User Tag List

First 17252627282937 Last

Results 261 to 270 of 376

Thread: Ne/Ni Conflicts

  1. #261
    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
    Only if you do the same.
    deal. edit your post now?
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  2. #262
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Don't know if anyone enjoys or has enjoyed the Star Trek, NextGen series but the episode entitled "Darmok" reminded me of Ne and its metaphorical manner of communication.

  3. #263
    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
    deal. edit your post now?
    Why would I have any reason to believe you'd do likewise?

    Besides, last time I checked, your opinion wasn't anywhere near authoritative.

  4. #264
    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
    Why would I have any reason to believe you'd do likewise?

    Besides, last time I checked, your opinion wasn't anywhere near authoritative.
    the difference with what you said and what i said, is that you speculate what the functions might do and im speculating why the function works the way its told to work.

    if you start making up what the function does, you are creating new typology. if you are trying to figure out why the existing functions work as they do, you are just trying to figure out the existing typology.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #265
    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
    the difference with what you said and what i said, is that you speculate what the functions might do and im speculating why the function works the way its told to work.

    if you start making up what the function does, you are creating new typology. if you are trying to figure out why the existing functions work as they do, you are just trying to figure out the existing typology.
    There's no real distinction between those categorizations. I could spit straight Jung all I wanted to, but the information is already there. If that's insufficient to understand how all of this works, then ruminating over the existing material will only get you so far. If I'm speculating on anything, it's what Jung, et al. meant in a way that makes sense to me. Since we don't think in the same way, it may not make sense to you. However, it could very well make sense to others.

    Either way, there's no means of proving either of our assertions. It's just all interpretation at this point.

  6. #266
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    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.
    I'm sorry, but I view these descriptions as cognitive interaction of Ni-(with) or Ne-(with) more than distinct Ni and Ne descriptions.

  7. #267
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    I'm sorry, but I view these descriptions as cognitive interaction of Ni-(with) or Ne-(with) more than distinct Ni and Ne descriptions.
    You can't separate the two categories. The brain operates cognitively in a holistic fashion. Everything's going at the same time, with different levels of prioritization.

  8. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You can't separate the two categories. The brain operates cognitively in a holistic fashion. Everything's going at the same time, with different levels of prioritization.
    Then you can never know if perception is intuitive or sensory.

    I'm not saying it doesn't create issues with peoples general understanding of cognitive processes. But I disagree with your statement.

    There are clear demarcated N/S/T/F 'specific' cognitive functions regardless of attitude. Yes we use them as pairs with a Jx-Px, but my difficulty is you are attesting that cannot demark N from S, and as a consequence T from F.

    I recommend Psychological Types as a convenient benchmark.

  9. #269
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    Then you can never know if perception is intuitive or sensory.
    Bingo. My hunch is that intuition, subjectively, feels the same as sensation. That's why it's so unnerving to realize that you see things very differently than most people. How many times have you said to yourself "but isn't that obvious?" It's only through comparison to the results of other people's perception that a distinction could even be made in the first place.

    I'm not saying it doesn't create issues with peoples general understanding of cognitive processes. But I disagree with your statement.

    There are clear demarcated N/S/T/F 'specific' cognitive functions regardless of attitude. Yes we use them as pairs with a Jx-Px, but my difficulty is you are attesting that cannot demark N from S, and as a consequence T from F.
    Yes, you get what I'm saying. Functions are only means of satisfying needs. They are not individual entities, and Jung never intended them to be thought of as such. The psychological and physiological needs are the independent entities, and the functions are merely the proposed ways the brain prefers to deal with them.

    So, for example, you feel the sensation of hunger. Your brain manifests the psychological need for food. These steps happen independently of functional operation. At this point, there is a problem that needs solving. That's the point where your functions kick in. Once you've eaten, the functions go back into the cognitive toolbox, until another need arises.

    The implication is that the functions only describe a facet of your personality, though the facet it describes is a preeminent one. MBTI developed so employers could determine how potential employees would solve workplace problems, after all. There is so much more that goes into one's personality - life experience, culture, developmental factors, access to information - that to categorize and rationalize personality types with any appreciable accuracy would ultimately lead to a system of such discrete categorizations as to render the system useless.

    What this ends up meaning is that all Jungian functions are available to anyone. However, to use them effectively, you must wield them with skill. If it doesn't come naturally to you, you'll need the help of someone with that ability in order to help you become more comfortable and proficient with its use, and will let you fail without judgment as you learn.

    So that clear delineation of functions? It's not particularly clear at all. It's just a helpful guidepost that gives you a frame of reference when trying to figure out what exactly it is that's going on inside of your head.

  10. #270
    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
    Bingo. My hunch is that intuition, subjectively, feels the same as sensation. That's why it's so unnerving to realize that you see things very differently than most people. How many times have you said to yourself "but isn't that obvious?" It's only through comparison to the results of other people's perception that a distinction could even be made in the first place.
    yes

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Yes, you get what I'm saying. Functions are only means of satisfying needs. They are not individual entities, and Jung never intended them to be thought of as such. The psychological and physiological needs are the independent entities, and the functions are merely the proposed ways the brain prefers to deal with them.

    So, for example, you feel the sensation of hunger. Your brain manifests the psychological need for food. These steps happen independently of functional operation. At this point, there is a problem that needs solving. That's the point where your functions kick in. Once you've eaten, the functions go back into the cognitive toolbox, until another need arises.

    The implication is that the functions only describe a facet of your personality, though the facet it describes is a preeminent one. MBTI developed so employers could determine how potential employees would solve workplace problems, after all. There is so much more that goes into one's personality - life experience, culture, developmental factors, access to information - that to categorize and rationalize personality types with any appreciable accuracy would ultimately lead to a system of such discrete categorizations as to render the system useless.

    What this ends up meaning is that all Jungian functions are available to anyone. However, to use them effectively, you must wield them with skill. If it doesn't come naturally to you, you'll need the help of someone with that ability in order to help you become more comfortable and proficient with its use, and will let you fail without judgment as you learn.

    So that clear delineation of functions? It's not particularly clear at all. It's just a helpful guidepost that gives you a frame of reference when trying to figure out what exactly it is that's going on inside of your head.
    yes to some, but still generally
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

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