User Tag List

First 2331323334354383 Last

Results 321 to 330 of 931

  1. #321
    Consulting Detective Mr. Sherlock Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    JiNe
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I think what bothers me most about "contexts" and "frameworks" as tools for understanding what Ni is alll about is the absence of a description of context shift. What is the shift? What's its purpose? If one has contexts, why would one shift them?

    The archetypal Ni question is "What's really going on here?!" So even if it happens that Ni is chock full of contexts and frameworks, it seems likely that at some point an Ni person is going to turn around and look at their understanding of the world and say, "Waaaiiiitttaminute...." It seems like this would turn contexts and frameworks on their heads. And is this a rare occurrence or a defining feature?

    I can't help but notice that extroverted perceiving functions are meant to live in the moment and people using them will, within the context of their kind of perception, seek novelty. There is, it seems to me, a sense of movement, from this point to that point, and turning off into the unknown to explore. So if the actual perceptual contact with the objective world Ni users make is conceived in Se terms, then shift and movement seem natural.... well, themes anyway.

    Connection?
    But doesn't extroverted intuition and introverted judgement often also like to look at the world and think "Waaaiiiitttaminute...."? This seems to be common, since Ji likes to look deeper and make it's own validations and Ne likes to explore and imagine possibilities. What's the big difference?
    JiNe
    Ti | Fi | Ne | Si | Te | Ni | Fe | Se
    Enneagram: 5w4 sx/sp

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

  2. #322
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Pfft. How should I know?


    Except you said look at the world and I said look at their understanding of the world.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  3. #323
    Consulting Detective Mr. Sherlock Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    JiNe
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Pfft. How should I know?


    Except you said look at the world and I said look at their understanding of the world.
    Oh yes, well we often reevaluate our understanding of the world as well.
    JiNe
    Ti | Fi | Ne | Si | Te | Ni | Fe | Se
    Enneagram: 5w4 sx/sp

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

  4. #324
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Well, yeah.

    But, and I'm just making this up as I go, I think the waitaminute move under an Ni regime isn't exactly a re-evaluation. The whole deal is "What's really going on here, what's the real meaning of this crap?!" (And I like to use the interrobang rather than a plain question mark because the "What's the real..." question has rhetorical elements--a suggestion that there is indeed always something extra going on behind what can normally be seen.) So plain vanilla evaluation is always re-evaluation anyway.

    The big difference is perhaps that I'm not viewing intuition as a tool but as a way of life, so it's not a device for refiguring and realigning so much as it is for creating. I suppose ENXJs would have a somewhat different view. (And we won't bother the SPs just now, they're all drunk.)


    Tell you what, as much as I hate to admit it, Ni is subjective as all get out. Saying so really grates on my desire to be objectively right in what I say and think, but it's true. Subjective. Dependent upon the person. As far as actual content goes, quite possibly completely different from person to person. This both horrifies and calms me.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #325
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Well, yeah.

    But, and I'm just making this up as I go, I think the waitaminute move under an Ni regime isn't exactly a re-evaluation. The whole deal is "What's really going on here, what's the real meaning of this crap?!" (And I like to use the interrobang rather than a plain question mark because the "What's the real..." question has rhetorical elements--a suggestion that there is indeed always something extra going on behind what can normally be seen.) So plain vanilla evaluation is always re-evaluation anyway.
    Well, I'd agree with that, even if you are making it up.

    The big difference is perhaps that I'm not viewing intuition as a tool but as a way of life, so it's not a device for refiguring and realigning so much as it is for creating. I suppose ENXJs would have a somewhat different view. (And we won't bother the SPs just now, they're all drunk.)
    Right. Ni is our way of life, it's what we're *always* doing in some capacity, just as Ti is INTP's way of life, and while they obviously utilize Ne and require it to feed Ti, Ne isn't what they live and breathe. I think that's easy to forget - N as a dom function when comparing it to N as an aux function isn't going to be of the same vein.

    Tell you what, as much as I hate to admit it, Ni is subjective as all get out. Saying so really grates on my desire to be objectively right in what I say and think, but it's true. Subjective. Dependent upon the person. As far as actual content goes, quite possibly completely different from person to person. This both horrifies and calms me.
    Well yes, and to expand on that, I'm sometimes/often 'trapped' in waves of subjectivity, if I'm not careful (if Te/Fe/Se isn't providing direction, in the sense of not being able to 'lock down' on any one thing because all might have equal merit depending on how you look at it..and that's the problem.. the 'depending on how you look at it' piece - virtually anything goes, depending on how you look at it. Which is why you need the external functions to provide more focus, as well as a reality check. imo. As well, Fi for INTJ would provide more of a solidity to counteract the 'anything goes' piece, as does Ti for INFJ. )
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  6. #326
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    All right, let's go there, the collective unconscious...

    The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently is not a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed, the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in consciousness, and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their existence exclusively to heredity. Whereas the personal unconscious consists for the most part of complexes, the content of the collective unconscious is made up essentially of archetypes.

    The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere. Mythological research calls them "motifs"; in the psychology of primitives they correspond to Levy-Bruh's concept of "representations collectives," and in the field of comparative religion they have been defined by Hubert and Mauss as "categories of the imagination." Adolf Bastian long ago called them "elementary" or primordial thoughts." From these references it should be clear enough that my idea of the archetype - literally a pre-existent form - does not stand alone but is something that is recognized and named in other fields of knowledge.

    My thesis, then, is as follows: In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.




    Now, something about introverted intuition is conscious. A lot of "us" have been saying one just waits on the products of Ni, and those products can't be forced. But something is going on, something that can be reported, such as drifting thoughts from which themes emerge, dramas playing out inside your head, odd tangents, returns to elements in other mental settings... generally the idea of a world represented and developed, it's there and one comes and goes from it... and possibly it develops "by itself", except that we know it doesn't because if it really did that, there'd be no need for sitting around day dreaming.

    And that kind of process is an accessing of the unconscious?

    LIEZ! Again and again it sounds like people need specifically introverted intuition to have some kind of template hidden away. How, it seems they scream, can abstraction be undertaken meaningfully without some guider!?!?! Some core. Some collective unconscious (Jung, you INTP, even YOU! Not even you escaped the Si sink hole?! YOU THOUGHT Si WAS AN OXYMORON!)

    I'm not ruling out the existence of the collective unconscious. I'm just wondering why it's so hard for people to imagine people turning inside to abstract.


    I don't get a sense of living with fixed entities. I do get a sense of living with an interest in hidden meaning, and a sense that such meaning is considerably more real than "reality"--more substantial, more recognisive of content (Call the dictionaries, there's been a word made up on the internet!). I'll be mighty pissed off if it turns out I've been working off archetypes all this time.

    EDIT: well, maybe not mighty pissed off, but I do prefer to see myself as the creator. This particular preference may have nothing at all to do with what Ni really is.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #327
    Consulting Detective Mr. Sherlock Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    JiNe
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Okay, let's try this one out. Put a lot of thought and research into this, trying to simplify what people were saying, which wasn't always clear.

    Because Ni is an introverted function, and therefore reliant on the self rather than the reality, it relies on preconcieved aspects, just like Si. However, while Si is a map of rote information that can be applied to reality, Ni is a map of connections, like Ne makes connections, that can be applied to varying contexts (thus context shifting). Ni, over time, collects these connections, noticing that such and such implies/signifies/causes such and such, and adds this to the database. Because these are connections, obviously they all link in different ways and so when an Ni user observes a situation, they access the databse and find out what means what, rather than speculating based on possibilities of the moment. For this reasn, the NFJ psychologist may be able to immediately find deeper meaning in a patients symptoms because the Fe makes judgement on external values and emotional attitudes and over time the Ni has collected the conections between different social and emotional aspects and applies that knowledge to the situation by applying the knowledge to a different context but similar situation. However, because it relies on previously made connections, it may have alimited perspective, causing conclusions to be drawn to quickly and sometimes incorrectly, without always considering all the possibilities. It serves better purpose as a planner than an creative outlet because it relies on patterns formed through experience and can predict outcomes based on made connections better than it can generate new ideas. It is more experienced, more instinctual and more focused, but less reactionary, less expansive and less creative than Ne. It is also more subjective, basing it's outlook on meanings and connections it has made for itself. It's probably also why Ni users can't always explain it well. Because the connections they make are already their own subconcious knowledge and it just seems to happen by itself.

    So... how does that sound? Does it ring true for any Ni users and differentate itself enough from Ne users and Si users? If this is right, which I am more confident about than my earlier conclusions. It really would help if more Ni users actually knew what their own function did.
    JiNe
    Ti | Fi | Ne | Si | Te | Ni | Fe | Se
    Enneagram: 5w4 sx/sp

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

  8. #328
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    I think people relying on Je make judgments quickly just because Je is shallow. Relatively speaking, shallow. It's utilitarian. Even Fe is utilitarian. By itself, Je is speedy, accurate, and spare--provided it's reflecting the world given under its terms of reference. What those terms of reference are, I'll specify presently just as whatever is available for explanation in terms of "that's just the way it is."

    I am however hard pressed to say Pi relies on preconceived stuff. Relies, no. Is, yes. But the process that creates these preconceptions, I'll more readily say that that is what Pi relies on. A person addressing the world through a Je may, probably will, rely on the preconceived Pi stuff to help them do something a bit more than just reflect that external world. But Pi, being subjective, technically doesn't approach the world at all. Ever. Stuff gets absorbed into the Pi... somehow... some instant data collection, which may or may not be Se, probably isn't, probably just is some snatch-and-grab by the Pi itself, like the crazy introverted who sits facing the wall and mumbling to himself and sometimes grabs an offered tray of food and crushes it up between himself and the wall. Or something, I dunno, I'm just making that image up, pointing out that even if there is some connection to the outside real world, the work of Pi is NOT conceived of that way--the person isn't engaged in directly accessing e data. Their mind is understanding the data in a preferred format, not necessarily translating, just insisting.......... if one's eyes are open one isn't automatically doing Se, one isn't even "doing" anything, but ones biology is still working........ so, something.

    Whatever. Data gets in there somehow. Once it's in there it becomes "true meanings", "real content", "the secrets behind what's real". A semantic structure for making Je have meaning. For making some Je "connections", aka deductions, more significant than others.

    So it's really just abstraction, and manipulation of abstractions to yield more abstractions. It doesn't work in the moment (although the person can be relatively responsive to moments anyway, or at least until their preferred approach tires them out by insisting on being used when it can't be used)

    Faaaaa.... I dunno. I wish just to resist the suggestion that Pi is static. Not even Si is static. The terms under which they are used give a wholehearted impression of stasis, but that's just the Je being J, I assume, and neither Ni nor Si can be what they are if they have no dynamism at all. They have both to contain some creative element.



    Eee, look at me, looking for the real content, the proper meaning, the "reason" to be able to make a conclusion about what's real.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #329
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    Still trying to define Ni?

    Lessee...

    If N = N, S = S, e = e, i = i, then:

    (NeSi)/Se = Ni

    *cancel it out

    You can also get other definitions out of this, like:

    (NeSi)/Ni = Se, (NiSe)/Ne = Si, or (NiSe)/Si = Ne.

  10. #330
    Consulting Detective Mr. Sherlock Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    JiNe
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    1,461

    Default

    Kalach, Ni would have to interact with the world in some way. It helps provide clarity of your thinking process, to determine what Je fits with your "ideas of what is real" or whatever, and it also has to take it in from somewhere. My guess is that it takes it in from Ne. Ni users obviously don't have much Ne, but everyone has some, so my guess is that when an Ni user makes a connection, it is added to the network (so it's not 'static', it builds up over time and can be changed gradually). Because it does not react to current events, but rather takes it's ideas from previous experience, like Si, it works better with familiar concepts or at least concepts that can be related to familiar ideas. I'll change my perspective on this if anyone has some evidence to the contrary, but the more I think about this, the more it seems to fit into the way Ni users act. It has an immediate frame of reference, and is thus faster acting, but since it needs to shift it to apply to the situation, the result may be somewhat vague and difficult to explain in comparison to an Ne Ji more slow but defnitive method.
    JiNe
    Ti | Fi | Ne | Si | Te | Ni | Fe | Se
    Enneagram: 5w4 sx/sp

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Similar Threads

  1. [INTJ] What the hell is an INTJ?
    By Haphazard in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-07-2012, 06:04 PM
  2. Naomi Klein: What the hell is her problem, anyway?
    By pure_mercury in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 05:37 PM
  3. What the hell is going on in this picture?
    By RiderOnTheStorm in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 06-08-2009, 01:52 AM
  4. What the hell is going on? (Conspiracy)
    By Fluffywolf in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-02-2009, 07:10 AM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 12:55 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