User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 105

  1. #71
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    hehe, it's funny to hear Ne doms described as such extraverts. we're not, really. or i should say, we are, but not necessarily with people. i really see this as a vast misconception. i like interacting with people to a certain extent, but a lot of times i would much rather get my ideas from art or writing or nature or theoretical systems. also i think Ni dom/aux revel in Ni's mysteriousness

    Ne types will prefer to receive and give stimulus as is their preference
    Ni types will prefer to have and give space as is their preference.
    i do agree with this. and i think it comes out especially when the types are stressed.

    one more thing - this thread stands in very interesting contrast to a previous one about how Fi users are more likely to simply drop off the planet for a while, whereas Fe users are more likely to expect constant and regular contact.

    combining the two, do we get to Ni-Fe types tending to prefer regular but not overwhelming amounts of contact while Ne-Fi tend to prefer more sporadic but intense bouts of contact? i would personally adhere to this.

  2. #72
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    I wonder if Ne and Ni are not invisible to one another.

    In this introvert, Ni is an inner world. It takes points fixed by extraverted thinking (and introverted feeling) and sets off on some journey down paths, up alleys, refining, rephrasing, diverting, providing content. Extraverted thinking-whether weak or strong--gets a lot of its "logic" from pathways presented by introverted intuition. And introverted feeling goes all curly and moribund if left too long in that pathways place. And the whole thing shuts down (at least as far as consciousness is concerned) when sensing is properly engaged.

    (Note as a tangent: probably none of these functions are usefully thought of as basic input channels. I mean for primitive data input. For example, you see with your eyes, not with your sensing, though what you see is attended to by your sensing, which I think is probably different, though fairly immediately connected. Whatever actual mechanism exists for allowing information to arrive in the Ni world, it's a dimly low level process. He says, with an air of apparent certitude.)

    But Ne... one presumes it operates in sweeps. Perhaps like a radar of sorts, passing over the world as it is and pinging back the connections between what is there and what is formally the same as what is there. ("Formally the same" is an N-term for "is connected to" or "shares the same meaning content".) One however doesn't know if this is truly the way it (consciously) works. Is it connections or forms? In any case, the process is practiced. Content is acquired in sweeps. The function matures over years and over many thousands of millions of sweeps, accumulating facility with the joining of things.

    Assuming this is true, what does an Ne sweep of an Ni utterance produce? Can it produce the same set of connections that went into the Ni structure? Any Ni-originated utterance is the next best thing to gibberish the tip of an iceberg and owes most of its meaning to that iceberg. So what does an Ne sweep see of an Ni utterance?

    And for that matter, how does Ne appear to the inner world of Ni?

    Invisible, that's what it appears as. Not there. The content that appears more obviously is whatever judgment function is going on behind the Ne sweep.

    Others may experience it in other ways. I may be saying no more than I am not accustomed to attending to extroverted intuition products in myself or in others.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  3. #73
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I wonder if Ne and Ni are not invisible to one another.

    In this introvert, Ni is an inner world. It takes points fixed by extraverted thinking (and introverted feeling) and sets off on some journey down paths, up alleys, refining, rephrasing, diverting, providing content. Extraverted thinking-whether weak or strong--gets a lot of its "logic" from pathways presented by introverted intuition. And introverted feeling goes all curly and moribund if left too long in that pathways place. And the whole thing shuts down (at least as far as consciousness is concerned) when sensing is properly engaged.

    (Note as a tangent: probably none of these functions are usefully thought of as basic input channels. I mean for primitive data input. For example, you see with your eyes, not with your sensing, though what you see is attended to by your sensing, which I think is probably different, though fairly immediately connected. Whatever actual mechanism exists for allowing information to arrive in the Ni world, it's a dimly low level process. He says, with an air of apparent certitude.)

    But Ne... one presumes it operates in sweeps. Perhaps like a radar of sorts, passing over the world as it is and pinging back the connections between what is there and what is formally the same as what is there. ("Formally the same" is an N-term for "is connected to" or "shares the same meaning content".) One however doesn't know if this is truly the way it (consciously) works. Is it connections or forms? In any case, the process is practiced. Content is acquired in sweeps. The function matures over years and over many thousands of millions of sweeps, accumulating facility with the joining of things.

    Assuming this is true, what does an Ne sweep of an Ni utterance produce? Can it produce the same set of connections that went into the Ni structure? Any Ni-originated utterance is the next best thing to gibberish the tip of an iceberg and owes most of its meaning to that iceberg. So what does an Ne sweep see of an Ni utterance?

    And for that matter, how does Ne appear to the inner world of Ni?

    Invisible, that's what it appears as. Not there. The content that appears more obviously is whatever judgment function is going on behind the Ne sweep.

    Others may experience it in other ways. I may be saying no more than I am not accustomed to attending to extroverted intuition products in myself or in others.
    I believe that many of the differences ascribed to Ne and Ni are more truly matters of the kind of traits one has when one lives Ne vs lives Ni. After all, the "P" and "J" personality traits with which Ne and Ni are associated respectively are fairly distinct. It is certainly possible for one to be very familiar, while the other can be sparingly used or even alien, but both are the same kinds of perception, with mirror-image attitudes.

    Let's say one wanted to write a story, and had a core plot, but so far not much else. Ne and Ni would do very similar things to fill in the story, but in different directions.

    Ne would take the core plot and expand it outward: it would find other things that could also happen that would be interesting, with extra sub plots and characters and events. Ne will answer the question, "What else could happen?"

    Ni would take the core plot and fill in the background, doing character development, explaining why people do what they do, or (in fantasy or sci fi) explaining why magic or science works the way it does. This background material is usually of a sort that the author knows it fairly explicitly, but it is often hidden from the reader, only to be slowly revealed or inferred as the story progresses. Ni answers the question, "Why did this happen?"

    In this sense, Ne and Ni can productively work off of each other. Ne can say "It would be really cool if this happened," and Ni can look at that and say, "Yeah, that'd be really cool, but it makes no sense ... oh waitaminute, if so-and-so were really from Boston, and not New York, then he could have ... and yeah, that could make it all work and fit in."

    Both Ne and Ni are speculative in nature, they just speculate about complimentary qualities. In each instance, there is some sort of ground, some sort of "known fact," which is a building point from which the speculation launches. If it launches into explaining "why" the grounded entity is the way it is, how it has come to be, it is Ni. If it instead explores beyond the grounded entity into realms beyond that entity, it is Ne.

    This is of course just an analogy, and real Ne and Ni are more complicated (cf. my alternative "switching boxes" analogy for Ni), but this should at least suffice to explain how they are closely related and not alien to one another.

  4. #74
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I believe that many of the differences ascribed to Ne and Ni are more truly matters of the kind of traits one has when one lives Ne vs lives Ni. After all, the "P" and "J" personality traits with which Ne and Ni are associated respectively are fairly distinct. It is certainly possible for one to be very familiar, while the other can be sparingly used or even alien, but both are the same kinds of perception, with mirror-image attitudes.

    Let's say one wanted to write a story, and had a core plot, but so far not much else. Ne and Ni would do very similar things to fill in the story, but in different directions.

    Ne would take the core plot and expand it outward: it would find other things that could also happen that would be interesting, with extra sub plots and characters and events. Ne will answer the question, "What else could happen?"

    Ni would take the core plot and fill in the background, doing character development, explaining why people do what they do, or (in fantasy or sci fi) explaining why magic or science works the way it does. This background material is usually of a sort that the author knows it fairly explicitly, but it is often hidden from the reader, only to be slowly revealed or inferred as the story progresses. Ni answers the question, "Why did this happen?"

    In this sense, Ne and Ni can productively work off of each other. Ne can say "It would be really cool if this happened," and Ni can look at that and say, "Yeah, that'd be really cool, but it makes no sense ... oh waitaminute, if so-and-so were really from Boston, and not New York, then he could have ... and yeah, that could make it all work and fit in."

    Both Ne and Ni are speculative in nature, they just speculate about complimentary qualities. In each instance, there is some sort of ground, some sort of "known fact," which is a building point from which the speculation launches. If it launches into explaining "why" the grounded entity is the way it is, how it has come to be, it is Ni. If it instead explores beyond the grounded entity into realms beyond that entity, it is Ne.

    This is of course just an analogy, and real Ne and Ni are more complicated (cf. my alternative "switching boxes" analogy for Ni), but this should at least suffice to explain how they are closely related and not alien to one another.
    Those suggestions, however, seem to allow Ne to operate independent of external stimulus. If Ne is focused on providing content for some story, how is it that the writer, aside from riffing on the "real" world of the story, isn't also blowing their own mind seeing what it means to be sitting in some room writing some story--and thus potentially saying to themselves, "Goodness, this is not a game of soldiers! I shall go outside and play"? Literally in that case asking what else could happen different from sitting in a room and writing. Doesn't sitting still and developing some piece of fiction kind of starve Ne?

    And personally I think Ni would take the core plot and try to generate that one clean sentence that somehow tells everything at once. Ni writers have to be careful to actually include detail. (Love Cormac McCarthy, but have only ever made it through The Road.)


    If the above aspects of the analogy hold, it would seem we have (or I've included) the corollaries that Ni can't do Ne without hurting itself, and Ne can't do Ni without going blind.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #75
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Those suggestions, however, seem to allow Ne to operate independent of external stimulus. If Ne is focused on providing content for some story, how is it that the writer, aside from riffing on the "real" world of the story, isn't also blowing their own mind seeing what it means to be sitting in some room writing some story--and thus potentially saying to themselves, "Goodness, this is not a game of soldiers! I shall go outside and play"? Literally in that case asking what else could happen different from sitting in a room and writing. Doesn't sitting still and developing some piece of fiction kind of starve Ne?

    And personally I think Ni would take the core plot and try to generate that one clean sentence that somehow tells everything at once. Ni writers have to be careful to actually include detail. (Love Cormac McCarthy, but have only ever made it through The Road.)


    If the above aspects of the analogy hold, it would seem we have (or I've included) the corollaries that Ni can't do Ne without hurting itself, and Ne can't do Ni without going blind.
    There's a reason I'm differentiating the functions from the personalities. The Ne dom personality lives for external stimulus, because of the new ideas it generates. The idea-generation, however, is wholly inside one's head: in fact, an external stimulus leads to an idea, but then that idea itself acts as a stimulus for other ideas, and then those ideas lead to still other ideas. So, there is no requirement, per se, that Ne thought patterns necessarily begin as an external stimulus. For INxP types, I've observed that they seem to start not from external stimuli the way the ENxPs do, but rather start from an Fi or Ti core, and extrapolate from there: INxPs use Ne to extrovert their introverted judging, and don't focus so much on external stimulation since they're not extroverted overall, and don't lead with an extroverted function. Einstein (INTP) didn't go around seeking external stimuli for ideas, but sat and thought (Ti) and used Ne to figure out where things logically went. He did "thought experiments." His relativity theories are entirely logical extensions of three core principles (constant speed of light, the equivalence principle for frames in constant motion with respect to each other, and the equivalence principle of gravity and acceleration).

    As for Ni, I doubt one would try to be that concise. The Ni-ishness of what I described is that many of the Ni-speculated ideas would simply remain unmentioned, held in reserve, the same way INTJs have their reputation for contingency plans.

    As for "personally," I personally use both Ne and Ni in various ways, leaning more on Ni than Ne. Ne is more obvious to most people, so I'm not too worried about trying to explain it better, but there are so many weak and misleading descriptions of Ni out there that I try to make it less mysterious, so that others can understand it, too. I'll admit that my Ni author example here is very simplistic, but it's a good 1st-order explanation of Ni. Real Ni (and for that matter, writing a real book) is a far more complex process, but the more elaborate descriptions aren't useful for those who lack a personal familiarity with Ni. Since people mostly seem to understand Ne, I try to use that as a bridge to help others understand Ni.

  6. #76
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    There's a reason I'm differentiating the functions from the personalities. The Ne dom personality lives for external stimulus, because of the new ideas it generates. The idea-generation, however, is wholly inside one's head: in fact, an external stimulus leads to an idea, but then that idea itself acts as a stimulus for other ideas, and then those ideas lead to still other ideas. So, there is no requirement, per se, that Ne thought patterns necessarily begin as an external stimulus.
    Ones eyes are very nearly wholly inside ones head, and yet they see very little, practically nothing of what is inside the head. I get that the ideas happen inside ones head, but for an e function the benchmark for genuineness or attention or "what is the content we are looking for today" is "does it match the outside world?" (With "match" having different meanings according to which e function is in question.) All stimulus is officially external, will be treated as external, whether it is in fact wholly concrete or wholly abstract or somewhere in between.

    Is orientation genuinely defining or not? Does one become competent at intuition per se or at oriented intuition? But how does a function exist without orientation? In the absence of orientation there is no definition for content. Does some cognitive function literally without defined focus actually do anything? Is it or is it not a furphy to say that as a given orientation matures, the person naturally begins to look further afield, seeking to enliven what they've gone before and will if they've been i start down an e road for interests sake? To dabble in the opposite orientation of a given function is NOT to undermine the given function? Etc and so on. Einstein didn't Ni.

    Did you know, almost no one describes how functions work. They constantly describe what functions produce, but not how they produce. Thus, claiming swinging function parties is somewhat premature. It may be nothing more than a wine and cheese night.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #77
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,370

    Default

    Claims of use of Ne and Ni puzzle me. It is said that we all have the same functions, but not the same preference, or proficiency at using them; Thus, and following the general function development chronology, one only usually reaches Tertiary development around 30's, Quaternary I have no idea, 40's or more? I do know I use Si and how I use it, but it's pretty much a single purpose use: Learning from the past. So, Ni, for me, would be "buried" under a pille of functions, hence how can I access it? By being given lectures of how it works and then trying to recreate the process?

    While I can, upon understanding something, try to recreate it, e.g. : after being given an algorythm of how Ni works, and identifying the core principles it uses and understanding how they are applied, I can try to follow the same steps and apply the same logic, still, anything that I do will be done using my own skills in their prefered order, NeTiFeSi and so own. One can at best, call it emulation, but it doesn't seem like it will be the same thing. I can however, understand that environmental stimulus and practice can help develop certain habbits, like how the military training, or daily industry practices can help developt practicality i.e. Te, when I find myself spewing out such directives, it is never in my natural way of being to put it in practice. I can try to consciously force myself to do it, but at any moment, the NeTi core will be at work, doing it's thing, as a background noise. It never feels like I'm using my skills but rather just something I learned to do for whichever reason or purpose. And I should add, that it always feels exhausting and depleting.

  8. #78
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Ne would take the core plot and expand it outward: it would find other things that could also happen that would be interesting, with extra sub plots and characters and events. Ne will answer the question, "What else could happen?"

    Ni would take the core plot and fill in the background, doing character development, explaining why people do what they do, or (in fantasy or sci fi) explaining why magic or science works the way it does. This background material is usually of a sort that the author knows it fairly explicitly, but it is often hidden from the reader, only to be slowly revealed or inferred as the story progresses. Ni answers the question, "Why did this happen?"

    In this sense, Ne and Ni can productively work off of each other. Ne can say "It would be really cool if this happened," and Ni can look at that and say, "Yeah, that'd be really cool, but it makes no sense ... oh waitaminute, if so-and-so were really from Boston, and not New York, then he could have ... and yeah, that could make it all work and fit in."
    This is an interesting comparison of Ne and Ni. And from your definitions, I would CERTAINLY have Ni, not Ne.

    I give up. Really.

    Are you sure this is Ne vs. Ni?

  9. #79
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    As an Ne-dom, I can assure you, it is very difficult to stay inside my head for any amount of time.

    Pretty much the only time I'm not scanning the environment is when I'm asleep.

    And I really don't sleep that much (on average, about 4-5 hours a night, and still have plenty of energy).


    It seems like some people can't accept that Ne REALLY IS an EXTRAVERTED function.

    Why is this?



    Also---Isn't it the combination of Ne and Ji (Fi or Ti) that generates ideas in Ne-doms, rather than Ne itself?
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  10. #80
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    This is an interesting comparison of Ne and Ni. And from your definitions, I would CERTAINLY have Ni, not Ne.

    I give up. Really.

    Are you sure this is Ne vs. Ni?
    If it is, I fall in the category as well (granted, I've done little except brainstorm stories at this point, but I know that is how I think.. one story I have barely has a plot, let alone subplots. It's all conceptualization of background, costumes, belief systems, class structure, etc.. It's like I have to build a little stage before a good idea in terms of plot develops. In one particular case, I anthromorphized some of the animal kingdoms in the Amazon and Africa. A bit passe, I guess.. but it was only after that that I noticed a better plotline to play with them).

    I've always envied the other process (if it's Ne, so be it). "The only thing you can do on TV that you can't do in film is make a continuing story - which is so cool!" -David Lynch (he's probably an extreme example though. He just pushes forward almost any random idea or subplot. It's funny.).

Similar Threads

  1. A Jungian Cognitive Function Analysis
    By RaptorWizard in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-02-2012, 12:04 PM
  2. F versus T: From a Jungian Cognitive Functions Perspective
    By Esoteric Wench in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-01-2012, 06:10 PM
  3. Cat parasites trump Jungian cognitive functions :)
    By sculpting in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-10-2012, 07:15 PM
  4. What is your dominant Jungian cognitive function?
    By highlander in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 02:06 AM
  5. Alternating Jungian Cognitive Functions
    By bechimo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-29-2010, 02:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO