User Tag List

First 9171819202129 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 376

Thread: Ne/Ni Conflicts

  1. #181
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Now if I said the answer to this dilemma is love, then I'd still be being INTJ. I'd be resorting to a tertiary function to solve the problem. Which is still some instance of fitting right into the implacable system.

    Perhaps the answer is simply to agree that there are other people types.


    Inspiring/uninspiring? I just discovered the Ni version of Ti solipsism. Wooo.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  2. #182
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    While it is true that every person will always seek an impossible balance, that seeking exists because there is and must be unbalance. WE MUST NOT DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF INTROVERSION, Jim!
    Oops I accidentally a chart.



    Discuss what is more important...
    • Is it the placement of the boxes?
    • Is the description of the boxes?
    • is it the labelling of the axes?
    • or is it the commonality of each individual box?

  3. #183
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    yes... i almost want to say we build... like... sets? we collect micro-systems? and then we connect them? if you pictured a set of systems - say the enneagram, MBTI, OCEAN, and socionics, all as planes stacked like a set of plates, with "points" at certain types, then what Ne (at least, inasmuch as i understand it) does is run a string through certain points, aligning the chosen systems with one another. i pull in 7, Se, Openess, and Si (possibly a bad example) in to all align with one another and create a new "paradigm", or total alignment of sets. a vertical or diagonal plane running through the plates, if you will. it's changing content, instead of context. and while i'm doing that the Ni user is sitting over here flipping the MBTI on its head and asking if its rules still apply. but i don't really have a problem with that... i've never really been opposed to Ni itself, just to my own lack of understanding. i know something brilliant is going on in there and it frustrates me to not know what it is! and the other person's reluctance to share is like insult to ineptitude...
    I like how you're describing Ne, here, taking the visible patterns present between a lot of similar things and trying to find the common truth. In the case of Ni, I'm not flipping MBTI on its head so much as asking, for example, "Wait, what if I've misunderstood what 'Fe' really means?" The answer to the question (in my head) is a lot of different possible "really means" options for Fe. I'm not asking in terms of other non-MBTI personality systems, but rather in terms of all the ways 'Fe' is described/discussed. There's Jung's original perspective, of course, but then there's Isabel Briggs-Myers' version of it, and Lenore's and other authors', and then there are all the different way posters on this MBTI forum and others describe it, and then there are how the test results fall out, and self-declared xxFJ's describe it, and how INTJs other than myself appear to describe it, and so on and so forth. I weigh certain definitions above others, e.g., Jung's outweighs all others insomuch as other perspectives can refine/clarify what he describes without directly contradicting him. I weigh individuals' personal perspectives (in aggregate) very highly, not so much their definitions but rather how they describe how they think and their approach to life and how that relates to Fe - these serve as real-life data points anchoring Jung's more abstract vision.

    It's like defining any word, really. People use words, often not really understanding what they mean, but having heard them used a particular way, unconsciously adopt them into their own patterns of speech, and the more the words are shared, their definitions become both more precise and more muddied. More precise because the shared meaning gradually narrows, but more muddied because individual concepts of each word differ in more and more ways.

    So, when I do this with the MBTI/Jung "Fe" concept (or any function, really), I have access to all of these overlapping "meanings" that sort of all mean "Fe", but in different ways. What can happen is that someone can start discussing "Fe" with me, but my thoughts might seem "slippery" because I'm still working out which meaning they're using, and that someone might even be implying some other meanings that I've never associated with the word. I need to listen and absorb to figure out where the other person is coming from, and then I can anchor the discussion by adjusting the shared definition. This approach tends to be most difficult for those who rely on Si more than Ni, because while Si might have a list of distinct possible meanings (e.g., Lenore's version vs Jung's version), I'm often trying to discuss things in terms of a synthesized version that incorporates my understanding of Jung and Lenore and others, and even including whichever meanings that my conversational partner seems to be emphasizing. Thus the Ne/Si perspective doesn't quite see my version of synthesizing ideas and assumes I am talking about a specific, familiar Ne/Si context, and my synthesized version can seem inconsistent, if not outright wrong. Ne/Si understands synthesizing different systematic approaches into a (more true) overall system, while Ni/Se understands synthesis of many individual meanings/understandings into a (more true) personal understanding.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  4. #184
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    What lets you draw the string? Glossing over the possibility that it's a bad example, the string can be drawn because "7, Se, Openess, and Si" are all "the same" kind of thing in some way? Or because the system they make is the "the same" kind of system as the other systems--enneagram, MBTI, OCEAN, socionics--in the stack? You're making a new system or identifying how all the systems interrelate? And the interest in doing any of this is... well, novelty obviously, but novelty of conception of what?
    yes (all are "the same" kind of thing in some way); kinda (the systems being the same in a way - it's not necessary, but it does speed the process... it's easier to relate them when they are, you get a pleasing sort of symmetry); and both, to making a new system and identifying how the systems interrelate. it's a different kind of system... some can be ad-hoc, but usually the system i'm making has the endgoal of fitting everything into one giant puzzle. i have this... well, i guess it's some strange fundamental belief - that everything connects and interrelates. so, it's not even novelty that's important - i mean, it's fun, yes, but it's more like clicking one more piece into the puzzle. it's why i can easily believe einstein to be an (I)NTP, with his search for unified field theory... it's such a Ne-Ti thing. it's inherently pleasing because the more i overlap things, the more the world makes sense (holistically), and the faster i can speed through to more connections (practically). the more i align things, the faster i can problem solve, because it's like i've made a huge series of shortcuts... a set of highways through my ideas, if you will. if you have a highway, you don't need to wade through the details and take complex cross-streets...

    Which of course it isn't. I don't get anywhere without seed information from outside to start the process. But I conceive of the process as removed from the outside world so I am free to make whatever I want. Naturally I will end up making something that has some relationship to the outside world, but that stuff is applications of what I've made inside. There's a sense that the engine inside is far bigger than the products tossed out the factory front door.
    right, of course. it does feel similar with Ne, though... that the end result is synergistic. i suppose because what you end up with at each endpoint is not just a connection, but the sum total of all connections, which grows exponentially. once the highway is made, it's not destroyed. every once in a while it gets altered, but usually it's more convenient just to add another highway...

    A minor miscommunication there. I emphasized the differing wording as a flag that it seems to me there are different processes at work.
    ahh. yeah.

    anyway Ne draws parallels...
    Is that the primary activity of the function?
    yes.

    Whatever Ne does, it does it on abstractions. However concrete it may seem, the external world is viewed in terms of abstractions. And while it is the person who makes these abstractions, these abstractions are deemed to inhere in the parts of the world where they were found. Thus two things happen at the same time: these abstractions are patterned after the parts of the world where they were found and they are patterned after the particular interests and awarenesses the observer brings with her. But formal separation from the person is uppermost so if the observer wants to know more, she has to introduce her observations to the world and see what comes of that event. The observations are then refined according to the results in the part of the world where they were introduced. This increases the objectivity of the results: the results don't come just from the observer, but from the environment itself. But what are these results? What were the observations? What's the purpose of refining the observations?
    hm. i guess... okay. i think this ends up pulling in a lot of other functions. let's take the example i used of enneagram 7/ MBTI Se/ socionics Si/ OCEAN Openess. it might not be the most efficient highway to make, but that doesn't really matter. they are all elements in typing systems in english that i am familiar with: a handful of important high-level similarities that speed interrelation a lot. the parallel of 7-Se is not as good as 7-ESFP, but there are still plenty of similarities between the two elements to go on. if we were asked to connect all these things (7/Se/Si/O) in the real world for whatever reason, this is what i would do: ask myself, how do they overlap? well, take stock of what each one is, briefly, first. this step is more of a conjuring of a big-picture "image"/feeling (i think this step probably makes use of Fi/Ti and Si) of what each one is like. 7 is fast-paced, acquisitive, changing ; Se is physical, present-oriented, extraverted ; Si is also physical , about comfort and discomfort ; Openness is about curiosity, novelty, ideas. obviously there are major differences between a function with an attitude (Se) and a personality type (7), but that doesn't negate the parallels. so what kind of "thread" - one consistent idea - can i draw through all of these points? well, they're all related to external experiences. 7 needs constant external novelty; Se thrives on changing external physical conditions; Si is about harmony with the external physical world; Openess is about how welcoming you are to new external things. and suddenly, a highway from Si to 7, two things which otherwise seem fairly unrelated.

    and then we come to application/checking... the usefulness of this is bridging gaps in the external world. all "highways"/"threads" have legitimacy in the Ne-sphere, but they don't all have the same degree of applicability in the external world. for example, in school, drawing parallels was excellent for history essays. my US history professor loved essays that drew comparisons between two seemingly-unrelated historical events, because he believed the adage of "history repeats itself". so refining observations, is to take note of how often those parallels/comparisons are applicable in the real world. and the purpose, is to be able to deal with the world better. and of course what you're most likely to connect is impacted by the information coming in at you from the external world. you theoretically have everything to deal with, but what would be the point? making connections between unicorn gait patterns in the 16th century and the internal physics of a wormhole is legitimate - i can think of several off the top of my head - but fairly useless. and those are two things i really don't think about very often, despite the ENFP proclivities towards unicorns and theoretical physics.

    incidentally, speaking of socionics, i like this description (from the socionics wiki):
    Ne is responsible for understanding the essence (permanent but not obvious traits) of a thing, estimating the potential and latent capabilities for people and things [...] Ne will speculate as to why an event occurs, but sees the specific event as static and unalterable.
    Ne doesn't question that anything exists, or really even why it exists... why it occurs, yes, because that's a connection, but not why it exists. all things are possible. it just grabs its thread, sees points, and starts moving. it's really a beautiful thing, the full interconnected complexity of it. this picture is somewhat reminiscent of how i think of the Ne-sphere... everything connected and converging in a singular truth of "all is one".



    Theory tells us the abstractions were potentials. "What this could become?" The refinement is aimed at finding what it will become. If it will become something even more stupendous than it already is, interest is piqued and maintained. If eventually it is discovered that the thing, though undoubtedly awesome, is a familiar kind of awesome, interest wanes.
    well, refinement is aimed at converging all possibilities of what it can become - no radar on what it will become. no radar on likelihood of future events. Ne's future-orientation revolves entirely around the fact that it knows everything is constantly changing, and it has a read on all of the possibilities... but it does not have any sense of what is most likely to occur. maybe Si does, or invoked Ni. Ne is just ready for whatever comes, because it does not rule out anything. true though... if it's familiar, it's less interesting. been there and done that. that highway was already made, so the old experience doesn't please Ne. it doesn't add more pieces to the "all is one" puzzle. we can still enjoy something on a Se-ish or Si-ish basis of course... i'm learning, as of late, about choosing meals on the restaurant menu that i know i will enjoy, even if they are not OOH SHINY NEW. it's not inherently appealing, but it is pleasing on other levels. sometimes more so than the novelty of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    There's a time and a place for type-eugenics, I guess, but there's a problem with type-miscegenation: translation. I am for example frustrated with Ne type people's apparent inability to describe their functions in terms that I value. How is that gap bridged? By understanding what the terms are that I do value. But this is a half-bridge at best. I'll also require the other team to try doing it my way for a bit.
    sorry

    i think part of the problem is i... and probably others... don't really understand how to speak Ni... Kalach sometimes i have to read your posts several times before i understand what you're getting at... and then sometimes i get halfway through responding and realize i responded to a point you didn't make... or sometimes i don't realize at all... lol. make us a guide for speaking your language?

    oh, and so Ni does not like to speak in metaphorical terms? i use proxies like "highways" because that's the closest thing i have, instead of making up a new word, which would require an endless string of definition and nuances...

    sometimes Ni seems more difficult to understand than Ti. and that's saying a lot

  5. #185
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    If you ignore Introversion/Extraversion of functions, IJs and EPs are all the same, as are IPs and EJs. So, it's possible that it tells less about the function, and more about the person's attitude towards the world. Their energy levels, Introversion/Extraversion, and assertiveness.
    Me and my ENFJ wife are actually very similiar, but we default in opposite directions when it comes to deciding things. She defaults to fear and I default to fun. She defaults to organizing people and I default to independence.

  6. #186
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Metaphors be damned, it's analogy time.

    A person operating largely on Si will know how to touch their nose if they have done it before. A person operating largely on Se will flail everywhere, stunned and amazed at the fantabulous sensory experience that is MOVING THESE GIANT FLESH FLIPPERS WITH THE FIVE POINTY BITS AT THE END, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, IT'S SO COOL, DID YOU PUT SOMETHING IN MY DRINK, MAN IT'S SO GREAT, CAN I HAVE SOME MORE?!?!?!!!! This is what it means to be in the moment. Not yesterday, not tomorrow, right now. The existence of some stabilising device such as objective reference is the floaties of the sensory world pool and we rightly say, "objectivity, pfft."

    Or not. It might be something else.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #187
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Everyone sticks a pin in the map of reality somewhere.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  8. #188
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    ^ Si.



    (It wasn't me said that, my Ni dared me.)
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  9. #189
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Metaphors be damned, it's analogy time.

    A person operating largely on Si will know how to touch their nose if they have done it before. A person operating largely on Se will flail everywhere, stunned and amazed at the fantabulous sensory experience that is MOVING THESE GIANT FLESH FLIPPERS WITH THE FIVE POINTY BITS AT THE END, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, IT'S SO COOL, DID YOU PUT SOMETHING IN MY DRINK, MAN IT'S SO GREAT, CAN I HAVE SOME MORE?!?!?!!!! This is what it means to be in the moment. Not yesterday, not tomorrow, right now. The existence of some stabilising device such as objective reference is the floaties of the sensory world pool and we rightly say, "objectivity, pfft."

    Or not. It might be something else.
    I think both would know how to touch their nose fine, but the Si user would not wish to discuss and exchange that sensory information until their external judgement is content and the Se user would go seeking more sensory information regardless of context.

  10. #190
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    I think both would know how to touch their nose fine, but the Si user would not wish to discuss and exchange that sensory information until their external judgement is content and the Se user would go seeking more sensory information regardless of context.
    That's what I'm saying, you can't take them anywhere.

    LOOK, FLOATY FLESH FLIPPERS! CONTEXT-FREE!!

    GAH!!! I JUST WALKED INTO A TABLE, I SHOULD'VE BEEN WEARING A CUP, THAT'S TOO MUCH LIKE A CONTEXT, MAN. I'D CALL THIS PAIN, BUT I GRIN AND BEAR IT, PAIN IS JUST SENSATION ENTERING THE BODY, LIKE SLAMMING YOUR NUTS IN A TELEPHONE BOOK. WHOA, COOL IDEA, LET'S TRY, ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN!!!




    Ahem. I am unsure why objectivity should be any kind of a big deal, really. It just seems that it is.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

Similar Threads

  1. What's the difference between Ne/Ni doms and Ne/Ni auxiliaries?
    By Esoteric Wench in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-16-2012, 02:10 PM
  2. Pictorial Guide to the Ne/Ni Distinction (the pics in no particular order this time)
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 05:02 PM
  3. Se, Si, Ne, Ni ( HOBBIES)
    By liYA in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 09:15 AM
  4. Ne/Ni Jungian Cognitive Function Interaction
    By InvisibleJim in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 09-28-2010, 02:56 AM
  5. Explanation for SJs dislike of change [Si vs Ne/Ni/Se]
    By Snow Turtle in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 06:37 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