User Tag List

First 16242526272836 Last

Results 251 to 260 of 376

Thread: Ne/Ni Conflicts

  1. #251
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    I can't believe how much people have ripped such a simple concept and completely messed it up.

    Intuition = forming patterns of thought : 01110101100111 <--- random string, intuitive sees pattern.

    Is irrational, in the above example the pattern seems to be 001100110011 of some order, but this can just be chance and probability.

    In the Jungian sense this applies to ideas as much as patterns.

    There is no reason why the intuitive cognitive process likes what it likes, much like the sensing cognitive process.

    Introverted mode = doesn't share it openly without a sense check of the environment, makes own choices about what is the preferred intuitions.
    Extroverted mode = shares openly with the environment, allows the environment to make choices about the preferred type of intuitions to carry forward.


  2. #252
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    "Context shift" was a poor choice, due to lack of better wording I thought it would be best to use the quotation marks.
    Ni is fairly hard to wrap round your head if you don't use it much.
    I once read in a book, about how perfect objects were made in heaven, and it's that "memory" that's carried in people's head, when they create those objects in our "reality". I've put it fairly crudely, but is that in the ball park region of Ni?
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #253
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Another way of stating the difference:

    Ni concerns itself about essence. What is the true nature of something? it asks. Once it answers that question (and K is right, the answer doesn't necessarily need to have to do with anything objective), it's finished its role. So when U's talking about "working models," he's using a determination of the essential relationships between things, and applying them to the situation at hand (Te at work). There's no need to prove the relationship, because it simply is - the proving is with the new data, and the determination is whether the model is the correct one for the situation (because the model is correct, just not here). Conflicts may arise because Ni tolerates questioning of the details, even welcoming it, but absolutely does not tolerate questioning of the model/archetype itself. You can see this on the board; examples include Peguy relishing debate over whether a person has acted in a dogmatically consistent fashion, but never about the validity of the dogma itself, or the tendency of many of those with Ni to dismiss potential models of the function that do not coincide with their own personal understanding of it.

    Ne concerns itself about status. Why is something the way it is right now? it asks. Once it answers this question, the job is not finished, because that answer raises further questions to be addressed. This is why Ne can be seen as flightiness or hyperactivity - it's just constantly moving, based on the incoming data. However, it's constantly seeking unity, depending on a person's judgmental preference. This unification becomes the archetypes or working models of the future. That being said, the models are not static, and always subject to refinement with new data. Ne chafes against dogma, of any form. Likewise, Ne loves when new information changes the person's model of a situation, but cannot stand when someone criticizes an already-existing model based on accusations of misperception or misjudgment. Examples include the Fe/Fi "selfishness wars", and how semantic differences can spell the difference between pleasant discussion and all-out war.

    Of course, these are linked with their sensory counterparts - Se quickly takes in all the detail necessary for Ni to function as precisely as possible, while the "hunches" that guide so much of Ne's path are manifestations of Si.

  4. #254
    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 CrystalViolet View Post
    "Context shift" was a poor choice, due to lack of better wording I thought it would be best to use the quotation marks.
    Ni is fairly hard to wrap round your head if you don't use it much.
    I disagree. It may not be all of it, but it represents a significant portion of it. In my opinion, the most accurate way to explain Ni is to understand what "introversion", "intuition" and an "introvert-ed intuition" means in its most Jungian description. The general counterpart of "context" is perspective. A synonym of "shift" is intuition. What is an intuitive perspective?

  5. #255
    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
    how do you tell the difference between metaphors and reality?

    I pose this question to Ne people.
    all is one. there is no real difference

    anyway, so Ne utilizes parallels as ways of understanding the world, as shortcuts, right? the more parallels we make, the more quickly we can get to the (Fi or Ti) essence of things, and the more quickly we can unify them. so, the more metaphors we can use, the better we can pinpoint something. think of it like a venn diagram, perhaps, with reality in the center... i'm using another metaphor again, aren't i? it's second nature...



    the one thing is, i'm not really sure what you mean by reality. do you mean personal reality? for an ENFP, that would be mediated by Fi. empirical reality, Te. and Si looks at the same information as Ne, but in a different way. i feel like what Ne sees is simply what is conceivable, and so that is its reality. i've heard the Perceiving functions roughly aligned with grammatical tenses: Ni, future/conditional, what will probably come to be / what will come to be if certain conditions are met; Si, past, what has come to be ; Se, present, what is currently being ; and Ne, subjunctive, what could come to be. i don't know that any of them have a particular read on separating reality from fiction beyond their "filtering by time", though.

    let's use a very difficult example. i say:

    love is...

    ...a winding path
    ...what i have felt when i was with my ex
    ...what i feel when i am with my SO
    ...the sun and the moon and the sky (yes, that's sappy and gross)
    ...attachment
    ...the purpose of life
    ...the contents of my heart
    ...a biochemical process
    ...not a victory march (it's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah)

    which ones are metaphor? which, reality? some are quite obvious; others, very different to tell apart. Ne functions in the could-be sphere. but... everything could be. so unfortunately, i think we have to use another function here.

    tell me, Ni users, what is love?
    Last edited by skylights; 02-08-2011 at 04:27 PM.

  6. #256
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Another way of stating the difference:

    Ni concerns itself about essence. What is the true nature of something? it asks. Once it answers that question (and K is right, the answer doesn't necessarily need to have to do with anything objective), it's finished its role. So when U's talking about "working models," he's using a determination of the essential relationships between things, and applying them to the situation at hand (Te at work). There's no need to prove the relationship, because it simply is - the proving is with the new data, and the determination is whether the model is the correct one for the situation (because the model is correct, just not here). Conflicts may arise because Ni tolerates questioning of the details, even welcoming it, but absolutely does not tolerate questioning of the model/archetype itself. You can see this on the board; examples include Peguy relishing debate over whether a person has acted in a dogmatically consistent fashion, but never about the validity of the dogma itself, or the tendency of many of those with Ni to dismiss potential models of the function that do not coincide with their own personal understanding of it.

    Ne concerns itself about status. Why is something the way it is right now? it asks. Once it answers this question, the job is not finished, because that answer raises further questions to be addressed. This is why Ne can be seen as flightiness or hyperactivity - it's just constantly moving, based on the incoming data. However, it's constantly seeking unity, depending on a person's judgmental preference. This unification becomes the archetypes or working models of the future. That being said, the models are not static, and always subject to refinement with new data. Ne chafes against dogma, of any form. Likewise, Ne loves when new information changes the person's model of a situation, but cannot stand when someone criticizes an already-existing model based on accusations of misperception or misjudgment. Examples include the Fe/Fi "selfishness wars", and how semantic differences can spell the difference between pleasant discussion and all-out war.

    Of course, these are linked with their sensory counterparts - Se quickly takes in all the detail necessary for Ni to function as precisely as possible, while the "hunches" that guide so much of Ne's path are manifestations of Si.
    about 50% false/very poorly demonstrated and archetypes still has nothing to do with functions.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  7. #257
    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
    Ne, subjunctive, what could come to be.
    Ni is also kinda about that.

    our personality psychology lecturer described N in general(in short) by "where did it come from and where is it going".

    imo the difference is that Ni is working on internalized information(Te in INTJs case), so it already has something to work on and thus allows it to look more at where is it going and combining this Te information to understand its big picture, kinda like trying to pick up connections between Te facts to see what the big picture could be. then the understanding of the connections suddenly crystallizes on the Ni users mind and he just gets it, and might not be very aware of the other possibilities that the Ni checked out since Ni is working through unconscious.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  8. #258
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    about 50% false/very poorly demonstrated and archetypes still has nothing to do with functions.
    Maybe not as you understand them, but who's to say that you're right, and I'm wrong? We're not talking about anything that's empirically provable. So, instead of dismissing outright, maybe it would do you well to think about what I'm saying, and if you still disagree, explain the exact points of divergence. You know, actually have a conversation about the subject.

  9. #259
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Maybe not as you understand them, but who's to say that you're right, and I'm wrong? We're not talking about anything that's empirically provable. So, instead of dismissing outright, maybe it would do you well to think about what I'm saying, and if you still disagree, explain the exact points of divergence. You know, actually have a conversation about the subject.
    you should mention that you are talking about some typology that you made up, if thats the case..
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #260
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    you should mention that you are talking about some typology that you made up, if thats the case..
    Only if you do the same.

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