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.
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
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.
