Ne/Ni Conflicts

[Kalach]

This could easily be an answer to a question, your cognition isnt within the answer, so you are using "someone elses" cognition as the answer, your cognition merely linked the 2 together. Sorry, just because you regurgitate, doesnt give you the "cognitive" skills of the whole. Getting nit picky here, we introverts always have to be right you know So does your cognition think that its a valid statement without your own cognition putting "limits" on it.

My cognition inclines me, less so than ENTJs but still, to what amount to public arguments from authority. If someone said it, and the "it" in question gives the appearance of earnestness and possibly good practice, then one takes up the banner and presents the claims as "true", or at least as something to be going on with. (And the particular claim about group productivity was found somewhere in MBTI's The Manual.) Slavish devotion to the exterior world, see? What partisan theorists might call Te. Not Kickass Te, though. Regular, at best. Unleaded, maybe. Arguments from authority tending one to think perhaps there's no lead in the mental pencil.

In short, none of this testing for actual truth. No comparing to established knowledge and/or principles. No claiming of ownership, either. It's not my truth. Homey don't Ti.

My actual cognition, the cognition that'd could come close to being identified with me, part of the putative topic of this thread, would take the purportedly authoritative statement and spend some time wondering what it meant. One might refine the expression. One would definitely compare the seeming implication of the statement to what one already thinks of as his vision of the world, and see which one fits which.

In short, I haven't used other people's cognition. Have made reference to its results, perhaps, but their cognition isn't part of mine in any particularly useful sense I recognise.

Etc.

The whole thing about using other people's cognition was, as you presumably already know, a (loosely worded) poke at claims that all cognitive functions are available to all people. They're not. And that's just another way of saying there are widespread, observable differences between people that aren't random.


EDIT: addendum, and tangent, because come to think on it, I'm probably officially more inclined to arguments from authority, at least in public, by virtue of officially less conscious control over properly Te discussion. Sorry, ENTJs. Hubris.

 

[Eric B]

i've never heard that! what do you mean by that? we are so instinctively intuitive that we first use ne than ni? that makes sense kinda...but what were you saying?

Which one have you never heard? ENFP's need for uniqueness, or just the "backup" concept.

That is from Beebe and Berens. Ni is the "shadow" of Ne; meaning the suppressed opposite orientation. You prefer iNtuition as the dominant function, and the external world as the dominant orientation. Turning to the internal world for iNtutition is not the normal preference, but it can fill in the blinds spots of the external perceptions.

 

[skylights]

i see where "myopic" could come from - Ni people can get kinda... stuck running down a certain line of thought... but on the other hand, Ni people are much better at narrowing down to what possibilities are most likely.

i like working with others with strong Ni... we complement one another well. i am in my element figuring out things on the fly, and the Ni person is generally in their element figuring out the Big Plan. we work best with both as planners (my Te being useful), Ni user as executive and Ne user as troubleshooter. the Ni user aids my general flightiness and indecision, and i aid the Ni user in easing paranoia and when things do not go according to plan.

that said, i think the conflict on my end occurs when the person with Ni is set on a certain course but will/can not explain why they believe it to be the best course. it feels like the Ni user believes you should just go along with their plans without them giving you any information. but given extraverted Perceiving, i would prefer as much external information as possible. so it's very counteriNtuitive (ha ha) for a Ne dom to trust a Ni user acting in such a way. over years, i've learned to simply near-blindly trust my best friend (ENFJ) in certain situations. it's still rather uncomfortable, and i cannot and would not afford that same trust to many others.

Te/Fi vs Fe/Ti seem to generate the most misunderstanding and agitation, since they determine what kind of conclusions one believes to be reasonable.

yes

I relate Ne to space and Ni to time

myself as well.

Hmm, this is interesting. It never occurred to me that other people didn't swap different systems in and out. So you look for the perfect definition and then build your matrix of ideas from there?

err. haha swap systems. nope. i don't swap whole systems but i switch parts of systems. i actually have a rather pleasant fondness for systems - i guess it's a Te/Si thing or whatever - number sets like the 16 and 9 of the MBTI and enneagram please me. but i have this underlying belief (knowledge?) that all the systems are ultimately the same, because i have the underlying belief that the universe is fundamentally all connected, if not ultimately all one. so there's no real reason to interchange whole systems, because they're all valid, and the fun lies more in interposing them - lining them up and associating them. because essentially they all connect.

so i suppose when you say "perfect definition," i see that as a solid, clean system - like a balanced description of the MBTI. a less than perfect system - imbalanced, unequal, etc - would be annoying, because it's much harder to line up things when they are not equal. fidelia, you remember the function guides threads drama? part of the reason i was so annoyed was that the guides didn't match up evenly. information really needs to be balanced in my world - this perhaps is not true for all Ne-Fi-Te-Si users, but it seems useless to me to have a system where information is not balanced. connections, after all, are built upon parallel similarities and dissimilarities. so why even bother establishing connections amongst inequal things, when there are other systems you could build between parallel things that are much more useful? otherwise we're just throwing random ideas into piles and giving them a label. if functions are not parallel, then why even bother grouping them together?

so that's sort of how my processing works. establish "perfect" systems; line them up. learn more information and fit it to a system; lock system into place with all other systems. when i say it like that, it sounds very restricted, but it's not at all, as long as you remember that you're allowed to switch anything out for anything because εν το παν - all is one.

I can make huge Ne leaps by connecting this backbone to other topics that I have also built backbones for.

and here's where the insane jumps come from - it's exactly what oro said about leaping. once i have those systems established in my head, i can system-hop like crazy. so it's a huge network of shortcuts, essentially. unfortunately i assume that what i give up in exchange is good attention to sensory detail, but oh well. and then you use those systems to navigate in response to daily life, to solving problems... troubleshooting IRL is so much fun because all the normal rules are suddenly much more easily bypassed. it opens the doors to allow so many more possibilities. troubled situations are where i finally get to shine because i'm not bound by the practical or the likely. i think a key to Ne is that it has essentially zero sense of probability - hence Ne is excellent for circumventing rules and conventions, even though it can get extraordinarily off-topic.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5654&d=1293833255

ME TOO

I know the two processes (Ne and Si) are somewhat inseparable but it seems weird for an inferior function to be a backbone though.

eh, well. when your dom (Ne) is essentially 100% fluid and your aux (Fi) is fuzzy and your tert (Te), though stable, is only applicable externally, a Si backbone, inferior or not, makes at least a little sense.

I wonder why people keep thinking conflicts are essentially solvable. Goddamn every person everywhere believes they have some kind of answer, BUT THEIR ANSWER IS ALWAYS BASED ON THEIR OWN FOUNDATION! How can it not be? Can a person come to a conclusion based on someone else's cognitive processes?

Once again, a claim I read somewhere: groups of people of similar type will operate more happily and finish group projects faster than type dissimilar groups, but type-dissimilar groups (potentially, and perhaps in fact often) produce higher quality results.

example of a Ne solution - what's a conflict? an opposite; a diffierence; a disparity. but all conflicts are essentially solvable because, all being connected, we can (theoretically) always find a similarity to bridge the gap. (honestly, i think this is why Ne doms are so freaking crazy. i guess i can only speak for myself, but i really believe that everything is connected.)

as for the second paragraph - i find it easy to believe that. i've grown up around dissimilar types - mom's an ESFJ, dad and brother INTP. my friends tend to be EFJs. i refer to my ENFJ best friend on this site all the time because she is unquestionably the person who has pushed me to grow the most and with whom i have experienced both the most conflict and most satisfaction. as easy as it is to get along with those of our types, intertype relations seem inherently more rewarding in terms of growth.

 

[sculpting]

Good pictures. I know the two processes (Ne and Si) are somewhat inseparable but it seems weird for an inferior function to be a backbone though.

A funny thing I have heard several ENFPs say unprompted- "I cant remember details, but I can remember patterns". Also "Oh, I have seen this pattern before." I suspect we build these aggregated patterns, potentially attach some sort of emotional value to some of them, then we dont remember the specific instance we noted each pattern-but instead a much more generalized pattern set built of all the patterns occurances. So we dont use Si the way an Si dom would at all-instead we use it to reload the stored generalized patterns into memory. Si isnt memory itself-but instead a way to perceive memories? Si seeks a generalized, context independent recall of the Ne pattern? I dunno, it's weird stuff, so any thoughts would be awesome. Perhaps when I say INTJs use Se-perhaps that really means INTJs perceive stuff in their minds through the lens of Se? Even if it is something from 30 years ago...I dunno...

It seems I can have FiSi stuff-that can be very painful or very hard to change, but tends to be very blob like with big branches and little branches of rules. I can have TeSi stuff-boxes and flowcharts in my mind, I suspect the systems that skylights and I note are built upon this TeSi framework, while the FiSi stuff fills in details and gaps to fine tune our approach....It sort of suggest two different types of judgments that can be recalled in two different ways...but again, weird exploratory stuff....so any thoughts are good.

err. haha swap systems. nope. i don't swap whole systems but i switch parts of systems. i actually have a rather pleasant fondness for systems - i guess it's a Te/Si thing or whatever - number sets like the 16 and 9 of the MBTI and enneagram please me. but i have this underlying belief (knowledge?) that all the systems are ultimately the same, because i have the underlying belief that the universe is fundamentally all connected, if not ultimately all one. so there's no real reason to interchange whole systems, because they're all valid, and the fun lies more in interposing them - lining them up and associating them. because essentially they all connect.

Well of course everything in the universe is connected!! (*snickers at projection of internal worldview* hehehehe)
I love systems. I seem built for typological approaches to topics-breeds of horses, types of chickens, types of hindu texts, Everytime I have to have the meta structure first-then split into sub catagories. U tried to teach me about rotary engines yesterday. I felt compelled to expand much more general and learn about all types of engines, so that I understood the more generalized rules about engines. If there are rotary and linera engines, there must be other engines-what are they? Then I wanted to understand what types of engines go in what types of vehicles? Then why do certain and engines and vehicles match up? and so on...rather than just focus inwards on a particular topic, I feel compelled to build a framework around the topic.

so i suppose when you say "perfect definition," i see that as a solid, clean system - like a balanced description of the MBTI. a less than perfect system - imbalanced, unequal, etc - would be annoying, because it's much harder to line up things when they are not equal. fidelia, you remember the function guides threads drama? part of the reason i was so annoyed was that the guides didn't match up evenly. information really needs to be balanced in my world - this perhaps is not true for all Ne-Fi-Te-Si users, but it seems useless to me to have a system where information is not balanced. connections, after all, are built upon parallel similarities and dissimilarities. so why even bother establishing connections amongst inequal things, when there are other systems you could build between parallel things that are much more useful? otherwise we're just throwing random ideas into piles and giving them a label. if functions are not parallel, then why even bother grouping them together?

Oh, this ^^ is awesomely right. Symmetry in the system is essential. Perhaps if I cant identify a system as behaving asymmetrically via observations or understanding of data-I will be very hesitant to trust it and will not use it. External data is everything though...

so that's sort of how my processing works. establish "perfect" systems; line them up. learn more information and fit it to a system; lock system into place with all other systems. when i say it like that, it sounds very restricted, but it's not at all, as long as you remember that you're allowed to switch anything out for anything because εν το παν - all is one.

this part here^^ is what benefits the most from Ni, I think-Ni doms will coin new Ni universal truths I cant see-then I can replace my old rule with a much better rule-which since the system is symmetric and consistent-suddenly is like throwing switches all over the entire system "circuitry". This can fuel whole new Ne connective capabilities because you guys have given me a clearer more fundamental understanding of a specific piece of the system. Fidelia, arwann, highlander, U, K and state of the union have all done this at various points. Oddly, the more unrefined the Ni, often the further I can go with the idea....

and here's where the insane jumps come from - it's exactly what oro said about leaping. once i have those systems established in my head, i can system-hop like crazy. so it's a huge network of shortcuts, essentially. unfortunately i assume that what i give up in exchange is good attention to sensory detail, but oh well. and then you use those systems to navigate in response to daily life, to solving problems... troubleshooting IRL is so much fun because all the normal rules are suddenly much more easily bypassed. it opens the doors to allow so many more possibilities. troubled situations are where i finally get to shine because i'm not bound by the practical or the likely. i think a key to Ne is that it has essentially zero sense of probability - hence Ne is excellent for circumventing rules and conventions, even though it can get extraordinarily off-topic.

I have heard Ne doms describe this as jumping from cloud to cloud, up and down layers between the systems. It is a bit like that Tron movie/game where there are multiple layers-systems-that the motor cycles can race across leaving patterns, but then drop up and down layers connecting the layers...the final result-all the lines-is what Ne feels like. That is the pattern i remember.

 

[Kalach]

Do ISJs switch perspectives? What is "When I was a boy..." other than "If you see this from the point of view of me as as a boy..."?

So perspective-switchers, what is introverted intuition really?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Do ISJs switch perspectives? What is "When I was a boy..." other than "If you see this from the point of view of me as as a boy..."?

So perspective-switchers, what is introverted intuition really?

Yes, all Pi are perspective switchers:

Ni Example: I change my internal viewpoint to review the past patterns I have gathered to find the best available perspective for me to use to deal with the current situation.
Si Example: I change my internal viewpoint to review the past memories I have been a part of to find the best available perspective for to use to deal with the current situation.

 

[skylights]

So we dont use Si the way an Si dom would at all-instead we use it to reload the stored generalized patterns into memory. Si isnt memory itself-but instead a way to perceive memories? Si seeks a generalized, context independent recall of the Ne pattern?

It seems I can have FiSi stuff-that can be very painful or very hard to change, but tends to be very blob like with big branches and little branches of rules. I can have TeSi stuff-boxes and flowcharts in my mind, I suspect the systems that skylights and I note are built upon this TeSi framework, while the FiSi stuff fills in details and gaps to fine tune our approach....It sort of suggest two different types of judgments that can be recalled in two different ways...but again, weird exploratory stuff....so any thoughts are good.

that's brilliant, oro.

so, from what i understand of Si, it seems like it's less the ability to remember in and of itself, but the ability to assess how past resembles or differs from present, which is quite a different skill set... because admittedly i have shitty memory, but i'm okay at being able to tell when things have changed. given, i feel like i usually rely on comparing the feelings of patterns - so essentially NeFi filtered through Si.

in my world, i see the aspirational function role of Si playing out mostly in Fi-Si terms - in the desire to recreate atmosphere and meaning. i can become very interestingly (both to myself and others) stubborn in terms of not tending towards the new and creative if i feel like a Fi line is being crossed. for example, this christmas holiday was a bit different in my family, which was fine, but i felt like some relatives were intentionally discarding the "spirit" of christmas - i was really irritated and essentially went into Fi-Si lockdown (when what would have been really helpful to get through the situation was Ne and Te) because i saw that discrepancy from past christmases, as well as from their normal behavior, and it insulted my Feeling that christmas is a "sacred" family tradition - and that if you are staying at my house, you will respect (not follow, necessarily, but respect) my family's traditions. the reason why some relatives were trying to "throw away" christmas was because it was their first christmas after the totally unexpected death of a central family member, and it was a painful experience to have to celebrate without her. but, as harsh as this sounds, it's not healing to just pretend that certain things doesn't exist and can never be good again because of that death. we're all going to have to face the loss eventually, and honestly, i think the sooner, the better. (typical ENFP "tough love"... haha... some very much dislike this... i think it's got to do with tert Te...)

but anyway, back to Si, i really see the term "loop" in there because i was stuck in this pattern of assessing how people were behaving and getting upset by it. eventually i just had to take a long walk alone to calm myself emotionally and joined the silly karaoke my family was doing, and kind of launched into taking charge of creating the atmosphere i thought was important. i think there was a sort of latent worry that if i didn't work to preserve the holiday, it would get hard to recreate and reconnect with - that the break in the link of christmases would make it more difficult to reconnect with the past. i'm not religious, particularly, but i am actually a really big tradition person... more than my ESFJ mom... go figure

i also have a suspicion that Si plays a role in the NFP ability to "read" individuals for how they're feeling - i hate to say "aura" reading, but it's essentially reading the "atmosphere" of a person. i'm sure that Ne and Fi play a role, but being able to pick up on subtle changes, i imagine, invokes Si usage.

Everytime I have to have the meta structure first-then split into sub catagories. [...] rather than just focus inwards on a particular topic, I feel compelled to build a framework around the topic.

myself as well. to me, i want the overarcing information, because if i don't have it, i don't understand where the details fit... it seems like they're just puzzle pieces floating in space. but if i know the structure, then it's much easier to assemble the big picture. even when pieces are missing, if you understand the structure well enough, you can recreate the missing pieces fairly well yourself. of course, the downside to that is you miss the special individual variations, especially ones that aren't always congruent with the patterns. it's easier to deal with theory than reality because theory is symmetrical...

this part here^^ is what benefits the most from Ni, I think-Ni doms will coin new Ni universal truths I cant see-then I can replace my old rule with a much better rule-which since the system is symmetric and consistent-suddenly is like throwing switches all over the entire system "circuitry". This can fuel whole new Ne connective capabilities because you guys have given me a clearer more fundamental understanding of a specific piece of the system. Fidelia, arwann, highlander, U, K and state of the union have all done this at various points. Oddly, the more unrefined the Ni, often the further I can go with the idea....

it's like Ni takes one of those structures and flips it on its head, and asks what connections can be made if we turn this piece upside down? like, what happens if we break all these connections here? and it's really not intuitive to me to do that, but of course it still does make sense, you're just flipping the structure instead of the pieces, which is essentially the same as flipping a whole lot of pieces all at once... kalach and uumlau's posts in particular blow my mind with fair regularity

 

[InvisibleJim]

it's like Ni takes one of those structures and flips it on its head, and asks what connections can be made if we turn this piece upside down? and it's really not intuitive to me to do that, but of course it still does make sense, you're just flipping the structure instead of the pieces, which is essentially the same as flipping a whole lot of pieces all at once... kalach and uumlau's posts blow my mind with fair regularity

The problem with problem solving...

Problem is generated with precise definition -> time passes -> Passed on to someone else -> Passed on again -> Someone receives problem, Problem can be technical or interpersonal or theoretical or art.

Eventually recipient tries to solve problem with inconsistencies present in the assumptions, wobbles the method to try to solve the problem -> result = ??

Pi mindset... reviews whole problem... says X, Y and Z don't make sense in this context: tries wobbling them and changing the time axis taking into account the opinion of the person who defined the problem -> tries to identifying any wobble on the assumptions and moving the whole problem as a 'chunk' into various different ordered systems before seeking a solution -> result = ??

In some situations taking the whole issue/problem and viewing it from alternate angles then pivoting it around various axis can have some benefit.

Equally an ability to re-analyse the method first can be extremely valuable in any situation as well!

 

[Kalach]

Frames, perspectives, views, current problems... they all sound like the stuff of extroverted thinking (and/or extroverted perception). Focusing out there, with points of vantage, objective fixes, fulcra even.

Because how does one change perspective from inside a subjective space? Is it even possible to assign positive meaning to that question?

I dunno, it's just an intuition (*zish bom, rimshot*). That switching perspectives is a necessary tool but a surface tool, and that the actual work of intuition is done below that surface, and over time.

This would seem to be an intuition about Ni/Je intuition, and I don't know what SPs would make of it. I may be pushing too much onto extroverted judging and possibly not leaving anything behind for introverted intuition to actually be.

 

[sculpting]

I agree with your whole post-it all is very familiar! But these three in particular...

so, from what i understand of Si, it seems like it's less the ability to remember in and of itself, but the ability to assess how past resembles or differs from present, which is quite a different skill set... because admittedly i have shitty memory, but i'm okay at being able to tell when things have changed. given, i feel like i usually rely on comparing the feelings of patterns - so essentially NeFi filtered through Si.

I have found three ISTJs and an ESTJ who all say they border on photographic memories of textbooks-when in school they thought they were cheating as they could close their eyes and see the page and text. As they aged they became less able to do this, but each agreed they become more flexible...sorta pointing to an Si to Ne tradeoff with age.

Perhaps patterns are like this for me nowdays-Once I pick up on a pattern, it embeds itself in my mind-and it becomes BLATANTLY obvious when I see it again. HOW CAN YOU NOT SEEEEEEEEE THAT??????!!!!!!!???? sort of obvious. Mind numbingly painful almost. But then I do run into walls and doorframes and occasionally fall down stairs...so much for Se...

i also have a suspicion that Si plays a role in the NFP ability to "read" individuals for how they're feeling - i hate to say "aura" reading, but it's essentially reading the "atmosphere" of a person. i'm sure that Ne and Fi play a role, but being able to pick up on subtle changes, i imagine, invokes Si usage.

For me-my memory is horrible-but I can recall how I "felt" (meaning Fi analysis not simple emotion) about losing a doll when age 8. I reflect on that moment-then I load it into memory and all of the emotions come back-how I felt THEN. I re-feel that moment. Then I can load how I feel about the situation now-very differently. Then-the cool part-I can take turns "feeling" each and comparing the two sets of feelings for simularities.

For an individual-The same sort of thing. I can load into memory how I "felt" for my mom at age 5. Then age 15. Then now. Then I can flip between them and compare. I also have an aggregate memory for my mom-the summation of all my memories of feeling for her.

With people-I always have an internal aggregate of them-so I can compare them today against what I "felt" for them yesterday. The two can exist as separate distinct entities, so if I see they do not coorespond, it yields a red flag. This is perhaps I think where the "aura" thing comes from....

ENTPs do this as well-but my ENTP friend says it is a Ti map of the other person over time. She gives them a once over with an F function to get a good/bad assesment, then measures the Ti consistency of the other person. She can also load them up based on Ti maps over time...TiSi I presume.

Today we concluded that an INTJ manager we have been watching cant do this-he has no history over time. Once you Fi offend him, it appears he can only see you through his Se lens of how he feels about you now? He has surrounded himself with Fe users who never question him out of fear-inadvertantly thus affirming his NiFi vision. So he is always "right" as proven by their lack of disagreement.. However if external folks question the Fe circle-they are attacking him and NiFi indirectly-thus they are smited. He cant seem to recall all of the good they did-only the bad moment which then colors then dark forever. One of his reportees said "There is no history". (This is a sketchy outline at this point-still a work in progress....)

we're all going to have to face the loss eventually, and honestly, i think the sooner, the better. (typical ENFP "tough love"... haha... some very much dislike this... i think it's got to do with tert Te...)

YES! Doesnt everyone want to face the cold hard truth and deal with it? (Oh, perhaps that was just me... )

 

[Kalach]

So I started thinking about it this way recently: the possible and the conceptual.

There's a simple case for saying Ne is all about the possible and Ni is all about the conceptual. Namely, Ne is (mostly) responsive to environmental cues and Ni (mostly) isn't. Both, formally speaking, are dealing with possibilities and with the conceptual form of things, but Ne sticks much closer to the environment and Ni runs much further from it. So Ne it seems will take more for granted and Ni will take less. Ni necessarily moves into the realm of unattached concepts and Ne sticks with conceptual overlays.

Depth and breadth, suckers.

 

[Athenian200]

Generally, I don't have a problem with Ne. The only NP types I really don't get along with are INFPs with creepy values. and I blame that on Fi. ENFPs can be frustrating if we disagree, but often we end up arguing and then seeing the validity of each others perspectives. They seem more open-minded, but we have to have the argument, go over everything, and get it out in the open. There's no immediate understanding like I get with Ni, Fe, or Ti users.

If I have a disagreement with an NTP, it usually seems to come from their Si. Their perception of possibilities seems limited by something from the past that I don't place importance on. Whereas I'm sure that I frustrate them when I seem limited to focusing on and extrapolating from details of the present (Se) that they believe can be changed. If I want to defend my Ni, I have to present several scenarios that negate the Si assumptions their Ne is operating from, and then they'll see it. It usually gets them to acknowledge that it's a valid perspective, at least.

The important thing to remember is that it's not just an Ne/Ni conflict. It's an Ni/Se vs. Si/Ne conflict. And it's never just an Fi/Fe conflict, it's always an Ti/Fe vs. Fi/Te conflict. That's how I've come to see it. You have to take the whole stack into account.

 

[Barlwooh]

Ahhh, 12 pages, my mind is bleeding. Why did i read all of it?

Oh but the point. Only time ive had a "Ni/Ne conflict" was debating with an ENTJ. Generally it was both of us in the end meaning the same thing but arriving there by very different routes. So ill talk of the conflict between NTJ and an NTP. Theres Ni and Ne there, so guess this isnt off topic.

Someone from some mbti forum used this "making a snowman" metaphor to explain the difference between INTP and ENTP, if it was this forum, sorry for stealing your metaphor, im sincerely as sorry as an INTP can be. But why im stealing the metaphor is that i see it explains the difference between NTJ and NTP quite nicely. Now ive lost the point again, okay. So i didnt see our disagreements as a conflict of Ni and Ne, but as conflicts of Ti/Ni and Te/Ne.

I see it like? An NTP gathers a massive cube of snow (Ne) , and then carves out a snowman from the cube (Ti). An NTJ makes balls of snow to work as pieces of the snowman (Te), and then assembles those into a snowman (Ni). Both have a similar result, i really like the simplicity of that.

So basically an NTP creates a massive blob of unrelated facts with Ne and carves out the final solution with Ti. And an NTJ gathers "little solutions" or "truths" with Te, and knits them together into a final solution with Ni. To me that explains why sometimes i have very hard time keeping up with NTJ's thoughts. My gathered information is broad and unsolved mess, their information is a vast amount of little already sort of solved pieces.

And well? Fi and Fe might work just as fine there? The gathered information would just be more F'ish. So i dont see a conflict between Ni and Ne, but a conflict between the introverted functions and the extroverted functions? Both Ne and Te in MY MIND are the information gatherer functions, and Ti and Ni are "the information molding final solution" functions.

Makes sense to me, but then i also like mustard on cucumber, so not sure if i should be trusted.

 

[Kalach]

Ahhh, 12 pages, my mind is bleeding. Why did i read all of it?

Oh but the point. Only time ive had a "Ni/Ne conflict" was debating with an ENTJ. Generally it was both of us in the end meaning the same thing but arriving there by very different routes. So ill talk of the conflict between NTJ and an NTP. Theres Ni and Ne there, so guess this isnt off topic.

Someone from some mbti forum used this "making a snowman" metaphor to explain the difference between INTP and ENTP, if it was this forum, sorry for stealing your metaphor, im sincerely as sorry as an INTP can be. But why im stealing the metaphor is that i see it explains the difference between NTJ and NTP quite nicely. Now ive lost the point again, okay. So i didnt see our disagreements as a conflict of Ni and Ne, but as conflicts of Ti/Ni and Te/Ne.

I see it like? An NTP gathers a massive cube of snow (Ne) , and then carves out a snowman from the cube (Ti). An NTJ makes balls of snow to work as pieces of the snowman (Te), and then assembles those into a snowman (Ni). Both have a similar result, i really like the simplicity of that.

So basically an NTP creates a massive blob of unrelated facts with Ne and carves out the final solution with Ti. And an NTJ gathers "little solutions" or "truths" with Te, and knits them together into a final solution with Ni. To me that explains why sometimes i have very hard time keeping up with NTJ's thoughts. My gathered information is broad and unsolved mess, their information is a vast amount of little already sort of solved pieces.

And well? Fi and Fe might work just as fine there? The gathered information would just be more F'ish. So i dont see a conflict between Ni and Ne, but a conflict between the introverted functions and the extroverted functions? Both Ne and Te in MY MIND are the information gatherer functions, and Ti and Ni are "the information molding final solution" functions.

Makes sense to me, but then i also like mustard on cucumber, so not sure if i should be trusted.

So you're saying NTJ snowmen have balls but NTP snowmen are cut?

 

[Barlwooh]

So you're saying NTJ snowmen have balls but NTP snowmen are cut?

Exactly.

 

[uumlau]

We might want to circumcise circumscribe such double-entendres.

 

[Barlwooh]

So I started thinking about it this way recently: the possible and the conceptual.

There's a simple case for saying Ne is all about the possible and Ni is all about the conceptual. Namely, Ne is (mostly) responsive to environmental cues and Ni (mostly) isn't. Both, formally speaking, are dealing with possibilities and with the conceptual form of things, but Ne sticks much closer to the environment and Ni runs much further from it. So Ne it seems will take more for granted and Ni will take less. Ni necessarily moves into the realm of unattached concepts and Ne sticks with conceptual overlays.

Depth and breadth, suckers.

Ne is about enviroment and gathering information, Ni isnt. Both deal with possibilities and conceptual form of things, but Ne just processes information around you, Ni processes and fits together Te based assumptions. Ne takes crap for granted cos it just takes everything in, Ni moves around with concepts that are constructed with other functions. Depth and breadth.

I somehow see the snowman metaphor here too, sort of similar outcome, if i got what you were saying correctly. Your snowman just has balls of wisdom, mine has a confusing messy blob.

 

[uumlau]

Both snowmen are well constructed. I very much like the metaphor that Ti takes a huge blob of Ne data and cuts out a cohesive set that makes sense, while Ni instead builds a snowman out of distinct Te balls of snow. The latter is entirely valid with respect to how I regard my own thought processes, and the former makes the seemingly random thought processes of INTPs make sense to me.

The one spot where I would disagree with Barlwooh's characterization is the notion of "Te based assumptions." The vast majority of assumptions are in Ni, not Te. Te, no matter how judgmental it might feel to others, is very much about empirical data, and thus it is readily dropped if more recent data is regarded as more accurate. The Ni assumptions are not as obvious, based on how things "fit together" rather than how things "are." The problem with the NiTe snowman is that it will be assembled incorrectly.

Correspondingly, the problem with the TiNe snowman is that it will be carved incorrectly, as the assumptions are largely in Ti, not Ne.

These are just metaphors of course. Neither is "better." Rather, each tends toward the same truth, each with its own boundaries upon what the truth may be.

 

[freeeekyyy]

The way I look at it, each intuitive function opens the field of vision in the way that the sensing function allows it to open. Ni's focus is incidental to Se's insistence on concrete details. Ne's relational attitude is based on Si's unwillingness to redefine anything. If Si will not allow you to change your definitions about something, you must expland outward to other items via Ne. If Se will not allow you to look at more information, that forces intuition into an introverted form where it looks deeper rather than wider.

Of course, being dominant in ENPs and INJs, it could be just the opposite, with intuition determing sensing's orientation. Either way, it is what it is because it's counterpart is what it is. Just as Te/Fi and Fe/Ti are inherently linked to each other, so are Se/Ni and Ne/Si. If you understand what Se is, it's easy to determine what Ni must be. Same goes for Si and Ne.

Of course, this is just my perspective. I might be doing a lousy job explaining it, or a similar idea may have already been shared by somebody else. Either way, there it is.

 

[freeeekyyy]

And well? Fi and Fe might work just as fine there? The gathered information would just be more F'ish. So i dont see a conflict between Ni and Ne, but a conflict between the introverted functions and the extroverted functions? Both Ne and Te in MY MIND are the information gatherer functions, and Ti and Ni are "the information molding final solution" functions.

Yes. I've always thought of the extroverted functions as being the "true" versions of their respective category. In other words, Te/Fe are inherently more "judging" than Ti or Fi because they create plans of action, and Se and Ne are "truer" perceiving functions because they are expanding the mind, perceiving new information rather than just changing perspective on pre-existing information.