User Tag List

First 2060686970717280 Last

Results 691 to 700 of 932

  1. #691
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ISFp Fi
    Posts
    760

    Default

    A fun way to look at Ni, based off general behaviour rather than the actual definition:

    Ni is overindulging in food, sexual activities, drugs, and other forms of sensual pleasure or completely abstaining from all such things; it also means can manifest as an becoming over obsessive over one's surroundings or getting anxious over petty details, or becoming completely isolated from the physical realm and removing all subjective meaning from one's surroundings.

  2. #692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Do you have a real, concrete example of what "totemic" means?
    I mean to say emblematic, or archetypal, or mystical. In my mind, Totems serve to actualize and express what cannot be immediately apprehended without looking inward.
    Hello
    Likes labyrinthine, D'Ascoyne liked this post

  3. #693
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enthusiastic_Dreamer View Post
    Here 21lux, I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote up in another thread on Ne/Ni. I think the analogy will make it clear and you can see the difference between Ne and Ni

    "Ni realizes things as connected and interrelated, as Ne does, but keeps that system in place. Same inclination towards finding relationships, but maintaining the actual systems, or in other words, underlying structure in place. To my understanding, this is the fundamental difference between the two and how Ni is able to narrow things down to a point, whereas Ne tosses concepts around like a tossed salad. Ugh..ok, let's go with the "tossed salad" approach shall we? Ni sees the salad and all the pieces within the bowl, it's a salad with elements that come together to make that salad (cucumber, tomatoes, lettuce), sitting in the bowl. How are the elements related? Well it sees the underlying connections as making a whole, the concept or idea of what a salad is commonly known to be. Ne takes those salad elements, and throws out the bowl, so there is no longer anything restraining those elements to their original system of relationship. Think of the parts to a salad as all splayed out over a chopping board. Yes, they can all come together to make a salad, but the bowl, or unifying structure, is no longer relevant. They are now free flowing elements that have the opportunity to make new connections among one another since they are no longer bound to a system. Compared to other functions, Ni allows the person to step back, outside of the system that they are a part of, and sees it as an observer with everything all related. Ne allows the person to dissolve the system completely, and looks at the elements individually and tries to put them together in different ways. They both deal with finding underlying relationships, but through different modes.

    Is one better than the other? Absolutely not. To me, Ni is more "magical" since it seems to work more in the background collecting data and making more sense of the system it's analyzing as it's taking in new perspectives and ideas. Ne is fully in the light with me, and ya I make connections at a lightning pace, and in that sense, can seem "magical", but I know precisely how those connections are being formed as it's happening, and while it's happening, it is an experience that happens in front of me and something that seems tangible and real, like I'm physically playing with the pieces. There is no "magic" to the process, and I can usually control my Ne to a rather strong degree. But the two are very similar in that they are both analyzing and seeking out relationships between things, or concepts for that matter. One just sees it as part of a "system", and one that disregards the system entirely and creates new systems in which to place things.

    And as for predicting the future in way, like knowing how someone will react in a situation, that's totally Ni. Since they've collected all this information through experience and are able to see these individual lapses of time and moments as part of a larger whole. I really can't predict people's actions in the way an Ni dom user can, but the way I do it, which I can to a degree, is through my secondary Fi and my personal understanding of human nature and motives."
    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    Ni enables you to invoke, whereas Ne enables you to branch. Ni is totemic and reflective, Ne is playful and provocative. Both deal with abstraction, as opposed to Sensation's concrete grounding.

    [edit] you might generalize these to include the Sensing functions as well:

    • Introverted Perception is totemic and reflective
    • Extroverted Perception is playful and provocative

    The difference then lies in which domain you're sitting in:

    • Sensation deals in concrete realities
    • Intuition deals in abstract realities
    These are like the "classic" Ni description attempts, and the sort of thing that I based this old illustration I did years ago, when I was coming to get the idea of it a little better:


    So I guess the frame of reference is the "internal" one (the observer always starts out with his own internal perspective), and the circle (common connection point) ends up conveniently representing the "bowl", and Ni has the bowl inside (i realm), where Ne has thrown the bowl "out" (e realm). The "salad" is the individual objects, and this is what Ne has "internalized", while Ni can look "out" at them from the central hub, so to speak.
    So Ne looks from the outside to the inside, where it "branches", and Ni starts in the inside and "calls" ("invokes"; "call earnestly for") from the outside. (You could look at both as working in tandem with the associated Sensing attitude; i.e. Ne/Si and NiSe).

    Even after putting this together, it still seemed something was missing in fully understanding; we weren't really getting to the bottom of what the function IS, and only focusing on what it DOES.

    This is why I've more recently moved toward the whole "unconscious" definition (which I thought before was too ambiguous). The "bowl" is really in the unconscious (and I think a big part of the problem is that many of these descriptions make it look like the whole process is conscious, and even a bit rational, like a judgment function). For Ne, the bowl lies in the outer realm, which is "conscious", yet the observer (the "subject" or "i" realm, which is also considered "unconscious") sees the objects as he looks outward. For Ni, the bowl is what lies within the subject, so it's doubly "unconscious". As as I said earlier: Ne=“consciousness of unconsciousness”; Ni=“unconsciousness of unconsciousness”

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Yes, @Enthusiastic_Dreamer, that was an excellent analogy!

    To add one last piece to the puzzle of Ni, 21lux, it helps I think to compare with Si, as well, especially since you're Si dom.

    Where Si internalizes "what things are", Ni instead internalizes "what things do". That's why Ni is good at "predicting the future". It really reduces to reasoning as simple as "predicting" that a serial killer will kill again, because that's exactly what a serial killer does. What differentiates Ni from the other types is that Ni types classify EVERYTHING in terms of what it "does", and that creates a whole internal system in our heads that lets us "see" ahead of time what will happen next even (and especially) in complicated situations.

    In trade for this talent, I cannot for the life of me remember "what things are" directly. It's sort of like hearing "Harrison Ford" and drawing a blank, but if you say, "That guy who played Han Solo in Star Wars," I'm like "Oh, yeah. HIM!" and then I'll remember all the other movie roles he was in, too. I remember everything about what things do, you see. (No, I don't really forget who"Harrison Ford" is. It's just an analogy.)
    I don't think it's so much about "what things do". I would think that would likely fall more under a judgment function, particularly Thinking. And Ni is also not particularly "predicting the future", any more than Ne, really. It's just that it seems so, because of the fact that it's from the unconscious within (so it looks like it "comes out of nowhere", and you figure it must be "from above" or something), where Ne looks at objects (that can be shown to everyone), and it in comparison seems limited in away, by what these objects can do, so doesn't have an air of "certainty" that Ni might project.
    By "what things do", you're probably thinking of the unconscious "bowl", again, but as stated above, it's presented in a way that makes it sound too "rational" and conscious.

    The example of predicting a killer killing again is really Si. It's a tangible real world experience (S) that has been taken inside (i) as a fact and compared with others from memory (and Si/Ne "Inquiring Awareness" is what tends to compare data, where SeNi "Realizing Awareness" takes it more directly), and from there, guessing what might or might be able to happen.
    I used to get hung up like that too, from the "Ni=predicting the future" or "What WILL be" descriptions, but just any speculation on the future is not Ni.
    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
    Likes Forever liked this post

  4. #694
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    This is why I've more recently moved toward the whole "unconscious" definition (which I thought before was too ambiguous). The "bowl" is really in the unconscious (and I think a big part of the problem is that many of these descriptions make it look like the whole process is conscious, and even a bit rational, like a judgment function). For Ne, the bowl lies in the outer realm, which is "conscious", yet the observer (the "subject" or "i" realm, which is also considered "unconscious") sees the objects as he looks outward. For Ni, the bowl is what lies within the subject, so it's doubly "unconscious". As as I said earlier: Ne=“consciousness of unconsciousness”; Ni=“unconsciousness of unconsciousness”


    This got me excited. I think you are very right about N.

    For me, I feel my Ni like a throbbing light energy surrounding me. When I need to know something, a companion function connects to Ni and the appropriate Ni ray of truth shines on to the object and I understand it and have insight. Ni is like a 360 degree sphere of fuzzy light.

    And just to say, I DO believe it can come from God, or the supernatural realm. It is no coincidence most prophets and visionaries are Ni dom. Ni is a gift that allows the unconscious mind to tap into the greater spiritual supernatural realm, I believe.

    EDIT: To clarify: I don't usually 'see' Ni as a ball of light surrounding me, only if I conceptually look at it in order to describe it better. Usually Ni for me feels like I'm swimming in a hazy world of possibilities, open to finding what fits where.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  5. #695
    Walking in the Rain Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    6,307

    Default

    Yo dawg I heard you like introverted intuition so we put an unconsciousness in your unconsciousness so you can know while you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Ne=“consciousness of unconsciousness”; Ni=“unconsciousness of unconsciousness”
    Wait what?


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    I don't think it's so much about "what things do". I would think that would likely fall more under a judgment function, particularly Thinking. And Ni is also not particularly "predicting the future", any more than Ne, really. It's just that it seems so, because of the fact that it's from the unconscious within (so it looks like it "comes out of nowhere", and you figure it must be "from above" or something), where Ne looks at objects (that can be shown to everyone), and it in comparison seems limited in away, by what these objects can do, so doesn't have an air of "certainty" that Ni might project.
    By "what things do", you're probably thinking of the unconscious "bowl", again, but as stated above, it's presented in a way that makes it sound too "rational" and conscious.

    The example of predicting a killer killing again is really Si. It's a tangible real world experience (S) that has been taken inside (i) as a fact and compared with others from memory (and Si/Ne "Inquiring Awareness" is what tends to compare data, where SeNi "Realizing Awareness" takes it more directly), and from there, guessing what might or might be able to happen.
    I used to get hung up like that too, from the "Ni=predicting the future" or "What WILL be" descriptions, but just any speculation on the future is not Ni.
    Sun: ♈️ Moon: ♓️ Ascendant: ♒️
    obviously you're going to get nothing from reading this
    I find that the illusions sometimes are more beneficial to my reality than what I project as 'reality'
    Likes AphroditeGoneAwry liked this post

  6. #696
    You are what you love themightyfetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Enneagram
    2w3 so/sx
    Socionics
    ESE Si
    Posts
    2,573

    Default

    Nickel is a chemical element with symbol Ni and atomic number 28. It is commonly used in coins, and its practical use dates back to 3500 BCE.
    Do what your younger self never thought she could do.
    Be who she always dreamed of being.
    Darling, make that little girl proud
    .

    2w3 // 6w7 // 9w1
    Likes Yamato Nadeshiko, VagrantFarce liked this post

  7. #697
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ni
    Posts
    13,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    I mean to say emblematic, or archetypal, or mystical. In my mind, Totems serve to actualize and express what cannot be immediately apprehended without looking inward.
    All right, let's get really real here. Can you think of any person you know (even yourself) or famous celebrity who is totemic and can you say in what way this person is totemic?
    "There seems to be a deep instinct in human beings to make compulsory that which isn't forbidden."

  8. #698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    All right, let's get really real here. Can you think of any person you know (even yourself) or famous celebrity who is totemic and can you say in what way this person is totemic?
    I would describe praying to Mecca as totemic behaviour. You imbue something with subjectivity, and then invoke it.

    Perhaps "shamanistic" is a better word?
    Hello

  9. #699
    Vulnerability Eilonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sp/so
    Posts
    6,219

    Default

    I am constantly comparing concepts/contexts/experiences against the info that's built up over time in my head, then using that comparison to come up with new future possibilities/plans/solutions. I see my Si-dom sister doing the same thing but with different data/criteria. Her plans/visions/possibilities can be just as unrealistic as mine, but in a different, more concrete area of data.

    To use the salad and bowl idea, I might see a bowl of fruit and compare it to the bowl of salad that I've stored in the framework in my head, see that they have a bowl in common, and wonder what other commonalities I can find between the contents, and then look for novel ways that those commonalities might be used or related or have meaning. My perception of the bowl of fruit is not so much about the bowl of fruit, but about the concept of a bowl of fruit and how it might relate to concepts already in my head.

    So, to me, Ni is about storing concepts of observations that then get triggered and connected by a sensory stimulus of some sort. To my thinking, the process of Ni is similar to Si, but it focuses on a different set of data. In my mind it might be easier to understand Si because it deals with more concrete looking concepts, then what's learned can be applied to understanding Ni. And that in itself, to my thinking, is an example of Ni at work.
    Johari / Nohari

    “That we are capable only of being what we are remains our unforgivable sin.” ― Gene Wolfe

    reminder to self: "That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest." "Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga
    Likes labyrinthine liked this post

  10. #700
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    Even after putting this together, it still seemed something was missing in fully understanding; we weren't really getting to the bottom of what the function IS, and only focusing on what it DOES.
    What the function is? The function is a "type", and it's part of a "typology". There is no "is", if that makes sense. Also, there is no "does". The function is a description of a classification.

    Some aspects of that classification are extremely abstract and can only be observed/experienced, and not explained precisely with words. Trying to say what "Ni is" is like trying to describe "what sugar tastes like".

    And don't go and say, "That's completely Si!" or whatever. It's an ANALOGY, a metaphorical description. You're supposed to use it to help you figure out what I'm getting at, you aren't supposed to use the analogy as a concrete example to reason from as if it were some sort of statement of fact that can be proved or disproved.

    For example:
    The example of predicting a killer killing again is really Si. It's a tangible real world experience (S) that has been taken inside (i) as a fact and compared with others from memory (and Si/Ne "Inquiring Awareness" is what tends to compare data, where SeNi "Realizing Awareness" takes it more directly), and from there, guessing what might or might be able to happen.
    That was an ANALOGY. I'm putting things DELIBERATELY in VERY SIMPLE TERMS so you can then build the abstract ideas from it.

    By "what things do", you're probably thinking of the unconscious "bowl", again, but as stated above, it's presented in a way that makes it sound too "rational" and conscious.
    That's because you're taking my description way too literally.

    I am not saying, "Ni thinks ONLY in terms of what things do." I'm not saying that Si NEVER thinks in terms of what things do.

    I am saying that the framework that Ni tends to build tends to be mostly in terms of what things do, of their roles, etc. Of their "functionality". The Si framework instead tends to be built on what things "are". The distinction is subtle. Si thinks of "serial killer" (a concrete label) and reasons from there. Ni thinks of "tends to kill people often" (an abstract function) and reasons from there.

    Yes, I know it all sounds "concrete". That's because it's a very simple example, and we tend to conflate "concrete" with "simple". Si types are quite capable of using complicated and abstract reasoning. Ni types aren't "better" at abstract reasoning overall, so much as they're very good at particular aspects of it. (Ne types are good at other aspects of it.)

    Ni types (and Ne types) are good at taking an abstract point and using it to figure out other abstract points, without having to translate the abstractions into concrete ideas. When we're asking to explain our reasoning, it can be deceptive, because then we're forced to translate each abstract idea into something concrete: the reasoning isn't concrete, but the explanations tend to be. That's why it's kind of freeing when you can just handwave and describe the abstraction without being concrete to another intuitive type: they get it without having to laboriously translate the abstract to the concrete.

    Si types, conversely, are great at reasoning from concrete idea to concrete idea. They can reason in ways that we'd describe as "abstract", too, but they tend to need to start from something concrete, and then launch into the abstraction. The hops from abstract idea to abstract idea are much more unfamiliar to them and tend to be a blind spot in their reasoning.

    A simple example that I've encountered in real life: some students are VERY good at math, and can get 100% on a calculus exam, and be experts in manipulating trigonometric functions - far better than I ever have been. Trigonometry and calculus are weird parts of math that are helped very much by memorizing very specific formulas and methodologies: it isn't obvious that one expression is the same as the other, or that if you substitute things "just so", a complicated integral becomes a simple integral. BUT ...

    I can take those students who are used to using "m*g*sin(theta)" to get the force on an inclined plane, and instead of measuring the angle from the horizontal, I mark it as being measured from the vertical. And I can point out that this is not the normal angle theta, but its complement, so I'm being fair and letting them know that something is up, and not being sneaky/tricky about it. It doesn't matter. They'll still use "m*g*sin(theta)" and not "m*g*cos(theta)". Why? Because the "right answer" is "m*g*sin(theta)". That's what they've memorized. They know it's reliable and correct. They can do all this complicated and abstract math, integrating and differentiating trig functions and so on, but a simple problem that involves nothing complex, just an understanding of what sin means and what cos means, is beyond them.

    That isn't to say that they can't learn that, too, but only in the sense of it's being a variation of the original problem. I.e., they memorize the new solution as applicable to the new case. They're weak at figuring out how to figure out things from first principles if I changed yet again something else in the problem. (Same physics principles, almost the same math, slightly different set-up.)

    I also see this in an ISTJ coworker of mine, who is an excellent software developer. If it's a pattern he's followed before, everything is tic-toc-logical-beautiful. But if there is something new, or it's a new technology, he tries to apply the old patterns in the new paradigm, and wonders why he's having so much trouble. I can explain and teach to him the new patterns, and he eventually figures it out with practice, but he doesn't "just see" those patterns which are obvious to me. He sees the form and works with the form, but he doesn't see the function except as a side effect of the form. I see the function (all of those patterns that I can "just see" without having to think hard), but I don't see the forms he sees except as a side effect of the function.

    That's why I veer away from the "unconscious" part of the description of Ni. It makes it look too mysterious, in my opinion. I would say that to most Ni doms, our thinking is very conscious, where the "unconscious" and "irrational" part is that we see patterns in the world that other types don't see. Those patterns we "just see" are predominantly functional patterns, descriptions of what things do, and how they connect in an active cause-and-effect kind of way. Because we "just see" them as obvious, it is difficult to explain how we "know" them. If we were Si types, we would just say that we "remember" them, because that word exists for what Si types do. We Ni types also "remember", but we remember these patterns, such that when we see them again, we know exactly what they are and how they work.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes SearchingforPeace, Forever, Rayos liked this post

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