User Tag List

First 2363717273747583 Last

Results 721 to 730 of 930

  1. #721
    President of the Galaxy Anaximander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    EII Fi
    Posts
    8,189

    Default

    It seems that Ni dominants often struggle with over-stimulation from their surrounding environments.
    INFP 5w4, 9w8, 3w4

    Fi > Ti > Ne > Ni > Si > Te > Se > Fe
    Likes morganelise48, her-space-holiday liked this post

  2. #722

    Default

    Some thoughts, because I like thinking about this:

    • At its base, it's pattern recognition. But because it isn't extroverted, it isn't tied to any particular time or place.
    • So what you're apprehending are just abstract patterns, without a particular home to attach themselves to. Images help to "fill in" the details, but only toward the end of clarifying the pattern itself.
    • To see something through Ni is to see it guided by invisible hands. It feels passive & fatalistic. This is where it differs from Ne, which is characteristically active, circumstantial and indeterministic.
    • Sometimes, when feeling particularly stubborn, you "just know". But convincing other people can be difficult, especially if they're equally stubborn. "Oh, you'll see. Just you wait."
    • It can make you deeply perceptive when right, and deeply deluded when wrong. The latter happens more often than anyone would likely want to admit.
    Hello

  3. #723
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    Some thoughts, because I like thinking about this:

    • At its base, it's pattern recognition. But because it isn't extroverted, it isn't tied to any particular time or place.
    • So what you're apprehending are just abstract patterns, without a particular home to attach themselves to. Images help to "fill in" the details, but only toward the end of clarifying the pattern itself.
    • To see something through Ni is to see it guided by invisible hands. It feels passive & fatalistic. This is where it differs from Ne, which is characteristically active, circumstantial and indeterministic.
    • Sometimes, when feeling particularly stubborn, you "just know". But convincing other people can be difficult, especially if they're equally stubborn. "Oh, you'll see. Just you wait."
    • It can make you deeply perceptive when right, and deeply deluded when wrong. The latter happens more often than anyone would likely want to admit.
    But once you realize it's just pattern recognition, it's a lot easier to be able to tell how likely it is that one is right or wrong.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  4. #724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    But once you realize it's just pattern recognition, it's a lot easier to be able to tell how likely it is that one is right or wrong.
    True, except sometimes, the pattern we see flies in the face of what we wish for and then we seem to lose the ability to access clear insight.
    A student said to his master: "You teach me fighting, but you talk about peace. How do you reconcile the two?" The master replied: "It is better to be a warrior in a garden than to be a gardener in a war." - unknown/Chinese

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...=61024&page=14

  5. #725
    Senior Member great_bay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    541
    Posts
    844

    Default

    Ni foresees implications. Ni pretty much tells a person what's going to happen.
    5w4,4w5,1

    The Researcher

  6. #726
    Don't mind me. Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    6,277

    Default

    What's gonna happen is that an actual registered member will post on this thread.

    Ni is patient. It is timeless.

    It's ok. I don't require payment.

    In addition: in it will be the NEXT post. That's how confident I am.

    ETA: On point.
    obviously you're going to get nothing from reading this

  7. #727
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    Some thoughts, because I like thinking about this:

    [list][*]At its base, it's pattern recognition. But because it isn't extroverted, it isn't tied to any particular time or place. [*]So what you're apprehending are just abstract patterns, without a particular home to attach themselves to. Images help to "fill in" the details, but only toward the end of clarifying the pattern itself.[*]To see something through Ni is to see it guided by invisible hands. It feels passive & fatalistic. This is where it differs from Ne, which is characteristically active, circumstantial and indeterministic.[*]Sometimes, when feeling particularly stubborn, you "just know". But convincing other people can be difficult, especially if they're equally stubborn. "Oh, you'll see. Just you wait."
    not sure about all the details here, esp the attitude brought to the experience, but i think the bolded is excellent. and i don't know if it's Ni or the whole process of projecting it into the world, which is kind of Je, where it is like a rainbow we follow to the pot of gold at the end. that sense of half-way teleological, predictive, purposive aim-ness that undergirds intentionality more generally. its like, well fuck, the pattern creates this bending worm/rabbithole that we can follow (when present!!) but otherwise simply starts to merge things (black cat matrix style for others), as if it turns space-time inside out in some strange way as to placentally weave together that extra dimension that can't really be experienced or explained directly. it's different than Ne in that it's about programming the conditions of possibility for the experience to exist, rather than actually fully exploring it. bc we are making the channel thru us, not finding the way to and thru it in the world outside of us (this might be Ne reductionistic--not sure; it seems maybe more like borrowing time against space or vice versa). there's this great word in the work of the german philosopher heidegger's work of "disclosure." just like finding and sowing the seeds of possibility, made up of the little bodies of interconnected conditionality to start a new series of sim-spaces. to engage this kind of inverted play to derive the essential functionalities by watching how the differences have emerged under relatively bounded samenesses and symmetries.

    Ne is about dancing through the games of emergence whereas Ni is about architecting/bounding useful versions of it. and like relating thru upward or downward pressure.

    It can make you deeply perceptive when right, and deeply deluded when wrong. The latter happens more often than anyone would likely want to admit.
    it's an act of cognition. it's a very small piece of reality, aimed at apprehending big pieces of it at maximum compression.
    Likes iwakar liked this post

  8. #728
    Rainy Day Woman MDP2525's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,245

    Default

    @Eric B

    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."
    I think this was one of your quotes. Not sure as I read through a lot. But if it is, I like it. It hits accurately.
    ~Live and learn from fools and from sages~




    Shameless Self-Promotion:MDP2525's Den and the Start of Motorcycle Maintenance

  9. #729
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4

    Default

    I have had the impression that Ni is essentially what many people call 'vision'. It is the instinct to make real the things you imagine.

    I am thinking that some of you will come in and say "Well that can't be true, I am not Ni dominant and I have vision": Of course you do. Everyone does. It is a part of everyones psyche. Consider that we all have Se. But for those who have Ni dominant, it is as important and as real as the objective reality Se might observe. For Ni dominant, everything they do is in service to the vision they have, the things they want to create, and all of their functions are there to serve that end for them. Nothing is more satisfying than making it happen. For Se dominant types, Ni (their vision) serves to help them create experiences they might enjoy. For Ni dominant types, Se serves their ability to precisely create that which they envision.

    Comparing and contrasting with Ne, I think Ne is more about experimentation. Whereas Ni seeks to bring a specific end that is imagined, Ne likes to imagine to what ends something specific can go, and thus experiments. Ni wants to build a castle, and Ne wants to see what happens to that castle given the conditions it would be subjected to. Phrased another way, Ni is how you arrive at a specific instance of reality, and Ne is where you can go from a specific instance of reality, thus why Ni is dominant in Judging types and Ne in Perceiving types.


    Made several edits to improve the phrases and elaborate on my thinking.
    Something - Something else
    Something or other
    Bleh

  10. #730
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    I've been reading a couple of psychology books by Jonathan Haidt (The Happiness Hypothesis and The Righteous Mind) which I find very helpful in pointing out demonstrable psychological principles and clears up a lot of confusion for those who follow the Jungian side of things.

    The interesting thing that the author notes is that modern psychologists have been treating emotion and cognition as distinct things, as a kind of dichotomy, and he determined that this is a severe category error. In other words, Jung had it right about F vs T!

    Instead, emotion is a part of cognition just as reasoning is part of cognition. But while his categorical split aligns with Jung in some ways, it doesn't align in others. On the emotional side, he also places intuition and other automatic cognitive processes: all those things where we "see that" something is true. On the opposite side, he places all controlled processes such as conscious thought, all those things where we "reason why" something is true.

    In some cases, these modes tend to align. You can give someone a moral dilemma and they both "see that" a particular resolution is true and can "reason why" that that resolution is true. But it's also possible to present dilemmas where these two different approaches yield different results. For instance, an experiment he wrote about was to ask someone to sign over their soul to the experimenter for $2. There was no mention of the Devil or anything religious like that, other than the word "soul" and giving it to the experimenter upon your death. The contract even said "This is just a psychology experiment and has no legal binding whatsoever." The experimenter said, "You can just tear up the contract after you sign it and keep the $2." The subject could even be an atheist (!) and they would usually absolutely refuse to sign over their soul. And those who refused could NOT explain why. They could "see that" they didn't want to sign over their soul, but they could not "reason why".

    Similarly, you could show people a situation which violated some moral taboo (in this case, incest), but it added every possible condition that would make it OK: they were both adults, they both consented, they kept it secret (so they wouldn't hurt their family), they used birth control (to prevent a child with birth defects), it only happened once (and thus no fear of being discovered and thereby harming others by doing it habitually), and so on. All the "reasoning why" available indicated that incest was absolutely OK, but even with all of that, people would "see that" incest is "just wrong" but couldn't explain why, and all the moral reasoning available that made sure that no one was getting hurt and there were no victims of any sort couldn't justify it to them.

    How does this relate to Ni, or functions in general? It doesn't map 100% to functions, but Ni is definitely on the "see that" side of cognitive processes. An Ni dom is "in tune" with that side and has trained oneself such that all their "see that" observations align with their "reasoning why" conscious understanding. Hence the connection to the unconscious that Jung observed about them.

    In an INTJ, that training leads to intuitions about factual things. An INTJ will look at complicated math/science/logic problems and "see that" a particular solution is correct, intuitively avoiding all sorts of logical fallacies not by using logic but by knowing what all the fallacies "look like". Te plays the "reasoning why" role, here, where intuitions are compared with empirical evidence.

    In an INFJ, that training leads to intuitions about emotional/people/social things, basically all the kinds of things that don't yield to strict logic and empirical evidence. There is much more "trusting one's gut" in an INFJ, because the Fe version of "reasoning why" doesn't provide a hard objective anchor to one's understanding: one can only see the effects that things have on people and work from there. So INFJs end up being extremely perceptive about people and certain kinds of complex systems, being able to intuitively "see that" certain solutions are true.

    For completeness, I'll mention that INFJs are perfectly capable are intuiting logical/scientific/technical things and be very adept at it. The difference is that with Fe, they tend to learn these things more heuristically than analytically, so it will tend to be easier for INTJs to gain a logical/scientific intuition than for INFJs. Conversely, INTJs can develop a very adept social intuition that rivals that of an INFJ, but their approach to developing it is much more analytical, and people are much more easily heuristically evaluated (Fe) than analytically evaluated (Te), thus the INFJ has an advantage in such matters.

    How does this map to the rest of the functions? I'm not sure, but my current guess is that the introverted functions (based on their overall tendency to be really stubborn and not lend themselves to verbalization) are part of the "see that" side of cognition in this model, while the extroverted functions are all on the "reason why" side of things. If this pattern holds, then for example it might mean that INTPs and INFPs aren't "intuitive because of Ne", but because Ti and Fi are particular kinds of intuitive/emotional approaches to cognition, and that ISFPs and ISTPs aren't "intuitive because of Ni", but because their dominant functions are introverted. It also implies that ISTJs and ISFJs rely very strongly on the intuitive "see that" approach, it's just a very "concrete" intuition as opposed to Ni's abstract intuition.

    If I were to describe the functions such that these two models combine in a self-consistent way, I'd do so as follows

    N = abstract reasoning
    T = analytical reasoning
    F = heuristic reasoning
    S = concrete reasoning

    Introversion (i) and extroversion (e) are NOT minor subsets of these, but essential overall categories, mapping directly to "see that" (i) and "reason why" (e). Or more aptly "unconscious reasoning" (i) that does not lend itself to words, and "conscious reasoning" (e) that very easily can be expressed with words.

    Again, this is just speculation and playing with ideas on my part. I'm not trying to rewrite "official typology", whatever that means these days. I'm just trying to take different perspectives that arise from different kinds of observations, and synthesize them into a meaningful whole.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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