User Tag List

First 2161697071727381 Last

Results 701 to 710 of 932

  1. #701
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ni
    Posts
    13,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    I would describe praying to Mecca as totemic behaviour. You imbue something with subjectivity, and then invoke it.

    Perhaps "shamanistic" is a better word?
    I asked for an example of a real person. Are you saying that all Muslims who pray to Mecca are Ni dominant?
    "There seems to be a deep instinct in human beings to make compulsory that which isn't forbidden."

  2. #702
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    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.

    That was an ANALOGY. I'm putting things DELIBERATELY in VERY SIMPLE TERMS so you can then build the abstract ideas from it.

    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.

    ~

    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.
    I think what is happening here is simply the perspective clash that these conflicts highlightng. One who's main ego world-view is Ni, who understands what it is, but by the nature of the function can't really explain it.

    This is exactly what was pointed out in a one on one discussion years ago with another INTJ (who's very knowledgable and trustworthy with these things), even down to me often taking "analogies" too literally.

    Ni was described as inferring "what's being left out" of an existing arrangement of elements. (where Ne infers external elements in terms of a larger arrangement that gives them meaning; and you can see right here, where this can be confused with the Ni "bowl" analogy; being that the bowl could be considered a "larger arrangement that gives them meaning", which is why I find some of these analogies ambiguous).

    Ni was portrayed as dealing with "what doesn't yet have a home or a voice in a larger pattern", and thus will reach for an analogy that will give that left-out something a way of being perceived by others, and in order to flesh it out, one has to find things in the outer world that are sort of like it, to make an analogy and get it out of the head and into words.

    And significantly enough, here:
    "That's why INTPs and INTJs are often in conflict."

    Ti wants "to hammer in the stakes of a tent that offers the best shelter for others" [i.e. in my own way of framing it "This is the TRUTH (T), and since I realize it (i), then I think others would want this truth as well" ("subjective" perspective projecting onto others)], but the Ni type is "usually cutting a hole in the side of a tent to peer into the dark and make out something else that's moving on a distant landscape."

    So all of this would seem to agree with what you've just said. But the problem is, people are still not understanding these analogies (rather than clarifying them, which I and others tend to expect them to do), and the biggest part of this is likely due to the strong presence of Inquiring Awareness types (mainly the NP's, and would include SJ's) for whom Ni is a shadow function, and who thus who interpret in their own introverted perceptive perspective, which is "concrete".
    So left this way, that method of defining the function would become like a sort of "in-house" understanding among the NJ's; and you seem to disagree with how I put it, but then not everyone can understand it through those sorts of analogies like you can. (The illustrations end up pointing the wrong way, or even sounding like another function, or at least becoming ambiguous. THAT's what makes it "mysterious" to us!)

    So my strategy was to go after what exactly makes it "introverted" (or "subjective"); what's really internal about it (which is what would distinguish it from Ne; and of course focusing on what's "abstract" about it distinguishes it from Si), and so that is the "unconscious impression", as much and as long as I tried to avoid that term myself.

    (And I didn't think you were saying "Ni thinks ONLY in terms of what things do." or "Si NEVER thinks in terms of what things do." It wasn't which does what, and how much they do it; I just thought the description sounded a bit too "rational" in function).

    So what you're calling "what things are vs what things do" is basically what, to go back to Jung, is "what it is" vs "where it's heading". A bunch of alternatives I came up with is "is (actual) vs could (potential)" [i.e. as in "could do"], "experience vs story" [a "story" is a synopsis of what things do], "practice vs theory" [theory is an understanding of what things do], and Mark Bruzon's "static (items) vs motion (process)" [again, "motion"="doing"].
    So again, I just saw "what things do", and from a Ti perspective, this is a more "rational" type of description.

    (While what you described as "what's unconscious about it" covers the N ["seeing patterns others don't see]; which could hold for Ne as well, but the difference is that Ne infers them directly from the object, which can be shown to others); remember, the "i" part is called "unconscious" as well. That's what I meant by Ni being doubly "unconscious".
    So while "what things do" might technically describe it, I wouldn't say the function becomes "conscious" when preferred; what's "conscious" in a type stack [and I believe this point really needs to be taken and understood more] is the ego state (or a particular "complex") that marks the type and the function's position. Immediate physical sensation is definitely "conscious" for everyone, but when we say "Se" is "unconcious" for an SJ, NP, or an NJ who hasn't developed it yet; it's a particular ego state of awareness that either pays more attention to it or not that is being emphasized
    So this is why Ni is often portrayed as "sudden insight" that comes up in an "aha moment" fashion. I don't think it's something itself consciously reasoned out, like referencing an "understanding of how something works". Of course, all these functional perspectives are present in all data, and thus implicit, so there is always judgment that fills in a perception process, an adds that rational understanding).

    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.
    As a side point, all of this are more good examples of why Ni/Se would be termed "Realizing" and Si/Ne would be "Inquiring" (or as I put it, involve more "comparison"), to use Berens/Montoya's new terms.
    So I'll have to think more on this. Perhaps I can find the simpler alternative to "unconscious" I've been looking for from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    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.
    Anyone can compare things, but from what you're saying, you do the comparing once you've already perceived the data, in order to extenalize it (in this case, doing something with it; which fits what I mentioned above). You don't have to compare in order to do the perceiving to begin with. That's what I was trying to say. (And again, the process of comparing the bowls sounds a bit too conscious and rational, to the point that I can even identify with them in my Ne/Si perspective, but then, maybe that's another one of those analogies that shouldn't be taken too literally. Either attitude of N is about the "concept of" things, but again, Ne will be more external focused [the things themselves], while Ni, as described, is "the concept of the concept" [ i.e. "meta"]).
    Last edited by Eric B; 12-23-2015 at 08:35 AM.
    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. #703

    Default

    I have created a theory where each perception function is described using simple words and all people use all 4 perception functions.
    When i say known info i mean info that are inside your memory
    When i say unknown i mean the opposite.

    So...

    Ne:Takes unknown info from outside(exploring etc)
    Ni:creates unknown info from inside (imagination etc.)
    Se:sees outside known info (experiencing stuff, because Se users may know how an experience feels but want to live it again )
    Si:sees inside known info (retrieving from memory etc.)

    So since all people use al 4 perception functions that makes sense

  4. #704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    I asked for an example of a real person. Are you saying that all Muslims who pray to Mecca are Ni dominant?
    No. I wasn't talking about Ni-dominant personalities in the post that started this back-and-forth, I was trying to clarify the nature of Ni in general - I'm speaking abstractly. I probably wouldn't use "totemic" to describe a person anyway, it comes off differently to what I'm trying to get at.
    Hello

  5. #705
    .Dysfunction + Suffering. Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    6,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkMagician View Post
    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.
    Woah woah incorrect man. That's inferior Se fighting off Dominant Ni. To say that is generally Ni is superfluous to its general definition.
    Sun: ♈️ Moon: ♓️ Ascendant: ♒️
    obviously you're going to get nothing from reading this
    Likes MDP2525 liked this post

  6. #706
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ISFp Fi
    Posts
    760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forever View Post
    Woah woah incorrect man. That's inferior Se fighting off Dominant Ni. To say that is generally Ni is superfluous to its general definition.
    well I used "Ni" (in its ego form) because it essentially is also inferior Se, at least to me :P I am aware that it is generally an unhealthy state to be in, and I should have emphasized the fact that it was, indeed, not the strong, healthy state of Ni/Se.

  7. #707
    .Dysfunction + Suffering. Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    6,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkMagician View Post
    well I used "Ni" (in its ego form) because it essentially is also inferior Se, at least to me :P I am aware that it is generally an unhealthy state to be in, and I should have emphasized the fact that it was, indeed, not the strong, healthy state of Ni/Se.
    I see. Well not everyone sees Ni as assumed to have Se backed within it. :P I see them work with each other, not exactly the same though.
    Sun: ♈️ Moon: ♓️ Ascendant: ♒️
    obviously you're going to get nothing from reading this

  8. #708
    Vulnerability Eilonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sp/so
    Posts
    6,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    And significantly enough, here:
    "That's why INTPs and INTJs are often in conflict."

    Ti wants "to hammer in the stakes of a tent that offers the best shelter for others" [i.e. in my own way of framing it "This is the TRUTH (T), and since I realize it (i), then I think others would want this truth as well" ("subjective" perspective projecting onto others)], but the Ni type is "usually cutting a hole in the side of a tent to peer into the dark and make out something else that's moving on a distant landscape."
    Personally, I think you're leaving out an important data point when you're directly comparing INTPs and INTJs: INTPs are Ji-dom and INTJs are Pi-dom. I think if you fail to take that difference into consideration, you'll end up misinterpreting how the judging function is integrated into the whole function stack--how it's being used. I think a better comparison would be Ti-dom to Te-dom. That would eliminate the influences of Ji-dom vs Pi-dom and maybe highlight a purer difference between Ti and Te.

    This is speculation on my part. I'm a Pi-dom. I've sat here at the computer reading this forum for years now--observing, taking in what people write. Yes, sometimes I throw out judgments, and sometimes I get very attached to those judgments, but as long as I keep observing to see whether my judgement holds water in the real world, and then keep comparing and refining my inner concepts, then I might come up with something that appears to be insightful.

    Anyone can compare things, but from what you're saying, you do the comparing once you've already perceived the data, in order to extenalize it (in this case, doing something with it; which fits what I mentioned above). You don't have to compare in order to do the perceiving to begin with. That's what I was trying to say. (And again, the process of comparing the bowls sounds a bit too conscious and rational, to the point that I can even identify with them in my Ne/Si perspective, but then, maybe that's another one of those analogies that shouldn't be taken too literally. Either attitude of N is about the "concept of" things, but again, Ne will be more external focused [the things themselves], while Ni, as described, is "the concept of the concept" [ i.e. "meta"]).
    Yes, of course, anyone can compare things. We all have perceiving and judging functions in our stacks. That is too general, too big-picture. Processes are processes. Pi is Pi, Ji is Ji, etc. So, to tease out the differences, to see what Ni is, I think you can look at Si to see the same general big-picture process, which should take away some of the mystery. Then, the difference will be in the details: what data does Ni focus on? And there's the difficulty. We all have a function stack to help us deal with the world, so I can focus on the more concrete data with my inferior Se, which makes it difficult to say where the demarcation is between abstract and concrete, since we all can perceive both types of data and our perceptions are influenced by all sorts of things like culture and family, so we most likely have different levels of function development within one type.

    To address your bolded, if I'm interpreting you correctly, I think that what you're saying goes back to what I wrote about Pi-dom vs Ji-dom. I think you're seeing that difference: that Ni perceives first, and you're comparing it to your own process of Ti evaluating first, rather than seeing a difference between my Ni and your Ne. Again, speculation. Personally, I think successfully isolating and comparing an internal and external function is going to prove to be difficult without some sort of base knowledge which is missing at this point.
    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

  9. #709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    As a side point, all of this are more good examples of why Ni/Se would be termed "Realizing" and Si/Ne would be "Inquiring" (or as I put it, involve more "comparison"), to use Berens/Montoya's new terms.
    So I'll have to think more on this. Perhaps I can find the simpler alternative to "unconscious" I've been looking for from it.
    Read the Graham Wallas model. Perhaps some of it can be braided into your understanding.

    https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/0...wallas-stages/

  10. #710
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eilonwy View Post
    Personally, I think you're leaving out an important data point when you're directly comparing INTPs and INTJs: INTPs are Ji-dom and INTJs are Pi-dom. I think if you fail to take that difference into consideration, you'll end up misinterpreting how the judging function is integrated into the whole function stack--how it's being used. I think a better comparison would be Ti-dom to Te-dom. That would eliminate the influences of Ji-dom vs Pi-dom and maybe highlight a purer difference between Ti and Te.

    This is speculation on my part. I'm a Pi-dom. I've sat here at the computer reading this forum for years now--observing, taking in what people write. Yes, sometimes I throw out judgments, and sometimes I get very attached to those judgments, but as long as I keep observing to see whether my judgement holds water in the real world, and then keep comparing and refining my inner concepts, then I might come up with something that appears to be insightful.


    To address your bolded, if I'm interpreting you correctly, I think that what you're saying goes back to what I wrote about Pi-dom vs Ji-dom. I think you're seeing that difference: that Ni perceives first, and you're comparing it to your own process of Ti evaluating first, rather than seeing a difference between my Ni and your Ne. Again, speculation. Personally, I think successfully isolating and comparing an internal and external function is going to prove to be difficult without some sort of base knowledge which is missing at this point.
    The INTP vs INTJ example was given to me by someone (an INTJ, in fact), and I threw it in because it was an INTJ who was questioning what I was saying.

    So it was a general description of how Ni works vs how Ti works, and yes, the understanding was that both in that case are the ego's main perspective. "hammer in the stakes" conveys a rational assessment (judging) of the situation, while the Ni exmple of "cutting a hole in the side" is to try to gather more information. In fact, what you're doing, is exactly what the person was describing to me regarding Ni: "looking for what's been left out".

    But I don't see any real dispute; I was just covering one aspect of a Ti vs Ni difference.

    Yes, of course, anyone can compare things. We all have perceiving and judging functions in our stacks. That is too general, too big-picture. Processes are processes. Pi is Pi, Ji is Ji, etc. So, to tease out the differences, to see what Ni is, I think you can look at Si to see the same general big-picture process, which should take away some of the mystery. Then, the difference will be in the details: what data does Ni focus on? And there's the difficulty. We all have a function stack to help us deal with the world, so I can focus on the more concrete data with my inferior Se, which makes it difficult to say where the demarcation is between abstract and concrete, since we all can perceive both types of data and our perceptions are influenced by all sorts of things like culture and family, so we most likely have different levels of function development within one type.
    When I talk about "anyone can do", I'm not talking necessarily about the functions in "the stack". When we see immediate concret data (associated with "Se"), you do not have to necesarily access the "inferior" (And for me, it would be the "7th" function, which is the shadow of the tertiary). To remember something; I don't have to "use" the tertiary (and for you, it would be the shadow of the inferior). That's why I say the "stack" is about the "ego-states" that focus on the respective data for each type.

    But outside the ego states, we can all either take data directly, or compare things. So when I speak of "comparing" or not, typologically (i.e. Inquiring vs Realizing); I'm referring to the ego states, and in saying "anyone can do it", was only clarifying that yes, it may "sound" too general, but has to be taken in the context of the differentiated type stack (via the ego states).

    So Se obviously takes emergent concrete data as is.
    Ni takes directly from impressions from the unconscious, like the sense that something's been "left out".
    Si compares it to what has been taken in before.
    Ne compares external objects (patterns, etc.) according to a "big picture".

    That was all I was pointing out.
    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 Eilonwy, windoverlake 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