User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 73

  1. #41
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I'll chime in with my input.

    First, N vs S:

    Intuition is about patterns and relationships (between patterns and entities).
    Sensing is about specific entities.
    Just to be picky, patterns and relationships are specific entities. Might be easier to say sensing is about physical information.

    Intuition is a model that we have in our heads.
    Ne works that way too?

    Sensing is, for lack of a better word, being more "present" and grounded in reality. Of course there is information in our heads, but Sensors generally don't "add to it" in the way intuitives do.
    I'll bet my pension that they do add to the information in their head. I'm betting that equating Si with memory and N with imagination is wrong.

    See, e content is immediately current, um, equation, but all i content comes from the "the present" too. A past "present", but a present nonetheless.

    We did this in the Ni vs Si thread, but i functions abstract content from real entities--they create subjects. And, as more time goes by and the creation date of the original data sinks further into the past, they do stuff with those subjects. So Si isn't just memory. And likewise Ni isn't just abstracted features of reality.

    Etc.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  2. #42
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    Ni- is Si’s intuitive counterpart. While Si stores data of what has been Ni stores data of what might be. Si processes and stores data in files marked “what is” while Ni’s files are marked “what will be” "how things work". Ni sees a world of icebergs… what we see is only the tiniest part of what actually IS… that all things must be filtered through the seives of purpose, hidden meanings, signs and symbols. Ni sees itself as seeing the “true meaning” behind situations, though it often comes across as somewhat cynical or paranoid to the other functions at times (just as Ni can view Se as shallow for absorbing what is sensed). Ni usually takes the form of just knowing something or having hunches about things… there’s not a thought process that goes into deciding that you don’t trust that guy, Ni has put it all together without telling you and you instinctively don’t trust him. To everyone else, Ni users can appear to be rather paranoid about things.
    My critique of the this Ni description, based on my INTJ self knowledge. Crossed out is just wrong. It isn't even close. My bold addition is correct. The purple is very INFJ, and does not reflect INTJ well at all.

    To me, as INTJ, it's as if I can just guess how things objectively factually work, and I'm correct 95% of the time, even if I've never studied a particular aspect of a particular phenomenon. I know enough to know pieces that are definitely, factually true, and what physics/engineering is involved, and I can guess the rest without having to think very hard at all.

    The reason Ni often seems to store files about "what will be" is that Ni data has very high predictive power. But what is stored is not predictions, but phenomenological patterns. A simple such pattern might be "My friend always forgets his cell phone." We safely predict that our friend doesn't have his cell phone. Sure enough, he asks to borrow mine.

    A more complicated pattern would be "This is how data is retrieved from the database." Let's say there is a problem with the data retrieval. I look at the problem, add in the complicated Ni pattern, and the two together end up saying to me "Oh, the third step is wrong, it's doing A instead of B" without even having to look at the steps and review them. Sure enough, I open up files, eventually find the step I'm looking for, and there's the problem, plain as day.

    Most other people seem unable to do this, are not convinced when we work jointly that what I just diagnosed is the problem, and then while it takes me only 5 minutes to find the problem and another 5 to implement a fix, I spend the next hour having to prove to my co-workers that my solution is correct, because, according to them, "That couldn't possibly be the problem, it shouldn't work like that."
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    My critique of the this Ni description, based on my INTJ self knowledge. Crossed out is just wrong. It isn't even close. My bold addition is correct. The purple is very INFJ, and does not reflect INTJ well at all.

    To me, as INTJ, it's as if I can just guess how things objectively factually work, and I'm correct 95% of the time, even if I've never studied a particular aspect of a particular phenomenon. I know enough to know pieces that are definitely, factually true, and what physics/engineering is involved, and I can guess the rest without having to think very hard at all.

    The reason Ni often seems to store files about "what will be" is that Ni data has very high predictive power. But what is stored is not predictions, but phenomenological patterns. A simple such pattern might be "My friend always forgets his cell phone." We safely predict that our friend doesn't have his cell phone. Sure enough, he asks to borrow mine.

    A more complicated pattern would be "This is how data is retrieved from the database." Let's say there is a problem with the data retrieval. I look at the problem, add in the complicated Ni pattern, and the two together end up saying to me "Oh, the third step is wrong, it's doing A instead of B" without even having to look at the steps and review them. Sure enough, I open up files, eventually find the step I'm looking for, and there's the problem, plain as day.

    Most other people seem unable to do this, are not convinced when we work jointly that what I just diagnosed is the problem, and then while it takes me only 5 minutes to find the problem and another 5 to implement a fix, I spend the next hour having to prove to my co-workers that my solution is correct, because, according to them, "That couldn't possibly be the problem, it shouldn't work like that."
    Is Ni more along the lines of filling in the gaps? Or something deductive? Supposing Si is "What was," then Ni is "What should be?"
    If Se is taking in data real time and Ne extrapolates from that, then it seems that Si takes in data from past experiences and Ni extrapolates from that. - is what I'm getting so far, unless I'm off the mark.

  4. #44
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    @ uumlau... I understand INFJs a bit better than INTJs... they're my opposite and I tend to stalk them

    and like I said... I need more opinions to add in here always because everyone has different strengths...
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  5. #45
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    My critique of the this Ni description, based on my INTJ self knowledge. Crossed out is just wrong. It isn't even close. My bold addition is correct. The purple is very INFJ, and does not reflect INTJ well at all.

    To me, as INTJ, it's as if I can just guess how things objectively factually work, and I'm correct 95% of the time, even if I've never studied a particular aspect of a particular phenomenon. I know enough to know pieces that are definitely, factually true, and what physics/engineering is involved, and I can guess the rest without having to think very hard at all.

    The reason Ni often seems to store files about "what will be" is that Ni data has very high predictive power. But what is stored is not predictions, but phenomenological patterns. A simple such pattern might be "My friend always forgets his cell phone." We safely predict that our friend doesn't have his cell phone. Sure enough, he asks to borrow mine.

    A more complicated pattern would be "This is how data is retrieved from the database." Let's say there is a problem with the data retrieval. I look at the problem, add in the complicated Ni pattern, and the two together end up saying to me "Oh, the third step is wrong, it's doing A instead of B" without even having to look at the steps and review them. Sure enough, I open up files, eventually find the step I'm looking for, and there's the problem, plain as day.

    Most other people seem unable to do this, are not convinced when we work jointly that what I just diagnosed is the problem, and then while it takes me only 5 minutes to find the problem and another 5 to implement a fix, I spend the next hour having to prove to my co-workers that my solution is correct, because, according to them, "That couldn't possibly be the problem, it shouldn't work like that."
    i don't really identify a whole lot to the descriptions so far. as to what you've written, i agree that Ni is far more than a future-focused Si. i can imagine what is possible based on seeing the complex layers of the past. it all feels present, making the current moment pregnant with possibilities.

    what happens when my Ni model of the universe (which also corresponds to being an e5--and what feels most like me) must express something, must extrovert bits and pieces of itself, is that i need to figure out how i want to inspire someone else, or help them see what i see in the way that i want them to see it. it's very rhetorical. once i start talking, identifying the problems we can try to solve, and identifying the ideas the person has and the ways in which i want the conversation to go, how to explore each other--and once i become engaged in real dialogue with someone else, my Ni has enough information, sees enough patterns, has enough mapped out on different layers of mappings, zooming in to submaps to consult with a more specific picture, and zooming out to look at higher orders of meaning. this process of scaling through abstraction and dialoguing with different domains of information internally, organized by conversation externally, enables me to generate a lot of new content. i can synthesize the pieces i choose to use to create a fuller perspective from bottom to top, that somehow introduces new ideas, INTERPOLATES new connecting links between what i already know. it's very gestalt--depending on how much i trust the information i have at my disposal, i'll be able to fill in, creating hypotheses to investigate and generalized understandings to explore and test in conversation, and frequently asking to borrow an understanding someone else might have to fill in the gap in my knowledge, or to borrow their rationale (Ti or Fi) to deduce information from the information we collectively have at our disposal while maintaining an awareness of my certainty level based on the information i have to use and the judgments made from it.

    a good rule of thumb is that Pi users are more inductive in learning and Pe users are more deductive. i move from the specific to the general and store the general, with enough crosslinks in encoding to hopefully remember some of the particulars and have some kind of signaling retrieval cue. but generally my ability is that once i get the beginning part of the pattern, i can fill in anything bc my pattern reference book is enormous and my most developed skill set. at times, this can feel like the imaginary replacing the real for others, especially Se dom Ni inferior types. with Fe the external organization is focused on conveying attitude, intention, gesture, inflection of meaning, etc.

    as you can see, unchecked Ni can write in chaotic, unfinished, wandering sentences. generating more perspective based on the infinite webs of meaning between each phrase, idea, etc. but it can just sound like droning in in pure abstraction. yet i can take in all the specifics and make sense of it without having anything concrete, without having a really strong form, and without having a well-defined center. i imagine the center by exploring the inner-relationships of all the parts and expanding the possibilities/meanings of each.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    i don't really identify a whole lot to the descriptions so far. as to what you've written, i agree that Ni is far more than a future-focused Si. i can imagine what is possible based on seeing the complex layers of the past. it all feels present, making the current moment pregnant with possibilities.

    what happens when my Ni model of the universe (which also corresponds to being an e5--and what feels most like me) must express something, must extrovert bits and pieces of itself, is that i need to figure out how i want to inspire someone else, or help them see what i see in the way that i want them to see it. it's very rhetorical. once i start talking, identifying the problems we can try to solve, and identifying the ideas the person has and the ways in which i want the conversation to go, how to explore each other--and once i become engaged in real dialogue with someone else, my Ni has enough information, sees enough patterns, has enough mapped out on different layers of mappings, zooming in to submaps to consult with a more specific picture, and zooming out to look at higher orders of meaning. this process of scaling through abstraction and dialoguing with different domains of information internally, organized by conversation externally, enables me to generate a lot of new content. i can synthesize the pieces i choose to use to create a fuller perspective from bottom to top, that somehow introduces new ideas, INTERPOLATES new connecting links between what i already know. it's very gestalt--depending on how much i trust the information i have at my disposal, i'll be able to fill in, creating hypotheses to investigate and generalized understandings to explore and test in conversation, and frequently asking to borrow an understanding someone else might have to fill in the gap in my knowledge, or to borrow their rationale (Ti or Fi) to deduce information from the information we collectively have at our disposal while maintaining an awareness of my certainty level based on the information i have to use and the judgments made from it.

    a good rule of thumb is that Pi users are more inductive in learning and Pe users are more deductive. i move from the specific to the general and store the general, with enough crosslinks in encoding to hopefully remember some of the particulars and have some kind of signaling retrieval cue. but generally my ability is that once i get the beginning part of the pattern, i can fill in anything bc my pattern reference book is enormous and my most developed skill set. at times, this can feel like the imaginary replacing the real for others, especially Se dom Ni inferior types. with Fe the external organization is focused on conveying attitude, intention, gesture, inflection of meaning, etc.

    as you can see, unchecked Ni can write in chaotic, unfinished, wandering sentences. generating more perspective based on the infinite webs of meaning between each phrase, idea, etc. but it can just sound like droning in in pure abstraction. yet i can take in all the specifics and make sense of it without having anything concrete, without having a really strong form, and without having a well-defined center. i imagine the center by exploring the inner-relationships of all the parts and expanding the possibilities/meanings of each.
    This pretty much matches perfect in what I see in my interacting with Aprhodite-Gone-Awry.

    I know my favorite jobs that require Se has to do with those that are hands on and require speed, accuracy, and alot of physical movement. I enjoyed working at discount tire in the back room. It was fun racing, showing off, trying new things, seeing how fast you could get cars in and out without losing any accuracy at all.

    To some this is "grunt" work or a laborer job, but to me its fun. Who cares what I do, I did it because I enjoyed it, not because its the only thing I could do. The second we got a manager that was all uptight and "safety" cautious the job became boring and mundane. Dont throw or spin the bars as you change tires, dont hop over tire stacks and pop them up with your feet, no using the flat top changer even though it twice as fast because its dangerous, grab the ladder instead of scaling the tire stacks when putting away tires, blah, blah, blah.
    Im out, its been fun

  7. #47
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
    This pretty much matches perfect in what I see in my interacting with Aprhodite-Gone-Awry.

    I know my favorite jobs that require Se has to do with those that are hands on and require speed, accuracy, and alot of physical movement. I enjoyed working at discount tire in the back room. It was fun racing, showing off, trying new things, seeing how fast you could get cars in and out without losing any accuracy at all.

    To some this is "grunt" work or a laborer job, but to me its fun. Who cares what I do, I did it because I enjoyed it, not because its the only thing I could do. The second we got a manager that was all uptight and "safety" cautious the job became boring and mundane. Dont throw or spin the bars as you change tires, dont hop over tire stacks and pop them up with your feet, no using the flat top changer even though it twice as fast because its dangerous, grab the ladder instead of scaling the tire stacks when putting away tires, blah, blah, blah.
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

  8. #48
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    --and once i become engaged in real dialogue with someone else, my Ni has enough information, sees enough patterns, has enough mapped out on different layers of mappings, zooming in to submaps to consult with a more specific picture, and zooming out to look at higher orders of meaning. this process of scaling through abstraction and dialoguing with different domains of information internally,
    The few times I have sensed Ni-in its tiny puny form for me-the scaling through abstraction sounds quite right. It was strangely focused on the particular object and just kept adding layers and elaboration to it.

    Very weird as my typical Ne is content to just link strings of new things together, but then wants to step back and extend linkage A to the entire alphabet.

    For instance for a funny example-it isnt just enough to Ne link one individual (Provoker the INTJ) to a chicken-I then have to link all MBTI types to various chickens and then in my mind link that to all sorts of other funny stuff as well. Layers and layers of silly defective Ne linkages in this case.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1133881

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    i can synthesize the pieces i choose to use to create a fuller perspective from bottom to top, that somehow introduces new ideas, INTERPOLATES new connecting links between what i already know.
    Weird-so I constantly look outwards to find new items to connect to the old items I already know. But instead you zoom in on the link (or lack thereof ) between two mental objects??? And as you look deeper, the layers spontaneously emerge-like a fractal?? Neeeeaaaatttt. Do you ever feel the urge to take that new idea and externalize/generalize/broaden the application of the idea as much as possible? (Ne...) ie apply it to a very broad range of contexts.

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    it's very gestalt--depending on how much i trust the information i have at my disposal, i'll be able to fill in, creating hypotheses to investigate and generalized understandings to explore and test in conversation, and frequently asking to borrow an understanding someone else might have to fill in the gap in my knowledge, or to borrow their rationale (Ti or Fi) to deduce information from the information we collectively have at our disposal while maintaining an awareness of my certainty level based on the information i have to use and the judgments made from it.
    Yeah I kinda do this with Ne as well. Cross checking and requests for feedback as well as tracing of symmetry. So as can be seen above I invested a substantially amount of time Ne linking chickens and MBTI, as it was utterly hysterical. I giggled for hours. But part of the funny Ne brain is understanding that 90% of the time, the "connections" are not really connected. Ne strikes out a lot and I have to look back at the Si patterns (data?), to have any confidence in the Ne connections.

    Do you look to Se to comfirm the Ni interpolations? Is that part of the conversation with others you mention?

  9. #49
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    I'll give you a Se-Ni example from a Se dom... you don't usually get as many of those examples here

    Ni for me mostly involves hideous paranoid hunches at the back of my mind which I find quite unsettling... when these strike I then find it necissary to examine situations that could lead to this and analyze them (investigating thoroughly with Se and analyzing input data with Ti)... this proves the Ni insight to either be a rational fear or paranoid babble from a part of my brain that probably needs a nice slap
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  10. #50
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
    This pretty much matches perfect in what I see in my interacting with Aprhodite-Gone-Awry.

    I know my favorite jobs that require Se has to do with those that are hands on and require speed, accuracy, and alot of physical movement. I enjoyed working at discount tire in the back room. It was fun racing, showing off, trying new things, seeing how fast you could get cars in and out without losing any accuracy at all.

    To some this is "grunt" work or a laborer job, but to me its fun. Who cares what I do, I did it because I enjoyed it, not because its the only thing I could do. The second we got a manager that was all uptight and "safety" cautious the job became boring and mundane. Dont throw or spin the bars as you change tires, dont hop over tire stacks and pop them up with your feet, no using the flat top changer even though it twice as fast because its dangerous, grab the ladder instead of scaling the tire stacks when putting away tires, blah, blah, blah.
    Are you sure you arent really my ex husband????

Similar Threads

  1. Nixon's Speech In case Aldrin and Armstrong had gotten stranded On The Moon
    By Mal12345 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-03-2012, 08:58 PM
  2. [MBTItm] INFP and Negative Work Environments
    By denial in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 02:13 PM
  3. [ENFP] ENFP changes her clothing and hair right in front of me.
    By Yomama99 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 01-22-2008, 04:34 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