumlau might be right here. The MBTI people might be right (as per edcoaching).

As introverts we must extrovert to gather fodder to fuel or dominant function, whatever that may be. So, my functions might really look like this: Ni/Fe/Te/Se simple as that. What I thought was Ti I think might really be Te, but it looks like Ti once Ni gets a hold of it.

However, Se does nothing for me beyond the moment I experience it. I do not take sensory data I've observed in the world and apply it to my Ni, although i might, I suppose, if I began thinking about how weather patterns were affected by wind changes, aka chaos theory type thinking, etc. Or does that become Ne? It might be more Se that converts to Ne, but since Ne is not my preferred intuitive process, it quickly fizzles out into other Ni type thoughts and that train of thought that started with wind dies away, although I do use Ne........So, perhaps Se is not really useful for my thinking at all. Perhaps S is useful for me only in the moment, and Si is not even necessary. Perhaps there is no real attitude for S in an N dom person, because S is so short-lived, and in the moment, it needs no more descriptors.



But this brings me to a new thought as well. If I've gathered data with Fe or Te, when I contemplate it with Ni processes, does it then become solidified as our introverted feeling or thinking (Fi or Ti)?



What about a Ti dom of the ISTP? If he must extravert to gain information about what to apply his Ti to, that extraversion must be Ne/Se/Te/Fe. Let's say his aux function is Se. His supposed tert is Ni. Is it really Ne? Does it look like Ni because it's really Ne plied with Ti to arrive at the best and most logically sound answer?

Ti/Se/Ne/......Fe?

Would an dominant judger using T feel toward F like I feel toward the other perceiving function? That's tough, but yeah, maybe. Fe motivations can dissipate into what works, what's functional. Fi is practically nonexistent. So, F is used, and used well, but is not any kind of priority and is difficult to sustain, unless there is an Se bonus.

Thanks, Kalach, for your post. That was fun. I'm tired>time to get some sleep. g'night!

anyone feel free to respond, of course!

 

[Kalach]

You have spawned a tendril of thought for me. Mustn't we originally perceive with an extraverted function? For example, if we solely perceive with Ni, and only Ni, where would we get anything to think about originally? Ni is, by definition, an introverted function that only needs imagination to work, it doesn't look outside. If we were born as lumps of blind, deaf, and dumb mutes who couldn't feel, and were Ni dom, we would have nothing to think about, except some thoughts of void. No, we must extravert first in some way, then use our preferred perceiving function to contemplate the data, and our preferred judging function to solidify it. What, then, would our original extraverted function be? Well, Ne,Se,Fe,Te, depending on our circumstances at the moment.

Arguably, no. At any given moment in any given location whichever person were standing there would be bombarded with exactly the same information. Different cognitive makeups would at that very moment be doing different things. Different scraps from that surfeit of information would be selected by different people depending on their preferences, but there'd always be information enough to go around. Just from a developmental point of view, every type in every normal situation will almost always have something to work with. Their central nervous system will deliver information to them and they will select from it according to their interest and preference.

An interesting question to make here is, once again, what is "preference"? Do we all have more or less the same central nervous systems but differing cognitive makeups, or do we each have slightly different central nervous systems that correspond to different cognitive makeups? One presumes that eventually we will discover that it is the latter. But currently, from a model theoretic point of view, we're supposed to make a strong distinction between, on the one hand, having and using a function and, on the other hand, being a human animal extant in the world. All human animals have the same opportunity, but each human mind differs via "preference".

Which is a long-winded way of saying, you don't have to extrovert anything to get information. It comes to you whether you like it or not. What personality theory can tell us is stories of how individuals choose to process and interact with this bounty.


... one presumes, anyway.

 

[Snow Turtle]

I'm not an S, but from my observations, they're more "interested" in the real world. N's are "more interested" in the parallel world. Over in the video thread, you can compare Whatever's vid to mine. She's almost always engaging the camera, while I'm very often looking away as I gather my thoughts, before I engage the camera and deliver them with focus.

Would this be a fair comparison considering that other intuitive bloggers share her preference?

Her take is that she looks at people when she talks to determine their reactions, whether they're bored, etc. In my case, when I talk, I'm taking something from within me and delivering it outward, and I'm more concerned that I'm being correct, than with whether the other person gives a damn about what I'm saying.

I'd personally chalk this down more to being an auxillary Te user.


As I've mentioned many times in previous threads: I fail to understand where the line is between concrete information and abstract information. People often use these words, but it's starting to become a little meaningless as Si can store 'experience' and 'analysis' that is generated purely from within the mind. Something that Ni users and intuitives seem to keep on going about is that it must be generated from physical concrete objects. It does not. In some ways I agree with the posters who mentioned that Si isn't truly understood.

Si collects the details to analyse and then creates an impression to store. Things that are remembered, are because people feel that it is significant. Models that are created from previous data are stored because it's deemed as significant. Personally I'm rubbish at recalling details, however my friends would agree that I place alot of importance on collecting all the details to make decisions.

To those that claim: "Oh. You got those models from existing physical data"
Where else would you get the source of information?

People don't live in a vaccum, it's not possible to generate thought out of nothingness. There must have been an original set of data even if it's completely unrelated to the current topic.

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.

May I ask whether you personally tested/analysed these students?
Otherwise I'll point out potential bias involved such as preferring to think of 'thinkers' as similar to your self when it's possible that the distinction was not S/N but more about whether students were interested in engaging in the class rather than putting in the minimal amount of work.

It's statements like these that cause sensors on this forum to mistype themselves as intuitives.

 

[uumlau]

Would this be a fair comparison considering that other intuitive bloggers share her preference?

Would this be a fair question considering that MBTI is about tendencies, and even "intuitive bloggers" might be mistyped?

I'd personally chalk this down more to being an auxillary Te user.

Would you perhaps consider offering an explanation to accompany your opinion?

As I've mentioned many times in previous threads: I fail to understand where the line is between concrete information and abstract information. People often use these words, but it's starting to become a little meaningless as Si can store 'experience' and 'analysis' that is generated purely from within the mind. Something that Ni users and intuitives seem to keep on going about is that it must be generated from physical concrete objects. It does not. In some ways I agree with the posters who mentioned that Si isn't truly understood.

Si collects the details to analyse and then creates an impression to store. Things that are remembered, are because people feel that it is significant. Models that are created from previous data are stored because it's deemed as significant. Personally I'm rubbish at recalling details, however my friends would agree that I place alot of importance on collecting all the details to make decisions.

So "importance of details" is more important than how readily you perceive them? That's how I originally tested as ISTJ, but both other people and reading and some more reliable tests all determined that I am INTJ. I think abstractly, I have this "parallel world" internally constructed that tells me how I should expect the "real world" to behave, but I "prefer details." I like concrete details because it nails down my habitual abstractions. I can even seem "detail-oriented", but it's more about my intuition spotting weird details based on overall patterns, not my noticing most all details thus few escape notice.

I believe some of my subsequent answers might help to clarify the difference between "concrete" and "abstract."

To those that claim: "Oh. You got those models from existing physical data"
Where else would you get the source of information?

People don't live in a vaccum, it's not possible to generate thought out of nothingness. There must have been an original set of data even if it's completely unrelated to the current topic.

I agree with this. Intuitive is more about whether your thinking is rooted in terms of patterns or in terms of specific items.

Si or S in general does not mean you cannot process abstract ideas. Far from it. The question is whether you normally think abstractly. It's not an easy question to answer, because one cannot point at thinking abstractly.

The main way I detect N vs S in others is how readily I can convey an abstract concept in an abstract manner. It's definitely a spectrum and not just an off/on thing, and there will certainly be false readings where a particularly unintelligent or uninterested N doesn't learn easily and a particularly intelligent S processes it so fast in the S way that makes the S seem intuitive. On the whole, however, the tendency is that if one generally thinks abstractly, one can more readily understand new abstract ideas.

Remember in grade school how it was one set of people who were good at memorizing multiplication tables and the like, but once they hit high school and particular calculus and more college-level math, many of those who were bad at the multiplication tables were good at the abstract math, and vice versa? Of course, there were also those who were bad at both, and those who were good at both, but overall, the tendency describes the difference between N vs S.

May I ask whether you personally tested/analysed these students?

Sure, but I'm also sure you've already answered the question (intuitively!) and are only asking rhetorically, especially since I said this is from before I knew MBTI.

My main point is not "these students were ALL N and those were all S and N behaved thus and so 80% of the time, while S behaved thus and so only 40% of the time." My point is simply, "I understood N vs S, as a concept, long before MBTI. MBTI gave me a name for it." Whether I correctly measured it in each individual case in the past is a different issue. I know that N vs S is really hard to determine, in spite of its significance.

Otherwise I'll point out potential bias involved such as preferring to think of 'thinkers' as similar to your self when it's possible that the distinction was not S/N but more about whether students were interested in engaging in the class rather than putting in the minimal amount of work.

That's certainly a possibility, but I have reason to believe that it was overall not the case. Teaching certain people the "S" way was much more effective than teaching the "N" way, and vice versa. The "N" folks are just as bored with the "S" presentation of the material as the "S" folks were bored with the "N" presentation. Some "S" folks got high grades, and some "N" folks got low grades.

Personally, I'm very good at math, and the higher-level abstract math, but it made a huge difference whether the material was presented in an S way or an N way to me. I got Bs, in geometry and trigonometry, because the emphasis was memorizing steps and formulae. I got As in the same subjects later on, when the material was presented from a more abstract "here's how it all fits together" point of view. It's not that I don't need detail and practice exercises to fully develop my understanding, but that without that big picture, I find it difficult to fit the details into my memory. And when I pull out the knowledge later, it isn't in detail form, but in "of course it works like this" form.

When I learn dancing and new dance steps, there's always a degree of rote memorization, just because. However, I habitually try to fit it all into a "this is how dancing works" framework. Heck, I even use the concept of quantum spin to describe and quickly map out certain handholds to myself.

It's statements like these that cause sensors on this forum to mistype themselves as intuitives.

I doubt that statements like these have much to do with the mistyping, and a lot more to do with tests asking whether you "prefer details," as if the regular-world interpretation of "prefer details" is even remotely similar to the MBTI meaning of "prefer details."

I think the main thing that will cause sensors to falsely mistype themselves as intuitives is intelligence. If one is very smart, it can be very easy to type oneself as an INXX instead of ISXX. Smarter, more skilled, more mature people will exhibit traits of many types, thus obscuring the core preferences that MBTI types describe. This is why I usually suggest that people use the negative traits of a type to see whether the problems of that type seem to be your problems, and thus narrow down the scope.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Si collects the details to analyse and then creates an impression to store. Things that are remembered, are because people feel that it is significant. Models that are created from previous data are stored because it's deemed as significant. Personally I'm rubbish at recalling details, however my friends would agree that I place alot of importance on collecting all the details to make decisions.

To those that claim: "Oh. You got those models from existing physical data"
Where else would you get the source of information?

People don't live in a vaccum, it's not possible to generate thought out of nothingness. There must have been an original set of data even if it's completely unrelated to the current topic.

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?

 

[uumlau]

Hey, AGA, I wanted to give you answers to your specific questions, even if I've already partially answered them in the context of other replies.

So, if someone uses N with Fe, you think that N will have more Ni flavor (introverted flavor) than Ne, and when used with Fi, more extraverted to balance it out or something? Same with S?

That's basically my idea. More specifically, for INFJ, Ti is your tertiary. I would suggest that if you want to understand Ne, use your Ti, and the Ne will be evoked. (It will also work with Se, but my point has been that it seems to me to be more important whether one is intuitive, than whether one is Ni/Se.)

I'm confused, but curious here, could you elaborate?

INTJ is NiTeFiSe.
ENFP is NeFiTeSi.
ESFP is SeFiTeNi.

My observation is that if Ni/Se vs Ne/Si is a more important distinction than N vs S, then INTJs should ESFPs, which share all of the functions.

Instead, the connection appears to be closer with ENFPs (and xNFPs in general), so it doesn't matter that they share Ni or share Ne (they don't), but that they share N. One can come up with all sorts of make-work theories that suggest a mutual fascination between Ne and Ni, but I believe Occam's Razor would suggest that it's because "N is it's own thing". From that, I conclude that Ne vs Ni is just how they look when combined with judging functions.

Yet, if you really thought about it, would you not be able to tell which attitude of N you were using? I mean, when I use Ni, I'm pretty much zoned out. Ne, working it. So, I am reticent to lump them together.

I've spent some time describing this in another post, but I will restate the point again, here. For me, both Ni and Ne leave me zoned out. My main self-observation, and reason for identifying with xNFPs, is that when I use Fi, it seems to get paired with Ne, not Se. That one observation is the core of all the rest of my observations: that I could tap into both Ne and Ni, depending on which judging function I focused on applying. Now, Ni is much easier for me than Ne, but I can just go Fi (or Ti), and get that Ne approach.

More specifically, if I'm "working" at something or "trying to resolve" something, Ni goes into overdrive and presents ready-made "solutions," some of which are really quite good for what feels like half-assed guesses to me.

If I'm playing or fantasizing or exploring ideas, Ne is invoked, and I just follow my thoughts without focusing, while Fi and Ti passively judge them. If I try to talk while in this mode, it comes out as random babble, not my stereotypical coherent and clear speech.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Would this be a fair question considering that MBTI is about tendencies, and even "intuitive bloggers" might be mistyped?

Would you perhaps consider offering an explanation to accompany your opinion?

MBTI is about tendancies, but I'm just suggesting that the difference in the example is less likely to be dealing with the N/S divide but more so to do with the fact that it appears to be a Te trait. For example: It could have been as easy to say the whole engaging of camera and interacting with people is more to do with F/T. It wouldn't be wrong. Obviously that doesn't apply in this scenario since whatever is ESTP but then it could be chalked down to EP in general. The member I was thinking about was also an ENXP which is why I have problems with the N/S theory. A desire to deliver information after processing in some ways can be seen as an IJ thing or even an I thing.

So "importance of details" is more important than how readily you perceive them? That's how I originally tested as ISTJ, but both other people and reading and some more reliable tests all determined that I am INTJ. I think abstractly, I have this "parallel world" internally constructed that tells me how I should expect the "real world" to behave, but I "prefer details." I like concrete details because it nails down my habitual abstractions. I can even seem "detail-oriented", but it's more about my intuition spotting weird details based on overall patterns, not my noticing most all details thus few escape notice.

It's most likely to be a combination of both 'valuing details' and what's done with that source of information. Most Si descriptions on the internet describe people as not seeing the object, but creating an impression of the object based on all the information they have (externally or internally generated). You'll notice this is similar to the Ni description of 'parallel worlds' and it's the reason that I agree with previous posters that Ni is similar to Si in some ways but there is appears to be a slight distinction in focus.

You didn't ask for it. But the N approach has always seemed to be more 'fill in the fuzzy picture with details top-down' than the S 'create the whole picture bottom-up'. At least with the SJs, it's why we're (I'm) often seen to be waiting to following a sequential pattern with details. I've noticed that I'm not as comfortable making 'jumps' where missing details are, in comparison to my NJ peers. But really I don't have much to back me up on that last sentence as I don't know that many INXJs in real life (3 max), I'm partially going off the things I've observed on this forum.

I believe some of my subsequent answers might help to clarify the difference between "concrete" and "abstract."

The reason I find it difficult is that to me, to engage in thought, is to engage in abstraction. I recall previous threads about INFJ users explaining themselves about how they extrapolate 'non-concrete' data, use a framework/model in order to predict what the outcome will of a scenario will be. Except... I'm sure that happens with most Si users.

I agree with this. Intuitive is more about whether your thinking is rooted in terms of patterns or in terms of specific items.

Si or S in general does not mean you cannot process abstract ideas. Far from it. The question is whether you normally think abstractly. It's not an easy question to answer, because one cannot point at thinking abstractly.

These examples explain how different people are more used to engaging in abstraction/concreteness... but the definition of abstract-concrete hasn't really been defined clearly imo. I believe that I'm often engaging in abstraction but perhaps I'm not, how would I be able to tell?

The main way I detect N vs S in others is how readily I can convey an abstract concept in an abstract manner. It's definitely a spectrum and not just an off/on thing, and there will certainly be false readings where a particularly unintelligent or uninterested N doesn't learn easily and a particularly intelligent S processes it so fast in the S way that makes the S seem intuitive. On the whole, however, the tendency is that if one generally thinks abstractly, one can more readily understand new abstract ideas.

This is on the assumption that S aren't involved in abstraction 'usually' based on the idea that N = abstraction. Personally I don't know how much I agree with this, but until a clear definition of abstraction is given then for all I know I may be engaging in such thing but labelling it as just 'thinking'. One example I could quickly give is BlackCat dealing with socionics. Is that not abstraction? He is usually thinking about this stuff often on the forums. One difference however is that he's engaged in MBTI/Jung/Socionics for personal practical reasons rather than just being interested in theory because it's just fun learning theories. That stereotype about S-N seems to hold true in some cases, but there might be Ns who are interested in their stuff because it holds some form of relevance in their lives.

Remember in grade school how it was one set of people who were good at memorizing multiplication tables and the like, but once they hit high school and particular calculus and more college-level math, many of those who were bad at the multiplication tables were good at the abstract math, and vice versa? Of course, there were also those who were bad at both, and those who were good at both, but overall, the tendency describes the difference between N vs S.

I've found here at university. There are some friends who complain that lecturers just offer them the basic formulas without explaining the theory behind it and how it all works. So I'm going to make a generalisation, but usually those who are interested in how things work prefer to look at the whole thing to have a thorough backbone structure to their understanding. There should be an explanation for why these sensors seem to display a desire to understand the abstract theory behind it all.

One criticism of the example listed above:
These students who were good at multiplication. Were they bad at higher level mathematics? East-Asia (China) for example is often cited as an extremely sensor-based culture, but they also have a reputation for excelling in mathematics in general. You'll find lots of chinese people joking about how they screwed up and got a B.

Gone a little off topic there... but yeah: There's still the problem that students thinking abstractly is that they are engaging in N.

Sure, but I'm also sure you've already answered the question (intuitively!) and are only asking rhetorically, especially since I said this is from before I knew MBTI.

My main point is not "these students were ALL N and those were all S and N behaved thus and so 80% of the time, while S behaved thus and so only 40% of the time." My point is simply, "I understood N vs S, as a concept, long before MBTI. MBTI gave me a name for it." Whether I correctly measured it in each individual case in the past is a different issue. I know that N vs S is really hard to determine, in spite of its significance.

One issue I have with this is that there's a huge population of sensors. There is also a large population of students that's likely to be not interested in education. The intuitive population is relatively small. The 'thinking' group is also small.

You see where I'm going with this? I just don't think it's a fair comparison as the population size for both group is extremely skewed. There should be a control group for this, as well as testing in some country where the education system is valued more. Here, I'm arguing that N/S label is potentially the wrong label for what the situation you had back then. It's possible there was actually a high population of S in your 'thinking' group which you have now attributed to them being as Ns.

That's certainly a possibility, but I have reason to believe that it was overall not the case. Teaching certain people the "S" way was much more effective than teaching the "N" way, and vice versa. The "N" folks are just as bored with the "S" presentation of the material as the "S" folks were bored with the "N" presentation. Some "S" folks got high grades, and some "N" folks got low grades.

Well I can only go by your own words as I was never there.

Personally, I'm very good at math, and the higher-level abstract math, but it made a huge difference whether the material was presented in an S way or an N way to me. I got Bs, in geometry and trigonometry, because the emphasis was memorizing steps and formulae. I got As in the same subjects later on, when the material was presented from a more abstract "here's how it all fits together" point of view. It's not that I don't need detail and practice exercises to fully develop my understanding, but that without that big picture, I find it difficult to fit the details into my memory. And when I pull out the knowledge later, it isn't in detail form, but in "of course it works like this" form.

This applies to me and most of my friends at university who are also S.
It's human to understand/learn things better in context than it is to do so rote-learning. It's just whether people want to learn in context as it is potentially more time consuming and requiring processing than just drilling through exercises. While I'm idealistic about education. It's kept on reinforced that the education system at least in the UK is so that students are up to scratch with the basics.

I doubt that statements like these have much to do with the mistyping, and a lot more to do with tests asking whether you "prefer details," as if the regular-world interpretation of "prefer details" is even remotely similar to the MBTI meaning of "prefer details."

I think the main thing that will cause sensors to falsely mistype themselves as intuitives is intelligence. If one is very smart, it can be very easy to type oneself as an INXX instead of ISXX. Smarter, more skilled, more mature people will exhibit traits of many types, thus obscuring the core preferences that MBTI types describe. This is why I usually suggest that people use the negative traits of a type to see whether the problems of that type seem to be your problems, and thus narrow down the scope.

There's a problem if intelligence is associated with N. Why is it that this happens more with S to N than it does with N to S? If it's just a case of intelligence and maturity then there should be an equal amount of mistyping on both sides. But the fact that this is a problem suggests that it's due to the association that intelligence is linked with N.

Which goes back to my first claim:
It's statements and ideas like the above that make people believe they aren't sensors as often seen in the what is my type thread.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Hey, AGA, I wanted to give you answers to your specific questions, even if I've already partially answered them in the context of other replies.

Yes, I realized that, but thanks for your time.

That's basically my idea. More specifically, for INFJ, Ti is your tertiary. I would suggest that if you want to understand Ne, use your Ti, and the Ne will be evoked. (It will also work with Se, but my point has been that it seems to me to be more important whether one is intuitive, than whether one is Ni/Se.)

Well, as per my late-night drivel I posted last night on here, and the 'news' that the MBTI researchers have identified that, like Jung thought, our tertiary is indeed aligned in an attitude opposite the dominant function, and some further, very un-T-like thoughts on my end, I am not so sure Ti is my tert function, after all.

INTJ is NiTeFiSe.
ENFP is NeFiTeSi.
ESFP is SeFiTeNi.

My observation is that if Ni/Se vs Ne/Si is a more important distinction than N vs S, then INTJs should ESFPs, which share all of the functions.

Instead, the connection appears to be closer with ENFPs (and xNFPs in general), so it doesn't matter that they share Ni or share Ne (they don't), but that they share N. One can come up with all sorts of make-work theories that suggest a mutual fascination between Ne and Ni, but I believe Occam's Razor would suggest that it's because "N is it's own thing". From that, I conclude that Ne vs Ni is just how they look when combined with judging functions.

I'm still sort of fuzzy on it, but it sounds like you are claiming that N and S do not have attitudes because of how attraction seems to work among MBTI types. Since I'm rethinking my whole tert attitude thing right now, I cannot elaborate further and still retain validity for myself. I personally have found that types seem to do well/best when they have opposing judging functions, and to a lesser degree, perceiving functions. I don't see how using attraction, which is so nebulous already, will help explain your N/S theory. but I appreciate your attempt.

I've spent some time describing this in another post, but I will restate the point again, here. For me, both Ni and Ne leave me zoned out. My main self-observation, and reason for identifying with xNFPs, is that when I use Fi, it seems to get paired with Ne, not Se. That one observation is the core of all the rest of my observations: that I could tap into both Ne and Ni, depending on which judging function I focused on applying. Now, Ni is much easier for me than Ne, but I can just go Fi (or Ti), and get that Ne approach.

I thought stereotypical Ne-ers are totally engaged with the world in some way, either through data or debate or people or whatever. How can 'zoned out' describe that? Wouldn't you be 'zoned in?'

I am not sure how I feel about introverted judging functions, and how i use them, being an Ni dom. I'm leaving that train of thought open for now. I agree with you, that as a dominant perceiver, it makes sense that Ne would align well with Fi and Ti.

More specifically, if I'm "working" at something or "trying to resolve" something, Ni goes into overdrive and presents ready-made "solutions," some of which are really quite good for what feels like half-assed guesses to me.

If I'm playing or fantasizing or exploring ideas, Ne is invoked, and I just follow my thoughts without focusing, while Fi and Ti passively judge them. If I try to talk while in this mode, it comes out as random babble, not my stereotypical coherent and clear speech.

Interesting. Except I'm wondering if it could work this way: Ni uses Te and Fe to solidify truths, which cement as Ti and Fi, which Ne can then follow. I am just stating the converse of you; an inside out version. What if it's the Fi and Ti that come first, because they have been cemented in your psyche, then when Ne attempts to perceive outward patterns, or links, it immediately recognizes already developed Ti and Fi thoughts, which have occurred due to perceptions already done by Ni/Te/Fe. ?

Ne would/could revert to Ni's strength, as is usual for an Ni dom, but since it's already an outward function, it's inclination will be to turn inward for judgment of what it's seeing. Then, walah, it runs into previous Ti and Fi thoughts and thinks it was the originator of those thoughts, but in actuality, they saw where they fit in Ne, were already ingrained in the mind, and so instantaneously fell into their usual place. Ne hasn't really made this happen, Ni has originally, but it feels like Ne because the original act was an extraverted intuitive moment.

Feel free to post the cuckoo icon ad lib.

 

[uumlau]

MBTI is about tendancies, but I'm just suggesting that the difference in the example is less likely to be dealing with the N/S divide but more so to do with the fact that it appears to be a Te trait. For example: It could have been as easy to say the whole engaging of camera and interacting with people is more to do with F/T. It wouldn't be wrong. Obviously that doesn't apply in this scenario since whatever is ESTP but then it could be chalked down to EP in general. The member I was thinking about was also an ENXP which is why I have problems with the N/S theory. A desire to deliver information after processing in some ways can be seen as an IJ thing or even an I thing.

All true. My main impression, though, is that a "strong S", especially Se, is "present", and shows this in a number of ways, eye contact being just one comparison of many.

It's most likely to be a combination of both 'valuing details' and what's done with that source of information. Most Si descriptions on the internet describe people as not seeing the object, but creating an impression of the object based on all the information they have (externally or internally generated). You'll notice this is similar to the Ni description of 'parallel worlds' and it's the reason that I agree with previous posters that Ni is similar to Si in some ways but there is appears to be a slight distinction in focus.

Good distinction.

You didn't ask for it. But the N approach has always seemed to be more 'fill in the fuzzy picture with details top-down' than the S 'create the whole picture bottom-up'. At least with the SJs, it's why we're (I'm) often seen to be waiting to following a sequential pattern with details. I've noticed that I'm not as comfortable making 'jumps' where missing details are, in comparison to my NJ peers. But really I don't have much to back me up on that last sentence as I don't know that many INXJs in real life (3 max), I'm partially going off the things I've observed on this forum.

That's a good description of the N approach, with a particular Ni application (filling in a picture, as opposed to extrapolating beyond the picture).

NJ definitely makes more jumps. In my case, I jump, then test, then jump, then test. The trick is that my Ni guesses are good, but when I also ground them with Te observations/manipulations, I get very high accuracy.

The reason I find it difficult is that to me, to engage in thought, is to engage in abstraction. I recall previous threads about INFJ users explaining themselves about how they extrapolate 'non-concrete' data, use a framework/model in order to predict what the outcome will of a scenario will be. Except... I'm sure that happens with most Si users.

These examples explain how different people are more used to engaging in abstraction/concreteness... but the definition of abstract-concrete hasn't really been defined clearly imo. I believe that I'm often engaging in abstraction but perhaps I'm not, how would I be able to tell?

This is on the assumption that S aren't involved in abstraction 'usually' based on the idea that N = abstraction. Personally I don't know how much I agree with this, but until a clear definition of abstraction is given then for all I know I may be engaging in such thing but labelling it as just 'thinking'. One example I could quickly give is BlackCat dealing with socionics. Is that not abstraction? He is usually thinking about this stuff often on the forums. One difference however is that he's engaged in MBTI/Jung/Socionics for personal practical reasons rather than just being interested in theory because it's just fun learning theories. That stereotype about S-N seems to hold true in some cases, but there might be Ns who are interested in their stuff because it holds some form of relevance in their lives.

That's why I use words like "patterns" instead of "abstractions", "items" instead of "details". The intuitive process is to establish a pattern and work with it and gradually make the pattern more representative of reality. Ni switches out "patterns" wholesale. If a pattern doesn't fit, it's ignored. If a pattern fits, we use it to fill in the details we don't directly see. If a pattern fits, except for one stupid detail, we suddenly appear to be "detail-oriented" as we zero in on a single item that no one else has spotted, and it turns out to be the key to solving a huge problem.

I've found here at university. There are some friends who complain that lecturers just offer them the basic formulas without explaining the theory behind it and how it all works. So I'm going to make a generalisation, but usually those who are interested in how things work prefer to look at the whole thing to have a thorough backbone structure to their understanding. There should be an explanation for why these sensors seem to display a desire to understand the abstract theory behind it all.

That's because no one is "all S" or "all N". One can "desire to understand the big picture", and still be an S, just the same as I can "regard details as more important than theory" and still be an N. It's all a matter of degree and habit. I "think in patterns": that is what makes me N. Patterns are better for quickly grasping "abstract theory", especially with regard for comparing completely different theories as applied to the same thing. Details are better for verifying the theories, and building up theories from the ground up, rather than the top down, as you put it earlier.

One criticism of the example listed above:
These students who were good at multiplication. Were they bad at higher level mathematics? East-Asia (China) for example is often cited as an extremely sensor-based culture, but they also have a reputation for excelling in mathematics in general. You'll find lots of chinese people joking about how they screwed up and got a B.

Gone a little off topic there... but yeah: There's still the problem that students thinking abstractly is that they are engaging in N.

Here's a sample difference between N and S in the approach to mathematics.

I've taught people who tested in calculus very well. They could take the derivative of sin and cos and integrate them and everything.

In front of these same people, I could draw a right triangle, and ask whether a component of a vector is sin or cos of the angle, and their response would be random. They know the rules for manipulating "sin" and "cos" as symbols, yet they didn't seem to learn what "sin" and "cos" are actually "for". I'm talking "A" students, who are "good at abstract math."

I would suggest that such students are intelligent S students. They can grasp a big-picture theory, but they have to work up to it. They don't want to start with the big theory and gradually fill in their understanding with details.

One issue I have with this is that there's a huge population of sensors. There is also a large population of students that's likely to be not interested in education. The intuitive population is relatively small. The 'thinking' group is also small.

You see where I'm going with this? I just don't think it's a fair comparison as the population size for both group is extremely skewed. There should be a control group for this, as well as testing in some country where the education system is valued more. Here, I'm arguing that N/S label is potentially the wrong label for what the situation you had back then. It's possible there was actually a high population of S in your 'thinking' group which you have now attributed to them being as Ns.

I'm not a professional psychologist performing elaborate studies. I'm an amateur making observations. People who post in forums are amateurs making observations, including you. The professionals publish peer-reviewed research.

You might as well say, "You don't have a Ph.D. in plasma astrophysics: what the heck would you know about solar wind and its interaction with the earth's atmosphere?"

Well I can only go by your own words as I was never there.

Exactly.

There's a problem if intelligence is associated with N. Why is it that this happens more with S to N than it does with N to S? If it's just a case of intelligence and maturity then there should be an equal amount of mistyping on both sides. But the fact that this is a problem suggests that it's due to the association that intelligence is linked with N.

Which goes back to my first claim:
It's statements and ideas like the above that make people believe they aren't sensors as often seen in the what is my type thread.

My original statement had nothing to do with whether specific individuals were of any type, but with observing patterns of how people preferred to process information, and that those patterns correspond with S vs N. Whether specific individuals are S or N is perennially a difficult call to make, for reasons already discussed.

 

[uumlau]

Yes, I realized that, but thanks for your time.

Well, as per my late-night drivel I posted last night on here, and the 'news' that the MBTI researchers have identified that, like Jung thought, our tertiary is indeed aligned in an attitude opposite the dominant function, and some further, very un-T-like thoughts on my end, I am not so sure Ti is my tert function, after all.

I shall be interested in your conclusions. I've some thoughts based on your posts and posting style, but I don't want to bias you without a direct request for my input.

I'm still sort of fuzzy on it, but it sounds like you are claiming that N and S do not have attitudes because of how attraction seems to work among MBTI types. Since I'm rethinking my whole tert attitude thing right now, I cannot elaborate further and still retain validity for myself. I personally have found that types seem to do well/best when they have opposing judging functions, and to a lesser degree, perceiving functions. I don't see how using attraction, which is so nebulous already, will help explain your N/S theory. but I appreciate your attempt.

I understand the skepticism. I only sort of buy the "compatibility" theory, since real compatibility has to do with a whole lot of other things.

My main point is that "N" by and large tends to understand other xNxx more readily than xSxx, and that's it's a huge difference, not a small one. The Te/Fi vs Fe/Ti is an aspect of Jungian functions I've observed on my own, and that the interactions between the two groups is often problematic in predictable ways. In other words Te people seem to understand Fi people and vice versa, and similarly Fe understands Ti. I see no similar difficulty of understanding or communication between Ne and Ni, as I see in practice between Te and Ti.

I thought stereotypical Ne-ers are totally engaged with the world in some way, either through data or debate or people or whatever. How can 'zoned out' describe that? Wouldn't you be 'zoned in?'

Interesting point. They're definitely more engaged with the world than Ni, especially for ENxP, with dom Ne, and thus being extroverted. But INFP isn't as "engaged with the world". I don't "become ENFP" when I strongly invoke Fi, but it wouldn't be far off the mark to note that I become similar to INFP, who do zone out.

Interesting. Except I'm wondering if it could work this way: Ni uses Te and Fe to solidify truths, which cement as Ti and Fi, which Ne can then follow. I am just stating the converse of you; an inside out version. What if it's the Fi and Ti that come first, because they have been cemented in your psyche, then when Ne attempts to perceive outward patterns, or links, it immediately recognizes already developed Ti and Fi thoughts, which have occurred due to perceptions already done by Ni/Te/Fe. ?

Ne would/could revert to Ni's strength, as is usual for an Ni dom, but since it's already an outward function, it's inclination will be to turn inward for judgment of what it's seeing. Then, walah, it runs into previous Ti and Fi thoughts and thinks it was the originator of those thoughts, but in actuality, they saw where they fit in Ne, were already ingrained in the mind, and so instantaneously fell into their usual place. Ne hasn't really made this happen, Ni has originally, but it feels like Ne because the original act was an extraverted intuitive moment.

Feel free to post the cuckoo icon ad lib.

Not completely cuckoo. I can easily see that as a tertiary Fi, it "isn't the same Ne", as it would be for an ENFP, for example. The main thing I'm sure of is that it is not Se, and that I am using Fi. It feels like intuition, and it definitely doesn't feel like Ni: it's too wild and random.

 

[Poki]

That's why I use words like "patterns" instead of "abstractions", "items" instead of "details". The intuitive process is to establish a pattern and work with it and gradually make the pattern more representative of reality. Ni switches out "patterns" wholesale. If a pattern doesn't fit, it's ignored. If a pattern fits, we use it to fill in the details we don't directly see. If a pattern fits, except for one stupid detail, we suddenly appear to be "detail-oriented" as we zero in on a single item that no one else has spotted, and it turns out to be the key to solving a huge problem.

This is almost exactly my dads dream and almost word for word minus the detail of the subject matter. He wants to be able to take all these findings and zero in on a single thing that no one else noticed to solve a huge problem. I am curious if its a drive or desire to use your inferior Se?

My stupid Ni zeros in on crap like crazy on here. Its like an ADHD version of Ni. This does happen IRL on occasions. Kept falling into this ADHD Ni thing yesterday.

edit: this Ni though yesterday was driven by Te categorization from here. Not my typical Se-Ti driven Ni, it was kinda strange going off of something that was not derived from personal perception and logic.

 

[the state i am in]

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.

maybe Ni needs high context in order to integrate the meaningful relationships presented in the moment more carefully. i have trouble reading text without intense contextualization. i need critical questions, a hypothesis, some biographical information, etc bc otherwise it's too big and too open. i can't find the right frames of reference to play with as i'm reading.

Ne just creates context on its own. it merges with the situation to imagine the individual context present for each part(icipant) in the scene itself. it's wayyyyy more in the moment itself.

whereas we are searching for our own frames of reference that we supply. to find the best vantage point, to blend and merge and metaphorize into a singular perspective.

of course we use Se but it is mostly unconscious. the most rational part of our brain, our highest cortical awareness isn't really sure what it's picking up, it's not consciously registering, that Se space is not the space we are most comfortable and practiced monitoring (the information throughput). we're better at allowing our Ni to play with the unconscious information and take care of that on its own, we'll deal with what perspective it generates, that's when we'll start to think consciously/formulate that via Fe or Te.

Ne is more of a formulation by way of a concrete visualization of possibility by imagining the possibilities and inner relationships of a part within the scene, being highly particular, and then using Fi or Ti to judge the truth or falsity of such simulations. it does it really goddamned fast. i don't understand Ne in an experiential level enough to understand our typology central hypothesis (intj: i forget his name) about Ne being more spatial and Ni being more temporal, altho it seems intriguing to consider.

the third function is the finishing touch. a way of focusing, of issuing a final correction or a revision that refines the thought process.

as far as sensing systems go, the cognitive functions are after the level of say visual cortex, motor cortex, auditory cortex, etc. those work independently/on their own. they develop their own instincts and habits. the cognitive functions make sense when seen as the way in which the cortex privileges certain systems, builds more connections with certain systems, invests in communicating more with certain systems. a way of processing at a higher level that creates better shared purpose and awareness between the part of the brain that feels like it makes decisions and the part of the brain responsible for receiving/monitoring/detecting different information in physical, instinctual, pre-programmed ways. the individual systems are made to work on their own, although the brain itself can drastically alter itself when traumatized or obstacles create the need for dramatic changes/new strategies.