• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Ne/Ni Conflicts

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Ni analogizes present situations to archetypal scenarios to come to a determination of what truly is, and what is to come, about that situation.

whats archetypal scenario?
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Where onemoretime says "archetypal scenario," I would say, "functional model." The funny thing is I hadn't realized how many functional models I have in my head. They're derived from various understandings of physics and math and computers and life in general, but unlike Si, they aren't stuck to those understandings. E.g., one can understand any computer language (within reason and disregarding joke languages intended to confuse or be humorous) based on the simple principle that a computer can perform only one instruction at a time. Yes there are threads and multiple processes and multiple cores and so on, but still, it boils down to one thing at a time, and if one should desire to spawn a thread within the same code/process, then there's all sorts of extra juggling needed to make sure that doesn't break anything (with race conditions, etc.) precisely because the computer only does one thing at a time. All of these computer languages need to do essentially the same kinds of things, no matter whether object-oriented or procedural, no matter whether it's SQL or Pascal or Perl. The same functional model(s) apply. They aren't tied to the language.
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think I'm beginning to understand Ni a little better, and certainly it explains some of my experiences with INTJ's,(metaphor warning) especially that carpet being pulled out from under your feet feeling, when they have a "context shift". I have to mull a bit, as I do when I just absorbed a lot of information.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
^ the dark side.

that poverty stricken land of black shadows where INTJs are encouraged to understand their conceiverings as mere perspective.

This, mortals, is what you're attempting to not understand.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
To expound...


Ni doesn't work unless the archetypal is conceived of as better than the "real" world, more substantial. "Perspective" from an Ni point of view comes from extroverted sensing. As such the "real" world is entertaining in its own right but lacks lustre. It is the mere "present", not the "real".
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
That too is perhaps why "shifting context" is unpalatable as a description of Ni operation. From the Ni "perspective" there is only ever one context, that of Ni itself.

Likewise perhaps this is why mere metaphor is insufficient for describing reality. From an Ni "perspective" one isn't generally drawing some parallel between different real things. One is instead describing one real thing, an archetype.

You crazy kids and your "real" worlds.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
You talking to yourself, in here, Kalach? :laugh: ... a metaphor isn't about describing reality ... it's a way to attempt to put into words something far more evanescent, ephemeral than that. The very word metaphor implies it's not literal; it's something just out of one's grasp to put words to. Therefore how can you say a metaphor is insufficient ... isn't that a given?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Does no one read type descriptions anymore?

To grasp the hidden, other worldly content objectively present in the thing or situation in front of you, use a metaphor. To describe a reality you perceive as more substantial than mere present circumstances, use something better.

In the second task one is not comparing. One is directly describing. It is not to be considered metaphorical because the objective world is no more than a contingent part of the description.


What do you want from subjectivity, that it be objective?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
To expound...


Ni doesn't work unless the archetypal is conceived of as better than the "real" world, more substantial. "Perspective" from an Ni point of view comes from extroverted sensing. As such the "real" world is entertaining in its own right but lacks lustre. It is the mere "present", not the "real".

Are you looking for this:

Plato said:
Plato's argument for premise 1: The world that we perceive with the senses often deceives us. This would not be so if the world and objects that we perceive with the senses were the real objects.

It seems that all the objects we perceive with the senses are simply images or experiences in our mind. They are only subjective points of views on the real objects. For example, the world appears radically differently to a color blind person than it does to us. The objects that we perceive as colored, then, must not be the real objects, but just our experience of these objects that is determined by my particular subjective point of view and perceptual apparatus.

Once one sees that the world that we perceive through the senses is not the real world but just an image of it, it becomes difficult to determine at what level of description we get in touch with the real objects that make up the world.

In general, we assume that the more objective the concept or description, the more real the object it describes is. For example, when we see a person far away, we automatically follow our objective concept of humans as being about 6 feet tall and see the person as normal sized, even though the subjective image we have is of a very tiny person. In general, we form a more objective concept by combining different points of view into a more objective description that takes into account what all the other views had in common. This process is called dialectic: the back and forth discourse between different points of view that leads to their combination or synthesis into a more objective conception that takes into account both points of view.

Plato's argument for the second premise: What then are the real objects? They cannot be the subjective images we perceive. These often deceive us.

What about the everyday material objects, like chairs, tables, rocks, and trees, that we think our subjective perceptions of things refer to? The concepts we from of these are slightly more objective than subjective images. They combine and take into account all of the subjective images we can form of a single object, such as this particular asterisk * . Yet, there are reasons to avoid taking this as the real object as well:

1. We only contact these objects through subjective images. We never perceive them directly.

2. These objects contain a number of properties that are mixed together. Any description of the object that doesn't separate out these properties cannot explain what makes the object act the way it does. For example, If all you know about the asterisk above is that it is the particular thing it is, you will not know as much as if you know that it is black, star-shaped, made of ink on paper, etc.

3. These objects are always changing, taking up different properties from moment to moment, and going in and out of existence.

For these reasons, it seems that the only level at which things really exist must be the level of single properties separated from particular objects. These are the forms:

1. Our concepts of these are more objective than our perceptions of material objects. For example, my concept of blackness takes into account all the points of view anyone can have on any black object, while my perception of the asterisk above only takes into account those views you can have of this object. The object that my concept refers to, the form, must be more real than a material object.

2. The forms explain why an object is the way it is. It is the fact that an object has the properties that it does that makes it what it is, not that it is the particular thing it is.

3. The forms never change.

B. The argument from mathematics:

The most certain knowledge we have, the knowledge of mathematics, could not have come from sense perception:

1. In geometry we have access to perfect squares and circles, but no such objects exist in the material world.

2. We can know truths such as 2+2=4 without having to check our experience of the material world.

The objects that we think about in mathematics must be real, since they are most certain. Since they could not exist in the material world, there must be another realm in which they exist that is even more real, the realm of forms.

I very much think this way myself... I've described as much with less precision, but I think Plato did an excellent job of describing this way of looking at the world.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Where onemoretime says "archetypal scenario," I would say, "functional model." The funny thing is I hadn't realized how many functional models I have in my head. They're derived from various understandings of physics and math and computers and life in general, but unlike Si, they aren't stuck to those understandings. E.g., one can understand any computer language (within reason and disregarding joke languages intended to confuse or be humorous) based on the simple principle that a computer can perform only one instruction at a time. Yes there are threads and multiple processes and multiple cores and so on, but still, it boils down to one thing at a time, and if one should desire to spawn a thread within the same code/process, then there's all sorts of extra juggling needed to make sure that doesn't break anything (with race conditions, etc.) precisely because the computer only does one thing at a time. All of these computer languages need to do essentially the same kinds of things, no matter whether object-oriented or procedural, no matter whether it's SQL or Pascal or Perl. The same functional model(s) apply. They aren't tied to the language.

Good way of putting it.
 

InvisibleJim

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
2,387
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.

moon-on-a-stick.gif
 

CrystalViolet

lab rat extraordinaire
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
2,152
MBTI Type
XNFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
"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?
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
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.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
"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?
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Kalach said:
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 :wink:

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...

:laugh:

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:

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
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.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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..
 
Top