Ne/Ni Conflicts

[ReflecTcelfeR]

it's like Se but abstract. But what is this abstraction? What do they see?

This is how I've come to believe it works. When a cognitive function test is taken most Ne dominants have what some would deem a reasonable amount of Se to back it up, which to me shows the need to be in the moment to actually attain information, of course everyone does this, but in order for an abstraction, which I think may mean summary more than actually "not concrete", to be correct we have to have solidified information to work from, as it would seem I think Ni- doms might look towards the past more than they would on the present in order to come up with a personalized vision. The abstraction itself I have considered it a theory, or an assumption that must be proven true. It's forming the future without knowing what will happen. An abstraction is taking the present moment and predicting and guessing all the possibilities that could occur, wherein our judging functions take hold and decide which we want to happen (Te), or what will happen (Ti).

 

[Kalach]

There's no particular reason for Ni by itself to be about the future. It's an abstraction engine that feeds on itself creating conceptualisations. Conceptualisations however can be applied to know what something means or is.

Consider now Se. If we take it as read that extroverted sensation is all about sensory awareness in the moment with particular focus on previously unfamiliar sensation and aspects of sensation, then it's a feature of the Ni/Se person's approach to the outside world that new and different things not only will happen but will be sought out and attended to. It would surely seem then that the reflective inner world part of the person is necessarily primed to think in a certain direction.

But what if Se is more conscious than Ni. The person is focused on novelty and seeks out new experiences more or less continually, and their reflective inner perception world is (dominated by some other judgment function but also) mostly playing catch-up. So do SPs spend much time asking "What was the meaning of that?" I'm going to say no. I'm going to say that Ni in an SP is not about past things, because they can't be changed, but about the implication of past things understood timelessly as an abstraction, because that can be used in the moment to alter and understand new choices and movements. The Ni itself isn't about the future, but it isn't making any investigations into the past per se either. It's all still directed at now and later, in an Se environment.

What then of Ne? (And here I begin to make even more things up.)

Extroverted intuition is also about conceptualising. And the personal conceptual environment in which Ne is found makes Ne be about what's happening now.

Introverted sensing stores physical data, but--crucially--it also synthesizes physical data. It makes perfect representations. From this, that, and the other actual experience, it creates the essential experience. And introverted sensing's source may the past, but its content is the present. These synthetic physical representations, being an introverted world, determine, for the person, reality. And this is the conceptual environment in which Ne works. There is the changing outer world and there is the determinate inner real world. Ne charts the implications for the reality of "events", "ideas" and "people" as variations in outer movements occur.

 

[INTP]

 

[InvisibleJim]

We should remember that what we are doing here is actually spotting 4 types of conflicts

Ni-Te vs Ne-Fi
Ni-Fe vs Ne-Ti
Ni-Te vs Ne-Ti
Ni-Fe vs Ne-Fi

There isn't really much reason for N to be conflicting, it's more how it's supported that gives the flavour.

 

[Eric B]

It's not about Se "backing up" the ENP's Ne. (or Si "backing up" Ni). Perception starts with the same data; it's what is done with it that determines S or N. Either take it for what it is, or to abstract meaning from it.

So just as you can experience a current event, just for what it is, which is Se, or abstract a new meaning from it, which would be Ne; you can also look back at a memory of an event, just for what it was, which is Si, or abstract significance from it in the form of things such as archetypal templates (models of people, things and situations) , which would be Ni.

Pe is not really about "agreeing" on anything. That's judgment you're thinking of. (Te is agreed upon logic and Fe is agreed upon values). External perception is more about the objects themselves.

While Ne started from an external focal point, and then branched out multiple possibilities from it, Ni has been described as the opposite; starting out with multiple objects, and then converging the possibilities to one [internal, known only to you] focal point, which would be a likely [future] outcome.

Hence, the orientation of iNtuition can be determined by where this focal point lies.

 

[sculpting]

This is how I've come to believe it works. When a cognitive function test is taken most Ne dominants have what some would deem a reasonable amount of Se to back it up, which to me shows the need to be in the moment to actually attain information, of course everyone does this, but in order for an abstraction, which I think may mean summary more than actually "not concrete", to be correct we have to have solidified information to work from, as it would seem I think Ni- doms might look towards the past more than they would on the present in order to come up with a personalized vision. The abstraction itself I have considered it a theory, or an assumption that must be proven true. It's forming the future without knowing what will happen. An abstraction is taking the present moment and predicting and guessing all the possibilities that could occur, wherein our judging functions take hold and decide which we want to happen (Te), or what will happen (Ti).

I note that ENTPs will more often note feeling a strong sense of Se-just a general trend. ENFPs will note occasions of intense Se, typically dancing or some other very physical activity, but I wouldnt say we tend to score high on Se in general.

 

[onemoretime]

This all becomes more clear when viewed in the light of how the functions solve problems.

 

[sculpting]

Extroverted intuition is also about conceptualising. And the personal conceptual environment in which Ne is found makes Ne be about what's happening now.

There is not really now-there is the past and the future. "Now" is simply a staging area for the future based upon the past.

Introverted sensing stores physical data, but--crucially--it also synthesizes physical data. It makes perfect representations. From this, that, and the other actual experience, it creates the essential experience. And introverted sensing's source may the past, but its content is the present. These synthetic physical representations, being an introverted world, determine, for the person, reality.

Thus FiSi is kinesthetic? Sounds familiar. The synthetic physical representations can be recalled from the past and projected into the future. They are a library continually being updated, remolded, remodeled, recalled and reloaded into memory as needed. But this has been discussed many times in the past.

And this is the conceptual environment in which Ne works. There is the changing outer world and there is the determinate inner real world. Ne charts the implications for the reality of "events", "ideas" and "people" as variations in outer movements occur.

And in doing so achieves consistency Ni misses. Values and logic are internally determined and are internally consistent. Thus Ne does not need specific contexts or specific details to identify likely solutions. The weakness is that the internal consistency must be cross checked against that of others via externalization-debate for NeTi or sharing of values/emotions for NeFi and be remolded accordingly. The funny part is that the Ji function can appear to focused upon the self...but it is really more that the self is a map-thus we are actually removed somewhat from the past-present-future-we are just an obserever or a cog, but the map is much greater than we are.

Ni is internally inconsistent. Fragmented partial answers to many many things, many circumstances, but no consistent generalized answer from situation to situation. All you guys can hold onto is the present? All you have is yourself, which strikes me a bit lonely as everything is about one Ni user's particular Se problem....but it doesnt seem to flow into anything more holistic, more connected. Even if the solution does become taken up by those around an Ni user, the Ni user will still eventually be forgotten..not a big deal to an Ne user as we were just observers/extenders/builders of a map, but sounds kinda lonely for an Ni user.

 

[Kalach]

And now to the key, the nature of the conceptualisation itself. One extracts something from the physical root--or does one? Does the physical govern or merely prompt? If conceptualisation is an activity, it is what activity? What are these conceptualisations?

The disconnection of one property from another. To count as sense data, the data remains connected. All physical details connected remain connected together as one representation. To be sense data, they're inseparable. But to become conceptual, some of the sense data in the representation must be decoupled. Perhaps all of it must. The colour of a shoes becomes an instance of color in general by being allowed to float free, decoupled from the shoe as the originator of the image.

But colour is an easy exemplar for this process, if indeed a process it is. What truly is it to find the beginning of a concept in an event, a person or a thing?

Do different people do it differently?



And the horses you all rode in on. *single tear*

 

[Thisica]

I have a friend who I believe is an intj. He might be istj, but intj seems more likely.

He doesn't drink. He says he never will. He doesn't have any moral objection to drinking he just thinks that he doesn't need or want it. According to him the cons of drinking outweigh the pros. To me this is borderline crazy. How can he be so sure that drinking "isn't for him" if he's never tried it? I can understand not wanting to try it if he thought it would harm him but he admits that drinking one night in his life would have virtually no effect on it. He thinks he already knows what alcohol would do to him because he's been around people who are under the influence. To make a decision like that based on what I think is "incomplete data" and be as committed to this decision as he is strikes me extremely myopic.

I've told him it's my goal to get him drunk at least once. He didn't seem amused.

The main reasons why I don't drink include a background in Hep B and that I know the potential consequences of doing so. Plus the resistance to peer-pressure.

 

[Thisica]

So he kept pulling the ol' Ni double-shifting with you instead of replacing, adding or removing components to create a new perspective.

It's the classic switcharoo, where we secretly, in our heads, alter the meanings of words [and hence the entire framework of the discussion] other people use, and then use that modified definition on them--without them noticing until it's too late!

 

[Thisica]

Example: NTPs have ruined philosophy.

The western conceptual analysis version of philosophy is so dominated by NTP style cogitating that one can actually identify large chunks of philosophical and logical tradition with cognitive functions.

Even possible worlds can be found in philosophical logic. Freaking Alvin Plantinga if not invented them, then at least popularised them. They're used for working out such esoteric philosophical problems as free will and the existence of god. And he has NTP beard,

so let's just take it for granted that possible worlds are an Ne thing, shall we? Good.

Okay. As far as I recall from undergrad philontpeee, possible worlds by themselves aren't that special. One requires some bridge between worlds. It was a semantic operator? I forget. But possible worlds make an appearance in semantics for logic anyway, and there needs to be some... what, I forget? Degree of similarity between worlds? Degree of syntactic similarity?

Bah, whatever!

Anyway, see? The objective element linking possibilities.

People like Alvin Plantinga have ruined philosophy, which is sad for such an old branch of human inquiry. For me, philosophy is not all navel-gazing, which is what these people are promoting. It's meant to help others who may need it the most, especially when they're in a crisis. It's meant to be a starting point for how we find out about the world and ourselves. It's meant to remind us of the things we take for granted, and in the process allow us to do things in new ways. [Looks like my Ni's showing here.]

 

[entropie]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_lK7_b_9XU"].[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Red Herring]

It's the classic switcharoo, where we secretly, in our heads, alter the meanings of words [and hence the entire framework of the discussion] other people use, and then use that modified definition on them--without them noticing until it's too late!

 

[entropie]

heißt das du hast den Satz von ihr kapiert ?

 

[Red Herring]

heißt das du hast den Satz von ihr kapiert ?

I've had Ni users do that to me more than once...it seems unsportsmanlike to a Ti/Ne user, but I see the advantages of having that flexibility.

 

[entropie]

musste mir mal erklären in ner ruhigen Minute; für mich war schon die Grammatik des Satzes der sichere Tod

 

[onemoretime]

People like Alvin Plantinga have ruined philosophy, which is sad for such an old branch of human inquiry. For me, philosophy is not all navel-gazing, which is what these people are promoting. It's meant to help others who may need it the most, especially when they're in a crisis. It's meant to be a starting point for how we find out about the world and ourselves. It's meant to remind us of the things we take for granted, and in the process allow us to do things in new ways. [Looks like my Ni's showing here.]

Thing is, we needed philosophy until we figured out the scientific method. At that point, we don't just have possible answers, we have testable and predictive answers. There is a reason most studies of the history of science start with philosophy, move to mathematics, start combining them with a dash of esotericism, and then begins to look familiar around the 17th Century.

All those other questions? They figured it out pretty much since humans have had consciousness - do to others as you would have them do to you. The rest of the commentary only exists for the sake of those with too little self-confidence in their assessment of this principle.

 

[Thisica]

So Ni's the con-man who sometimes helps? That's odd.

 

[Red Herring]

Well, this is what debating Ni sometimes looks like to the outsider.
It is a skill. The rest dependso how you decide to use it. You can use it to understand and create or to pull a fast one on your audience. Your choice.