User Tag List

First 2735363738394787 Last

Results 361 to 370 of 960

  1. #361
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,929

    Default

    Yet again another thread I resurrected has transformed into a triumphal success! Ni cause and effect contingency knows no bounds in this ever evolving dynamic system.

  2. #362
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    This is where Ni comes in: Ni looks at the same historical data that Ne/Si does, but instead of figuring out trends and handling special cases, Ni tries to internalize a "story" of how the changes take place. You can hear a simplistic version of this in stock market reports, where the newscaster says, "Stocks are up on news of <good market news>" or "Stocks are down on news of <bad market news>". (There is always good market news and bad market news, the story writers just insert the appropriate version of the "news" to "explain" why the market did well or poorly. And yes, this is a typical Ni (and Se) mistake, but Ni doms tend to make this mistake in less obvious ways.)

    So in this case, for example, Ni has a "story" model of how market bubbles work, and knows what market bubbles "look like" (Se). So analysts such as Peter Schiff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_S...c_Policy_Views) see a housing bubble coming, even as most analysts do not. There are youtube videos where you can watch Schiff explain the coming crash to a bunch of skeptical fellow analysts, who scoff at his analysis. Why? There's nothing in the market data (Si) that says a crash is coming: everything is positive, people are making money, and there's plenty of room for growth.

    But Schiff looks at the same market data in an Ni way, and the data to him is a retelling of the "bubble story". He sees real estate prices going up not because people need and want more housing for themselves, but investors are buying housing only to resell it at a higher price. On top of that, he sees the highly-leveraged zero-down-payment, no-interest loans (basically, you "buy" a house by "renting" it) as a typical example of the kind of too-easy credit that fuels bubbles.

    Keep in mind, a lot of this is very obvious in retrospect: the story has been told many times and has become part of the narrative of the crash four years ago. But in 2005, it was not obvious to most people or most analysts. And this is where Ni comes in: it takes these kinds of narratives and sees how they apply to other situations. For example, an Ni analyst might say that we can expect a higher education bubble, as tuition prices rise to levels that no one can afford and don't justify the employment one might expect to find with the degree achieved. Education has a purpose: if it starts costing so much that people have to borrow more than they can realistically afford to pay for it, the bubble will burst and prices will go back to what people can afford.

    I'm giving you this example showing Ni in a positive light because you requested it. The negative version of Ni would be using anecdotal evidence to arrive at incorrect conclusions, usually because the anecdote really doesn't contain the details necessary to apply it in general. In this positive case, it's still "anecdotal evidence" in that the reasoning is based off of "the asset bubble story", which isn't simply anecdotal evidence, but a fairly sophisticated cause-and-effect analysis.

    The Ne/Ni crosstalk comes from Ne habitually rejecting the Ni story-based reasoning as lacking supporting data, while Ni rejects the Ne analysis as overly reliant upon statistical correlation and trends. Both can be very sophisticated and intelligent - and both can even be right. But even when they're both right, Ne and Ni believe that they're right for different reasons. To Ne, the statistical analysis with lots of data is convincing. For Ni, the story, the understanding of the "how" is what is convincing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yeah, this is really just getting at the meta-perspectivizing that Ni does.

    The way I'v described it before is that we work "up the syllogism". What I mean by that is that we see, hear or read a conclusion, and then we start imagining the premises that would cause one to arrive at such a conclusion (and, it should be mentioned, that the possibilities we're able to come up with here tend to be limited, to some degree, by what we've come across in our lives [Se]), and then we evaluate whether such premises are true (via Fe/Te and/or Se), or whether we care about them (Fi/Ti[?]) and then we compare them against all the other premises we can imagine that would/could fit this scenario, and evaluate whether the conclusion stated and premises implied in the original construction are accurate in this case, the degree to which they're accurate, and (and here's where the part you were describing comes in) whether there are other premises that actually better fit the scenario, or that ought be taken into account in any comprehensive analysis of the issue at hand. These various sets of premises are the "boxes" that Ni is reputed for shifting between. Ne seeks to "get out of the box" (the box, in this case, having to do with Si, I believe [and, as such, while, in one sense, they seek to get out of the box {when suppressing Si, and "taking up" Ne}, in another sense, at other times {perhaps even at the same time?}, they seem to very much be comforted by, cling to, and depend upon the Si boxes they have stored in their subconscious]); Ni checks the various boxes on for "fit", shuffling between various options. As such, what you said at the end here very much rings true. NP types will often throw out possibilities based likely both on their (semi-[?])subconscious boxes, and their desire to reach outside of those boxes, and find new boxes that can eventually, if proven "worthy", be stored as "permanent boxes"; and, as an Ni user, when I watch them do this, sometimes they hit the nail on the head, or find a box that provides at least a partial explanation of the issue at hand, but, many other times, they seem to state these possibilities that, when they say them, it sounds like they're laying out this structure for these being the only possibilities, or the "core" possibilities, that are out there (admittedly, this is what it sounds like to me, not that, if asked, that they'd necessarily say, "these are the only possibilities to explain this phenomenon [although, in their defense of what they've allowed to become a permanent Si box, they often do have this defensive reaction, as that box is a bedrock of their psyche, and they do not like it to be tampered with {hence, the common NP complaint about about the alleged "shiftiness" or "unsettledness" or "lack of foundation" of NJs}]; they're probably just trying this new perspective on for size, breaking new ground, expanding their mental horizon out of their more settled-upon Si foundational box, possibly overstating its case in order to test whether it's something they could really believe [like trying on a novel {risky?} outfit in a fitting room {something which I think they often times enjoy, but sometimes might feel anxious about (especially if pressed on it?)}]), and I quickly examine it as one box, and then see a bunch of other boxes that could also fit the scenario, some just as well, if not much better, and I kinda just shake my head, and think to myself, "How does this person actually believe this? How could they actually find this a full/proper accounting of this issue??"
    Those are very good ways of explaining it, that fills in the "what's been left out" I had been told (and couldn't quite place. There's more than one internal pattern being referenced, and "what's been left out" is from other ones that Ne obviously didn't take into consideration).
    So Ne compares multiple external patterns (internalized only by Si) or patterns implicit in the object (and determines the best one by Ji), while Ni references multiple (directly) internal patterns and determines the most likely one (especially as judged efficient by Je).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  3. #363
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,430

    Default

    This site: http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?o...&writingid=263 discusses the shadow, and defines them (as well as the rest of our "dualistic" thinking) in the term "stories". "The separate self is a set of dualistic stories such as, 'I’m nice,' 'I’m a victim,' 'My life is incomplete,' 'I’m a successful news anchorperson,' or 'I’m unhappy.' This is the play of opposites playing itself out in our lives." "Your defensiveness is revealing that you are carrying a self-critical story around. You have a story that you are fat. You have a story that you are greedy."

    Well, "stories" are basically "archetypes"--"ruling patterns" or models of events (as well as people, which we normally think of as archetypes); and as such are the domain of Ni.

    Thinking upon this, in light of my own internal struggles, I realizes these were examples of "what's been left out". Like both my wife and even my counselor had recently been complaining that when I argue against certain aspects of Christian teaching on "growth", that I criticize a lot of arguments they didn't say, and [they say] they don't really believe in. But having studied all the doctrines for over 25 years, and participating in many online debates, I know that there is a lot of inference in many Christian doctrines, especially when it comes to God's nature and activity in salvation and our own "walk" with Him or "growth". Like The Trinity, for instance, is never spelled out in the Bible, but said to be "inferred" from various scriptures put together. These inferences often overlook other data.
    Now, inference is a feature of iNtuition (focus on where things are heading, instead of just what they are). I've noticed, in many cases, a lot of Christians who are not really doctrinal experts will parrot the popular belief on something, but not realize its implications. So when I call those implications out, they feel I've "jumped the gun", and even "too black and white" (and as many black and white statements the Church makes on many things).

    I realize that when people say things about God, especially as touching upon my own life, then a story or various stories emerge. Like if someone says that something painful was "God doing it for your own good", then a story emerges of Him singling me out and putting His own stamp on my problems (rather than helping me), and then, they're also telling me "submit to God", but it's becomes harder to do that with that story in the background. I also have trouble pontificating that something good was a particular act of Him, because that implies that the lack of good is also by Him, like what they call "permissive will". (And people then bow out and say "we can't understand His ways").
    I then use all of this to "fill in what's missing"; that the person talking to me isn't even aware of. They then tell me "no, that's not what we meant"", and often put together a less critical string of meaning of the situation. But I "look at the trajectory" of "where the data wants to go", and what's "beyond the map" people are reading (As the person describing Ni told me), and it always seems to lead squarely to these negative conclusions. Conclusions which their rosy views of God's involvement in life "must leave out in order to remain intact".
    This should have figured all along, when I was struggling to understand what I was told!

    So I realized this was Senex Ni; the "critical" part of me that scans people's words looking for negative stories via inferences and implications.
    Of course, for me, this is shadow, and very erratic, and I guess, often off-base, as the people are complaining. For Ni preferrers, it could be like this, in a negative situation (hence they're often characterized as "conspiratorial"), but it would also be used in a more mature fashin in good situations.

    So can the NJ's here identify with this description?
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  4. #364
    ¤ Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    This site: http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?o...&writingid=263 discusses the shadow, and defines them (as well as the rest of our "dualistic" thinking) in the term "stories". "The separate self is a set of dualistic stories such as, 'I’m nice,' 'I’m a victim,' 'My life is incomplete,' 'I’m a successful news anchorperson,' or 'I’m unhappy.' This is the play of opposites playing itself out in our lives." "Your defensiveness is revealing that you are carrying a self-critical story around. You have a story that you are fat. You have a story that you are greedy."

    Well, "stories" are basically "archetypes"--"ruling patterns" or models of events (as well as people, which we normally think of as archetypes); and as such are the domain of Ni.

    Thinking upon this, in light of my own internal struggles, I realizes these were examples of "what's been left out". Like both my wife and even my counselor had recently been complaining that when I argue against certain aspects of Christian teaching on "growth", that I criticize a lot of arguments they didn't say, and [they say] they don't really believe in. But having studied all the doctrines for over 25 years, and participating in many online debates, I know that there is a lot of inference in many Christian doctrines, especially when it comes to God's nature and activity in salvation and our own "walk" with Him or "growth". Like The Trinity, for instance, is never spelled out in the Bible, but said to be "inferred" from various scriptures put together. These inferences often overlook other data.
    Now, inference is a feature of iNtuition (focus on where things are heading, instead of just what they are). I've noticed, in many cases, a lot of Christians who are not really doctrinal experts will parrot the popular belief on something, but not realize its implications. So when I call those implications out, they feel I've "jumped the gun", and even "too black and white" (and as many black and white statements the Church makes on many things).

    I realize that when people say things about God, especially as touching upon my own life, then a story or various stories emerge. Like if someone says that something painful was "God doing it for your own good", then a story emerges of Him singling me out and putting His own stamp on my problems (rather than helping me), and then, they're also telling me "submit to God", but it's becomes harder to do that with that story in the background. I also have trouble pontificating that something good was a particular act of Him, because that implies that the lack of good is also by Him, like what they call "permissive will". (And people then bow out and say "we can't understand His ways").
    I then use all of this to "fill in what's missing"; that the person talking to me isn't even aware of. They then tell me "no, that's not what we meant"", and often put together a less critical string of meaning of the situation. But I "look at the trajectory" of "where the data wants to go", and what's "beyond the map" people are reading (As the person describing Ni told me), and it always seems to lead squarely to these negative conclusions. Conclusions which their rosy views of God's involvement in life "must leave out in order to remain intact".
    This should have figured all along, when I was struggling to understand what I was told!

    So I realized this was Senex Ni; the "critical" part of me that scans people's words looking for negative stories via inferences and implications.
    Of course, for me, this is shadow, and very erratic, and I guess, often off-base, as the people are complaining. For Ni preferrers, it could be like this, in a negative situation (hence they're often characterized as "conspiratorial"), but it would also be used in a more mature fashin in good situations.

    So can the NJ's here identify with this description?
    To be honest, reading it felt a lot like what @Juice said of me recently.

    Also, Eric, part of me just thinks you're Ti'ing the shit out of this stuff. You're looking for a logically complete system to explain God, and, the fact of the matter is, it doesn't exist. Your wife and counselor, on the other hand, don't demand the same level of logical coherence.

    That being said, what you said about senex Ni was interesting, and will have me thinking a bit.
    The Justice Fighter

    INTJ - 6w5 8dw 3w4 sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6
    Debator


  5. #365
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    It's Si with more attempted connections.

  6. #366
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,929

    Default

    @Eric B you with that terribly detailed, precise, logical, categorical, and well defined explanation have definitively proven to me once and for all what an INTP really is and how their systems of reasonings contrast greatly with that of Ni types like ISTP and INTJ meaning I as well as the poster above me are not the same type as you for sure!

    Now how do we tell the difference between ISTP and INTJ which are both introverted thinking types that specialize in the use of Ni?

  7. #367
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Ni -

    Sees / hears / etc
    Waits
    Eureka
    Trusts

    Does not think

    Ti -

    Thinks
    Breaks
    Segregates internally / Segregates according to internal standards
    Thinks again
    Eureka
    Theorizes - makes mental note
    Doubts
    Thinks again

    Does think

    Ti thinks
    Ni waits but think they think

    When more information comes -

    Ti - thinks again
    Ni - it hits / eureka

  8. #368
    ¤ Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,848

    Default

    ^ I recommend not listening to non-NJs when it comes to Ni
    The Justice Fighter

    INTJ - 6w5 8dw 3w4 sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6
    Debator


  9. #369
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    ^ I recommend not listening to non-NJs when it comes to Ni
    Good point

    Here it is then -

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    Simplest way to look at it, Ni is just connecting the dots of random data into an answer. It boils the random data which seems unconnected, connects and boils it down into an answer.

  10. #370
    ¤ Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    It's Si with more attempted connections.
    This actually isn't that horrible, tho.

    I'd already forgotten, but I had a weird dream last night, during part of which, I was at a baseball game, explaining to an ISTJ (lol... he was an asian dude in his 30s, looked like he worked in accounting) how his mind was a lot like mine, just simpler. I really do think it's a decent explanation of the difference between Si and Ni. Si finds its one way, and it's sticking to it! Ni... shiyyyyit... the tried and true way can't be the only way... why is it even the tried and true way? what makes it so grand? I'm sure I could find something better... And this isn't even laden with a value judgment, really. I mean, yeah, I think mine is superior. But, honestly, theirs is way more practical. You won't find them trying to reinvent the wheel. You just, well, won't find them being as brilliant as Ni-doms in Ni-dom ways, either.
    The Justice Fighter

    INTJ - 6w5 8dw 3w4 sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6
    Debator


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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO