User Tag List

First 13212223242533 Last

Results 221 to 230 of 376

Thread: Ne/Ni Conflicts

  1. #221
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    i dont really understand what you mean by shifting context. what do you mean with it?
    I don't know either. Let's pretend it never happened.

    The next question I had was more of an observation than a question, namely, it's so cool that my most conscious function is so unconscious. So...

    How much conscious production is involved in "doing" extroverted intuition? Do you make the connections happen or do they appear by themselves?
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  2. #222
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Hmmm....

    but you said Si words, "reminds me of." (and introverted perception is supposed to be shifty context-land).

    And now you're talking meanings. (Which is supposed to be mere POV-land.)



    We're gonna need a bigger testicle.


    See, now that apparently is "shifting contexts", keeping the word, moving it to Jaws-land, and using the quote to blur the line between something serious, such as expanding theoretical resources, and something less serious, such as large testicles. Which does also remind me, I wanted to know why the Si testicle is so big.
    Two things -

    First, when I say "reminds me of," it's to describe a process that's seemingly unfamiliar to many people I talk to. There's no sense of "this came to mind because it unconsciously felt connected to whatever you just said or did" that doesn't make me sound completely bonkers to other people. So I use the word "remind," because it's something most people can relate to, and even though it's not a perfect fit, it's close enough for them to get the gist of it.

    Second, anyone who's listened to AC/DC knows why big balls are important.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I should probably (*sigh*, here we go) come clean.

    I think shifting contexts is what other people see Ni do. *We* don't shift contexts. We import content. And other people get all pissy about contexts.
    They just don't tap into unconscious paradigms the same way you do. They are also baffled that these paradigms are just as ineffable to you as they are to them... it's just that you can somehow understand what they mean.

  3. #223
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I don't know either. Let's pretend it never happened.

    The next question I had was more of an observation than a question, namely, it's so cool that my most conscious function is so unconscious. So...

    How much conscious production is involved in "doing" extroverted intuition? Do you make the connections happen or do they appear by themselves?
    Ne could pretty much be viewed as unconscious seeing of Se and telling the conscious what he sees in a vague explanations about the whole thing thats going on and leaving the details off.
    connections are formed mostly in the unconscious and told to conscious. at times Ti might notice something and create new connection that didnt come purely from Ne, but its bit different, Ti induces connection is more like logical connection between the things and is formed due deduction, while Ne connection is something that you can just see in front of you. think about heavy Se user making an connection from the details, he sees some spots and follows the dots consciously, after following the dots for a while he will notice that these dots formed an square. for Ne users this following of the dots happens unconsciously, so the spots might not even come to his unconscious, but he will just see a square and might notice later that oh look the square is formed from dots. seeing the big picture that N is about, is about seeing the connections automatically and missing the details. because you see the connections and dont see the details, you see the big picture. Ti can also see connections naturally, but its more about logical connections and explanation of why those two things are connected, and that explanation comes from Ti deduction about the connection, not so much about the facts.

    For N doms, its not that you are more conscious about your N, its just that stuff formed in the unconscious comes to conscious better and most likely that the unconscious on N dom is more skilled at seeing the connections to form an big picture.

    why are you asking this?
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #224
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    I'm curious about what and where this unconscious is. I'm wondering, particularly for a description of N as a cognition function, if "unconscious" is the same as Jungian unconscious or is more just a way of saying "abstract connection". Should we say when a person makes some intuitive connection between X and Y, that they are consciously, legitimately and overtly handling concepts or are they actually not consciously doing anything other than waiting on an unconscious cue? That the intuitive connection is formally a leap, that leap must be explained as some invisible bridge made by some background process that isn't immediately accessible? Why does it have to be unconscious?

    I speculate that in cognitive terms, S connections are no less mysterious than N connections. Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting? The content of the activity is concrete, but the activity isn't. If and when brain science is sophisticated enough to map brain activity to cognitive activity and vice versa, then *maybe* the cognitive activity can be called concrete, but for now it's officially not. For now, conceptually speaking, cognitive activity is some glorified process of identifying stuff. Identifying this with that, and that with not-this, and etc. N does it in terms of "concepts". S does it in terms of... um, physics?


    Phew. Running out of steam. Spekurlatin aloud is taxing.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  5. #225
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    In my book there is no culture medium for a Ne/Ni conflict at all. And that because there are no oposing parties.

    Let's try to make a list of what parties could be involved in a Ne/Ni fight from the entp perspective:

    The contra - Ne party:

    INTJ - Smoldering rains of fire run out of his hands when challenged in Ni matters

    ENTJ - Doesnt care about things that doesnt earn him money, therefore generally does what the INTJ does then

    INTP - Has Ne but doesnt admit it, would rather be an INTJ and have Ni but doesnt feel "ready" yet

    INFJ / ISFJ - Feels as a misfit in society and thinks noone understands him, preaches morality tho in every free minute (has a similiar problem like entps: who like to fuck with everyone yet still want to be friends with everyone)

    INFP - Tho they should be a strong companion in the fight, there position remains unclear. They either dont talk with entps or dont talk with entps. I am sceptic of their motives, generally I am convinced tho they'ld run with the stronger gang that's why their place is here

    ESTJ - Despises Ne T people, Ne F people are ok (if they are woman they need to be protected). Have secret masterplans to rot out all entp's from the face of the planet and want to create a mankind ruled by female superiority

    The uninvolved party:

    ESTP - whatever you say bro, whatever you say...

    ISTP - You could see it this side or that side and forever that will be all you get from me, my strong rationality. If I'ld ever admit that I actually like you as a friend, we prolly would need to marry !

    ESFP / ISFP - *need more data* One of the last great mysteries that remain on Earth

    ESFJ / ENFJ - I like you, you are funny, but be fair !

    ENTP / ENFP - having dirty sex on the toilet of a huge party with important political guests answering the Ne/Ni debate with: huh ?

    The pro - Ne party:

    ISTJ - Forgot to take a side when it was necessary.


    ------

    So you see there is no real conflict, if you are the only assailiant .
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  6. #226
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    INTP - i think you make some really excellent conclusions and have some great insights in that post, but if you broke it up into maybe titled sections or some smaller paragraphs a little more, i think it would get read by more people

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP
    This results INTJ to be bad at explaining how he came to conclusion about something and will see the deduction process as something simple, like of course it is like this and his conscious reasoning is based on the external facts, and not so much deduction about why these facts are this together. [...]

    INTP on the other hand uses Ne, so he notices the big picture in the external world better than INTJ, but is unable to explain the external world well without explaining why something is what it is. because for INTP the external world is viewed through unconscious and when things are internalized from this unconscious realm, they come on a realm of detailed deduction, due to Ti Si.
    actually that makes a lot of sense and i think it works for the other types, too. ENFJs are kind of shitty at explaining NiTi (no offense ENFJs), and ENFPs are shitty at explaining FiSi. or at least, we rely on the Ti and Si, respectively, because they allow Fe and Ne to function, but we can't tell you why things have to be that way. it's an unconscious grounding in our inferior process.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP
    about that "Ne goes for breadth, Ni goes for depth" thing [...]
    yeah. i always feel like i go straight to the "heart" of things, but in truth i suppose what i'm doing in pulling Ne universals and going deep with Fi. god damn it, more sexual language



    but seriously, it's interesting. i see it like this:

    (((♥))) {{{♣}}} |||♥||| [[[[♦]]]]]

    Fi goes after the "hearts", and Ne sees that some of them are either the same or at least parallel, even though the external constructions are different.

    yes they're all supposed to look like vaginas

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Sorry, man. Guild rules require that if ENFP Si conservatism blocks INTJ Se gormlessness, the entire discussion must end in pouts and foot stamping.
    the same idea that INTP has gotten at! look how they are connected... [says Ne]

    you and your word games though, lol.

    it's difficult to let go of "facts" and substitute moment-to-moment observations, it feels like the bottom of my whole cognition system is falling out! it's fascinating to try thinking this way. it's actually quite hard.

    just like Fi in the morning.

    i don't understand though, if you don't have connection, what makes everything be coherent? the Ni universal patterns? or... you don't need coherence... because you're not seeking everything to be connected... and Se provides stable reality... and instead you're seeking to find the singular relationship that explains everything? errr



    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Ah, ok.

    The Si looks like a testicle. The testicle is the male reproductive organ. The need fulfilled by the Si function is security and permanence of the individual's psyche. The need fulfilled by the testicle is the reproduction and permanence of the individual's DNA. Si can only use the sensory data the individual previously acquired within the psyche to fulfill this end of security and permanence. The testicle can only use the DNA previously acquired from the individual's parents to fulfill this end of reproduction and permanence of DNA. As such, a testicle is a fitting metaphor for the Si function. The question remains, however, whether it is the optimal metaphor for the Si function.


    that's still Ne, you know though maybe you know this and are just playing, lol

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    If you did, would that be shifting contexts?
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I should probably (*sigh*, here we go) come clean.

    I think shifting contexts is what other people see Ni do. *We* don't shift contexts. We import content. And other people get all pissy about contexts.
    yeah actually, as far as i'm seeing it, it's not the context that changes at all. i mean, if oro is right with her examples, then you keep the relationships and switch the contents. it looks like context shifting on yall's part because you make so many jumps that we don't get to see. it looks like going from "the sun makes pavement hot" to "the bulb makes the light switch hot", which appears to place the same roles in a different context, but you've run through a whole lot of other substitutions to get there. and that's not even really Ni, that last statement, is it? that's the Se statement, but with the application of the invisible Ni rule.

    funny how that statement actually looks more like Ne, because it's a parallel to the first statement, even though paralleling is not not the thought process behind it. Ne can do the same thing, actually, like onemoretime did. if you run Ne around enough, you'll end up at something that appears to be a Ni substitution.

  7. #227
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I'm curious about what and where this unconscious is. I'm wondering, particularly for a description of N as a cognition function, if "unconscious" is the same as Jungian unconscious or is more just a way of saying "abstract connection". Should we say when a person makes some intuitive connection between X and Y, that they are consciously, legitimately and overtly handling concepts or are they actually not consciously doing anything other than waiting on an unconscious cue? That the intuitive connection is formally a leap, that leap must be explained as some invisible bridge made by some background process that isn't immediately accessible? Why does it have to be unconscious?

    I speculate that in cognitive terms, S connections are no less mysterious than N connections. Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting? The content of the activity is concrete, but the activity isn't. If and when brain science is sophisticated enough to map brain activity to cognitive activity and vice versa, then *maybe* the cognitive activity can be called concrete, but for now it's officially not. For now, conceptually speaking, cognitive activity is some glorified process of identifying stuff. Identifying this with that, and that with not-this, and etc. N does it in terms of "concepts". S does it in terms of... um, physics?


    Phew. Running out of steam. Spekurlatin aloud is taxing.
    I do think it is the Jungian concept of unconscious. Ni accesses deep, primeval archetypes, universal to all humans but not easily recognized by most of them, to determine the true nature of things perceived. That's why it seems mystical - the exemplary archetype is already there within the psyche, but Ni handles it holistically, and within the unconscious. It is only the result of the unconscious process that is made aware to the conscious mind.

    Ne works in an inverse fashion. Rather than discerning truth from universal human archetypes, it understands the world by actively discovering new archetypal relationships in the outside world. Ne discovers truth through insatiable curiosity and conscious recognition of the potential universality inherent in the connections it discovers. It is always theorizing (i.e. creating new archetypes), and always has to, because it does not have access to this universal store of genetic/instinctive memory.

    Both Se and Ni are about trusting one's instincts as an accurate judge of a set of data. Both Si and Ne require outside data for comparison before an accurate judgment of a set of data can be made.

  8. #228
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    I'm curious about what and where this unconscious is. I'm wondering, particularly for a description of N as a cognition function, if "unconscious" is the same as Jungian unconscious or is more just a way of saying "abstract connection". Should we say when a person makes some intuitive connection between X and Y, that they are consciously, legitimately and overtly handling concepts or are they actually not consciously doing anything other than waiting on an unconscious cue? That the intuitive connection is formally a leap, that leap must be explained as some invisible bridge made by some background process that isn't immediately accessible? Why does it have to be unconscious?

    I speculate that in cognitive terms, S connections are no less mysterious than N connections. Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting? The content of the activity is concrete, but the activity isn't. If and when brain science is sophisticated enough to map brain activity to cognitive activity and vice versa, then *maybe* the cognitive activity can be called concrete, but for now it's officially not. For now, conceptually speaking, cognitive activity is some glorified process of identifying stuff. Identifying this with that, and that with not-this, and etc. N does it in terms of "concepts". S does it in terms of... um, physics?


    Phew. Running out of steam. Spekurlatin aloud is taxing.
    im sure you will win a nobels price if you are able to give full definition for unconscious and find where it is . there are many many definition about what unconscious is and you are even able to view unconscious processes with different brain scanning techniques, but it only shows where the activity happens, not whats going on in the unconscious, so brain scanning isnt able to define what unconscious is and it pretty much seems to be same kind of brain functioning as any conscious brain functioning.

    this is what our professor said about freuds definition of different levels of consciousness in short:

    conscious - everything we are aware of at given moment
    preconscious - thoughts, feelings, memories that can be easily brought to the conscious level
    unconscious - thoughts, feelings, memories and wishes that are extremely difficult to bring awareness; may appear in disguished form in dreams

    what is the unconscious?
    - that portions of the mind inaccessible to usual, conscious thoughts

    clinical evidence for postulating the unconscious:
    - dreams
    - slips of the tongue
    - post hypnotic suggestion
    - material derived from free association
    - material derived from projective techniques
    - symbolic content of psychotic symptoms

    "consciousness is only a thin slice of the total mind"
    Jungs definition on the unconscious differ from freuds. jung saw the unconscious more as another self in you that is only able to communicate with the conscious through symbols etc. jung stated that N function is perceiving through the unconscious and since according to him the unconscious is only able to communicate with the conscious with symbolic nature, because of that what N types perceive is highly symbolic and big picture oriented.

    heres two videos worth watching if you want to understand jungs views on pretty much everything:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Novd6AXnggw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLJsiQ4h3fY

    "Isn't sensing just as cognitive an activity as intuiting?" i think you should look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  9. #229
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    INTP - i think you make some really excellent conclusions and have some great insights in that post, but if you broke it up into maybe titled sections or some smaller paragraphs a little more, i think it would get read by more people
    people who wont read it because its not in a neat form, arent worthy of reading it
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #230
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    people who wont read it because its not in a neat form, arent worthy of reading it
    I'm just looking at the philosophy here.

    Direct incentive(activity for itself) is efficient in activities that involve higher mental process. The content may be good but if you create a "higher wall", then you only encumber your audience. If you encumber you audience, you lessen the benefits of "direct incentive." Who wants to read a novel of a a million words but one meaning? "My cat is ugly."

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