User Tag List

First 2836373839404888 Last

Results 371 to 380 of 960

  1. #371
    ¤ Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Good point

    Here it is then -

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy
    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.
    Yeah, I think that actually is a good, simple way to look at it.

    The question then becomes, tho, what's the difference between Ni in an NJ and Ni in an SP?

    Wouldn't you rather just be an SP, if this Ni stuff is gunna figure out the connections, and you can still rock at Se?

    To some extent, I think there's actually some truth to that, but, at the same time, it's simplistic. The truth is, SPs, I believe, tend to just trust whatever it is that Ni comes up with to explain the connections underlying all the otherwise meaningless (i.e., lacking connection to anything else -- almost how one would exist if one were in a permanent blacked-out state) sensory data, whether those connections are accurate or not. NJs, on the other hand, spend far more time ruminating on those connections, checking them, questioning them, testing them, verifying them (hence, part of the reason why I said not to listen to your explanation about Ni [which told a very different, very false story]). We don't just take them for granted (at least not nearly as much as SPs). But then, at times, we will instantaneously just "see" (btw, it's an extremely spatial awareness [which has even been shown in Nardi's eeg studies of our brain functioning] -- I once revealed to my likely INTP [and genius] college professor that I remembered things in terms of images, usually moving images, like a movie, after he said something along the lines of how people's memory is based off of words) the connection (the over-mentioned "aha!" or "eureka!" moment), and be absolutely certain that we're seeing the phenomenon the right way -- understanding the underlying reality connecting the otherwise meaningless sensory data. And, when we do, we are often right. Not all the time. But most of the time.
    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


  2. #372
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yeah, I think that actually is a good, simple way to look at it.

    The question then becomes, tho, what's the difference between Ni in an NJ and Ni in an SP?

    Wouldn't you rather just be an SP, if this Ni stuff is gunna figure out the connections, and you can still rock at Se?

    To some extent, I think there's actually some truth to that, but, at the same time, it's simplistic. The truth is, SPs, I believe, tend to just trust whatever it is that Ni comes up with to explain the connections underlying all the otherwise meaningless (i.e., lacking connection to anything else -- almost how one would exist if one were in a blacked-out state) sensory data, whether those connections are accurate or not. NJs, on the other hand, spend far more time ruminating on those connections, checking them, questioning them, testing them, verifying them (hence, part of the reason why I said not to listen to your explanation about Ni [which told a very different, very false story]). We don't just take them for granted (at least not nearly as much as SPs). But then, at times, we will instantaneously just "see" (btw, it's an extremely spatial awareness [which has even been shown in Nardi's eeg studies of our brain functioning] -- I once revealed to my likely INTP [and genius] college professor that I remembered things in terms of images, usually moving images, like a movie, after he said something along the lines of how people's memory is based off of words) the connection (the over-mentioned "aha!" or "eureka!" moment), and be absolutely certain that we're seeing the phenomenon the right way -- understanding the underlying reality connecting the otherwise meaningless sensory data. And, when we do, we are often right. Not all the time. But most of the time.
    From what I have noticed Ni questions and questions and questions again - much like what you described. They seldom trust the answer at hand but simply question it. Then suddenly it hits them. What hits them they seem to trust.

    So yes to what you said. Don't really see how contrasting it is with what I said earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Ni -

    Sees / hears / etc
    Waits
    Eureka
    Trusts

    Does not think
    It does however is different from Ti. Ti keep on breaking things apart - metaphorically. Which requires more thinking. Ni probably questions whereas Ti probably thinks/analyses more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Ti -

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

    Does think
    Ni questions and waits. The Eureka moment usually hits when it is not thinking too much. Though the continuous questions it asks itself probably led the subconscious mind to consider all the facts.

  3. #373
    ¤ Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,848

    Default

    @Riva

    How is questioning not a thinking act?

    (putting aside the strict Jungian meaning of "thinking")

    Also, the point was: your explication was overly simplistic for Ni.

    And you were defining Ni in terms of how it was not Ti (i.e., "it does not think")

    It certainly is thinking, it's just a different kind of thinking than Ti (and, remember, is often combined with Te/Fi/Fe/Ti).

    There's some accuracy to what you said, and to your most recent post, but where is the constant questioning in your original explication?
    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


  4. #374
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    I have had many Ni-ers trying to explain to me what Ni is. I sort of feel like it is a bit of a paradox in that to understand Ni you almost have to BE Ni. I keep trying to come at it with a relatable understanding that only touches a tiny fraction of what Ni is.

    It's like I am a flat lander and my friend is a cube trying to explain to me how he may look like a square but in reality he is actually a cube. And I'm all, but you're a square!!

    /feels inadequate.


  5. #375
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    How is questioning not a thinking act?

    (putting aside the strict Jungian meaning of "thinking")
    I'm only considering Jungian meaning of thinking here... Nah just kidding.

    Ti bases its answers / meanings / understandings on the conclusions it arrives with its own deductions.
    Ni bases its answers / meanings / understandings on the conclusions it arrives while it waits - not on its deductions.

    Yes yes yes I admit my original post would have been more conclusive if I added Questions before waits.

    Add to the former when I said thinking I meant conclusive thinking / deductions.

    So let me edit -

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Ni -

    Sees / hears / etc
    Questions Questions Questions again
    Waits
    Eureka
    Trusts

    Does not think

  6. #376
    ¤ Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    I have had many Ni-ers trying to explain to me what Ni is. I sort of feel like it is a bit of a paradox in that to understand Ni you almost have to BE Ni. I keep trying to come at it with a relatable understanding that only touches a tiny fraction of what Ni is.

    It's like I am a flat lander and my friend is a cube trying to explain to me how he may look like a square but in reality he is actually a cube. And I'm all, but you're a square!!

    /feels inadequate.

    Well, at least you're better than the people who outright deny the third dimension exists.

    It's usually INTPs (altho some INFPs, too) who do as much.

    (pro-tip: it's cuz their intuition is weak)
    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


  7. #377
    ¤ Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    7,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    I'm only considering Jungian meaning of thinking here... Nah just kidding.
    Well, I'm not sure exactly which part you were "kidding" about, but I considered that possibility, which is why I followed two lines later with "you're defining Ni in terms of how it is not Ti." Either way, I had you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Ti bases its answers / meanings / understandings on the conclusions it arrives with its own deductions.
    Ni bases its answers / meanings / understandings on the conclusions it arrives while it waits - not on its deductions.
    Once again, you're defining Ni in Ti terms, which is why I said not to listen to you (and other non-Ni doms).

    What you're not realizing is that Ni is doing something completely on its own, not just not doing Ti.

    We're not simply "not doing deductive reasoning" -- we are doing inductive reasoning.

    Hence the sitting around, waiting, listening, watching, and repeated questioning.

    And, hence, why, once it comes to us, it's "aha!" or "eureka!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Yes yes yes I admit my original post would have been more conclusive accurate if I added Questions before waits.
    Along with, "questions more", "sits and listens more", and "questions even more" afterwards.



    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    Add to the former when I mean thinking I mean conclusive thinking / deductions.
    Oh, so you weren't kidding.

    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


  8. #378
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Ni is subjective intuition.

  9. #379
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yeah, I think that actually is a good, simple way to look at it.

    The question then becomes, tho, what's the difference between Ni in an NJ and Ni in an SP?

    Wouldn't you rather just be an SP, if this Ni stuff is gunna figure out the connections, and you can still rock at Se?

    To some extent, I think there's actually some truth to that, but, at the same time, it's simplistic. The truth is, SPs, I believe, tend to just trust whatever it is that Ni comes up with to explain the connections underlying all the otherwise meaningless (i.e., lacking connection to anything else -- almost how one would exist if one were in a blacked-out state) sensory data, whether those connections are accurate or not. NJs, on the other hand, spend far more time ruminating on those connections, checking them, questioning them, testing them, verifying them (hence, part of the reason why I said not to listen to your explanation about Ni [which told a very different, very false story]). We don't just take them for granted (at least not nearly as much as SPs). But then, at times, we will instantaneously just "see" (btw, it's an extremely spatial awareness [which has even been shown in Nardi's eeg studies of our brain functioning] -- I once revealed to my likely INTP [and genius] college professor that I remembered things in terms of images, usually moving images, like a movie, after he said something along the lines of how people's memory is based off of words) the connection (the over-mentioned "aha!" or "eureka!" moment), and be absolutely certain that we're seeing the phenomenon the right way -- understanding the underlying reality connecting the otherwise meaningless sensory data. And, when we do, we are often right. Not all the time. But most of the time.

    A fair enough assessment.


    I believe the difference in Ni emerges through the judging function. Te/Fe desires a concrete objective answer to the tangents of Ni while Ti/Fi is comfortable suspending judgement until further information is acquired.

  10. #380
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    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.
    FWIW, these are more the domain of Ni-Fe than Ni-Te. Even taking into account an INTJ's Fi, the Fi-side analysis is more holistic, and doesn't really delve into specific "stories". Imagine Ni-Te as having physical/mathematical/procedural archetypes. Like software Design Patterns, or in physics, having to choose which realm of physics to use to study something. It's especially clear in physics, where there is overlap between quantum mechanics, statistical physics, and thermodynamics, but if you try to use quantum mechanics to model a car engine, you're not going to get as far as you would using thermodynamics. Quantum mechanics might be "more correct" in an overall abstract sense, but it's sufficient to demonstrate that it approaches normal thermodynamics as Plank's constant approaches zero, and use thermodynamics instead.

    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).
    Part of what you're missing, here, is that you're trying to build a "system" out of worldviews that are essentially "archetypes." It's as if you're trying to disprove thermodynamics by following the implications of heat beyond the point at which matter becomes plasma, and plasma physics works rather differently than thermodynamics at more normal temperatures. An engineer would say that you're jumping the gun, and being too literal or "black and white", to insist that his car engine take plasma physics into account. That is to say, your logic may be entirely correct, but also entirely inapplicable to the case at hand.

    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").
    Yeah, that's known as the problem of evil, or "theodicy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy). Everyone has a problem with it, and it's a central issue of the Christian religion particularly because it espouses a single, all-powerful God that is inherently good, but if there's evil in the world, then He can't be that powerful or He cannot be that good, can he? It's self-contradictory. But it is not ignored by the Bible, and is a central theme of one of the most controversial books of the Bible, the Book of Job.

    That said, it's not an easy question of religion, and it's a bit unfair to treat laymen as expert theologians to be debated. I'm not going to bother trying to answer the issue myself, since I believe you brought it up as an example; I'm just trying to point out that you have a lot of company when you ask these questions. They are not easy questions, and how you end up answering them ends up saying a lot about you and what you believe (and doesn't say that much about God and why He lets evil things happen).

    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?
    Sort of ... but it's not "senex Ni" so much as it is "trying to reach Ni-style conclusions using Ne and Si" (and not a little bit of Ti ). Why does it seem to miss the mark? It misses because Ni doesn't look for a trajectory of where the data wants to go beyond the map. It's more like having a treasure map with landmarks, but it's totally unfamiliar - the map is useless. So you pull out all your maps and photos that you do know, and start comparing them with the map, and eventually you spot a photo with a location where the landmark looks correct from the angle on the treasure map and *boom*, you know how to map your maps to the treasure map and back. (The treasure maps in Skyrim work like this, which is where I got the idea for this analogy.) Ni fills in what is missing not by following through on all possible logical paths (that's Ti-Ne!), but by trying out different maps, different "boxes", different "explanations", until one finds a map/box/explanation/archetype that points out where to look for the missing element. From your explanation, I read that you aren't trying out different maps/boxes: it's always the same map/box, but you're trying to look beyond the edges using pure reason.

    So you're following a normal logical path, namely that if you include some things (in a category or set or whatever), you necessarily exclude other things. This is your Ti doing its normal duty. The negative stories always exist. The proper question, however, isn't whether they are true (is the glass half empty or half full? both are true). The proper question is, "What does it mean?"

    How to answer "What does it mean?" Here's my answer. I have problems in my life, like anyone else. I have problems at work, I have problems at home, I have problems with my girlfriend, I have problems with kids. Does that mean my life sucks? Hell no! These are good problems to have! I have work! I have a home! I have a girlfriend! No matter what you have, no matter how good you have it, you will have problems. That's called LIFE! My life isn't "evil" because it has problems. Rather, my life is good, because I am capable of handling all of these "problems." I am capable of living and learning and growing and dealing with anything that comes my way. ... Oooorrrr, I could just go around complaining about how much my life sucks, because no matter what I do, I end up with more problems.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

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