User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 102

  1. #31
    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 uumlau View Post
    I'd go more with "piercing" than "beady." Piercing eyes are the Te, and Ni makes them even more piercing (the "death gaze") as they seem to look through you.
    Interesting. I got the notion most extensively from an ENTJ.

    "Beady" is more of a Ti trait: they stare, but not piercing or penetrating, but rather "at" in an almost emotionless way. Think Data from ST:TNG.
    I'm thinking we're talking about different "beady"'s. Because I associate beady with penetrating. "The thinner, the sharper."

  2. #32
    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 gromit View Post
    AHHH... roommate's fiance (the one I suspect is INFJ) looks at me like this sometimes when I am talking and I feel so nervous/self-conscious, I start stuttering, I can't maintain eye contact, I forget what I was even trying to say... it's a total mess! Not beady, but definitely piercing.
    NFJs can make you want to cry with their stares.

    Fe can make you feel very alone and very watched and Ni just bores holes in you.

    NO I DON'T KNOW THIS FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

  3. #33
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Agreed since Ni's not linear. If a Ni-dom or aux were to try to articulate the bombardment or extraction of information as it's happening, it would be impossible to understand.
    Just to piggyback on this, I typically type myself as ExFJ.

    If I'm a Ni-aux, I don't feel like Ni is impossible to explain, communicate, or understand. The way I experience Pi (and like I said I don't know whether this is descriptive of Si or Ni) it's like a digital signature. I don't ever believe the encryption is impossible to break or decode, it's just up to the person to decide how far willing they are to decode it. When I try to decode and communicate, I'm very adamant about finding evidence to support myself. I don't want to come across as a loose cannon, pulling things out of the air without any support for why I believe what I believe. I don't feel like that's a way to establish trust with people and I certainly don't expect anyone to trust or believe me on some unverifiable hunch or belief, or hell strong delusion that only I can see. This ain't the movies, if someone says, "Just trust me on this," my automatic response is "Why should I?"

    Now as far as "the bombardment" is concerned, internally that feels like being on a beach or desert full of sand with my metal detector just combing around. Yes, that does begin on a hunch and I guess that's what people believe is Ni. I don't really believe in hunches I believe a spark or something occurred in The Real World that was picked up on a subconscious level and it keeps poking at you until you look at it. Then I pull out my metal detector listening for this occasional beep, not very strong but still there. As I get closer and the beeping goes wild, that's the spot I know to start digging because there's my answer. All of this depends on turning on my internal and external metal detector and listening for it.

    The times I've been the most wrong and embarrassingly loudest is when I didn't stop to verify and search for my whys and went off absolutely sure of something and then having to clean the crime scene, issue apologies and tuck my tail between my legs. Not all of these sparks amount to anything.

    I think perhaps INJs have more difficulty with this because Se is their inferior and they don't trust it as much but it's still incessantly poking them. They either listen or disregard it and the INJs that have learned to pay attention to it in a mature way are the ones whose judgment I trust without much proof. I'm willing to go there with them until they gather more proof

    Now what I am hesitant to do is say anything to anybody until I'm pretty sure myself and the people I do say something to in those initial, nebulous stages know I'm not one to pull things out of my ass unless I really think something. And quite frankly, sometimes I'm wrong. I think people like to believe Ni is typically right and accurate, but that's not true.

    The way I think I pick up on someone is using Ni is I feel like they're searching more. I tend to more easily identify the "digger/searcher Ni" than the "mystical/magical Ni." I'm a Battlestar Galactica geek and there was a storyline with Lucy Lawless's character D'anna. She kept shooting herself in the head in order to catch glimpses of the Final Five. She absolutely would not stop until she figured out who they were. Each time she killed herself and downloaded into a new body, it was more and more painful but she had to know who they were. It wasn't enough for her to just have the vision once and believe what she saw. She didn't necessarily think what she saw was untrue, but she needed more confirmation. I contrast this with Laura Roslin who had the vision once and didn't need to constantly revisit it in order to believe, it was seared into her the first time.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  4. #34
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    For me personally, one way I recognize Ni in people is by a "blank spot" I can't see through with my rationality. I try to rationalize what's going on inside and just come up empty, again and again. That's because fully formed intuition cannot be broken down into a linear rationality, the tool I am using to grasp someone (what drives what, etc) -- you either see it or you do not.

    (I get Si people far more easily because I can observe both their behavior and words, and compare that to the environment and see where many of those ideas came from or what they've been established in. IOW, I can analyze everything and "recreate" their view in my head as a model, and then totally follow without trouble where they're coming from.)

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I think this is one of the hardest functions to recognize. I'm still getting better at it, but generally, I will look for someone who does the following things:

    - steps back and looks at the bigger picture; seems to synthesize a lot of things and communicates a perspective based on those things
    - provides depth of insight on a problem with an orientation towards what is going to happen in the future
    - tends to be conceptual in nature

    If I were to contrast it with Si, I think Si provides a perspective based on things that have happened in the past and if you ask questions, it will be obvious that the person's perspective is very driven by this. Ni is driven more by what is going to happen in the future. Both Ni and Si can look at past, present, and future, but the Ni perspective is shaped by a picture or vision of the future more than what happened in the past. Also, an Si user seems to be better at articulating their logic for their perspective - it's based on facts or concrete things that have happened before, so it is easier to understand. The Ni person won't be as able to explain it as well. They just think they know what will happen.

    The trickier differentiation for me is Ni vs Ne. I can mistake one for the other. I guess the big difference to me seems to be that Ne is less decisive, more focused on options vs. conclusions, is shorter term in orientation and is somehow more connected to the current reality. Again, to me, the Ne user seems to be more articulate in explaining things verbally. I have wondered why this is and have speculated that it might be because Ne is more oriented towards present reality which is easier and more concrete to explain and comprehend.
    Bold is very true.

    With Ni, too, what I find is not just that they can come at abstract things with conviction but also that they're good at seeing the underlying frames of where people are coming from -- hence, how they "know" things about people's motivations and goals without being told. This tends to show up in the Ni primaries AND the auxiliaries.

    When Ni is in the tertiary, it tends to be of a limited-use "bullshit" meter that gives an understanding that everyone has an angle and things might not be what they seem on the surface; however, the effectiveness of it depends on how confident the primary is in itself. If the primary isn't confident, it tends to try to use the tertiary to buttress itself... which can leads to distortion and potential paranoia. (The primaries in these cases would be Ti/Fi, so basically wherever the Ji feels it is vulnerable or being crossed, the Ni tries to project that anxiety by presuming another's bad intent.)

    Ni as undeveloped inferior can lead to wild speculation, seeing things in people that are not there if the primary feels opposition/threatened, extremely unrealistic pictures of the future, crazy/immature ideas about self-actualization and what's possible, etc.

    One other thought that just occurred to me is that when I zone out like that and come back, sometimes I'll communicate without laying sufficient context which can confuse the other person because they cannot see a direct or linear correlation with the topic at hand.
    Yeah, I do a lot better with Ni people who can reverse-engineer/explicate their vision via a reasoning process, and then I get it and feel like they get me. But otherwise in the worst situations it's like seeing a train appear in the middle of a desert without any tracks. How did that get there? Why did it get there?

    @protean: still reading...
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #35
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    I'm curious to know the circumstances and situations that people recognize Ni in use. What's going on when you see it in action? I feel like these threads are never really fleshed out to my satisfaction. Of course, that could mean I don't get it and if I don't get it then I may not have it.

    When I have conversations with my NJ friends, I feel like they can almost always say why.

    For example, an ENTJ friend of mine got a tip that a job was opening in a department she wanted to get in to. When I asked her about the outcome she told me she believed they already had someone in mind to hire and only announced the job to comply with employment policies, not to really look for candidates. I, of course, asked why she thought this. After doing some researching, these are the reasons she gave me:

    1. They announced the job publicly for two weeks on the nose. This was the bare minimum they must post the job announcement according to their policy and she applied before it was publicly posted.
    2. The person they hired began the third week on the nose after the job was posted publicly. How'd they review candidates/applications, interview, and get them in so quickly?
    3. She went to the organization's website to see how long they have the job announcements open and averaged out one month.
    4. Her biggest clue was the person who told her about the position knew the person they hired was a consultant that department used before.


    I'm not saying this the best example of Ni, or if it's Ni at all. If it's not, then I'd really like to know some real world examples. I don't think Ni only focuses on things on a global, all-encompassing level. The way I'm understanding how Ni is used is knowing from the outset, when she applied, whether or not she would get the job. At the very least, she has decent deductive reasoning skills and I don't know if reasoning ability is connected to a typological function.

    I just don't believe Ni lacks traceability. I really think it depends on the ability of the NJ zero in on what triggered them. The less able they are to ID the triggers, the more "they just know." Yes, that looks very non-linear but it doesn't mean it is. Is Ni impervious to metacognition? It being hard or difficult shouldn't be a deterrent I think.

    As far as the leaping and shifting is concerned, does this tend to happen with people you know well or within a shared context? Is easily and quickly following the leaping/shifting context dependent? The problem I have with the Indescribable Ni is if you never really have to focus in and explain it, it can be anything you want it to be. Nothing, something, everything, whatever and a lot of miscommunication can occur in the gap between. Everyone thinks they understand it similarly, but you never really dug in enough to see if you did. I hope that makes sense.

    Here's another example I can think of. The financial crisis we're slowly emerging from has had people from at least 20 years ago saying the way we're moving isn't sustainable, this is going to break at some point. They weren't getting this from an oracle, they were looking at hard numbers, reports, deregulation, projecting forward. Is that Si because they used current (at the time) data and numbers? They weren't getting this information in a vacuum, but nor were they taken seriously at the time. Is that an example of Ni or something else? If you see the writing on the wall, there's got to be some writing on the wall to begin with, right? Evidently, not everyone sees it, and if they do, they don't assign the same significance or interpretation to it. What is that?
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  6. #36
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    ^ I've always maintained on these boards that Ni IS traceable and that I can explain my thoughts/perceptions/opinions if I really wanted to. For myself, it can be hard to verbalize it, and nearly impossible sometimes to articulate on-the-spot if I'm asked to, say, explain my views on religion (I like to use that as an example because to fully explain WHY I've concluded what I've concluded, it would involve articulating 70 pages of single-space writing that I wrote at one time, and that writing itself isn't organized in a way that would be presentable - all of the 'pieces' are there, but I haven't connected them. For me, the sum of the pieces = my vague statement, as they automatically tie in my mind, but to explain them together, in a more logical format - to others - would be more challenging). But complex topics aside, generally it's why I prefer the written format vs. talking - it's just easier because I have all the time I need to gather and present what's in my mind - in far more detail than I tend to give in speaking. But yeah - if asked, I'll do my best to explain, always.

    Sometimes I am not immediately aware of why I feel or think the way I do, but yeah, if I spend time I can figure out why and articulate that. But, sometimes for me it can take TIME to sort through all of that, and it may too involve a good number of questions if I realize I am in need of more information.

    But I hate, hate the whole 'voodoo' association with Ni. It's not magic. I think for Ni-doms especially though, the articulation piece is a little more challenging, and with some, there might therefore be a tendency towards laziness or just 'not seeing a point' in articulating all of the details. But to be fair too, I think a lot of times our vague statements or assertions seem 'Obvious' and we forget that it's not obvious others, or we might wrongly assume it's not necessary to explain everything that led us up to the assertion, because we might think others will have made all of the steps we made in our heads to get there. Or something.

    Also, for myself at least, I need *reasons* for thinking or believing what I believe. If things don't make sense, if there isn't logic there, if it isn't supported by reality, I won't believe it in the first place. I don't believe or think 'just because' or without substantiation. That's almost abhorrent to me. So I don't just pull things out of thin air. I might have a nagging something-or-other that starts things off, but I then dig and figure out what's going on and go from there. So in my head I have reasons; the disconnect is my maybe not automatically articulating this stuff -- but this is what I described above.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  7. #37
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Just to piggyback on this, I typically type myself as ExFJ.

    If I'm a Ni-aux, I don't feel like Ni is impossible to explain, communicate, or understand. The way I experience Pi (and like I said I don't know whether this is descriptive of Si or Ni) it's like a digital signature. I don't ever believe the encryption is impossible to break or decode, it's just up to the person to decide how far willing they are to decode it. When I try to decode and communicate, I'm very adamant about finding evidence to support myself. I don't want to come across as a loose cannon, pulling things out of the air without any support for why I believe what I believe. I don't feel like that's a way to establish trust with people and I certainly don't expect anyone to trust or believe me on some unverifiable hunch or belief, or hell strong delusion that only I can see. This ain't the movies, if someone says, "Just trust me on this," my automatic response is "Why should I?"

    Now as far as "the bombardment" is concerned, internally that feels like being on a beach or desert full of sand with my metal detector just combing around. Yes, that does begin on a hunch and I guess that's what people believe is Ni. I don't really believe in hunches I believe a spark or something occurred in The Real World that was picked up on a subconscious level and it keeps poking at you until you look at it. Then I pull out my metal detector listening for this occasional beep, not very strong but still there. As I get closer and the beeping goes wild, that's the spot I know to start digging because there's my answer. All of this depends on turning on my internal and external metal detector and listening for it.

    The times I've been the most wrong and embarrassingly loudest is when I didn't stop to verify and search for my whys and went off absolutely sure of something and then having to clean the crime scene, issue apologies and tuck my tail between my legs. Not all of these sparks amount to anything.

    I think perhaps INJs have more difficulty with this because Se is their inferior and they don't trust it as much but it's still incessantly poking them. They either listen or disregard it and the INJs that have learned to pay attention to it in a mature way are the ones whose judgment I trust without much proof. I'm willing to go there with them until they gather more proof

    Now what I am hesitant to do is say anything to anybody until I'm pretty sure myself and the people I do say something to in those initial, nebulous stages know I'm not one to pull things out of my ass unless I really think something. And quite frankly, sometimes I'm wrong. I think people like to believe Ni is typically right and accurate, but that's not true.

    The way I think I pick up on someone is using Ni is I feel like they're searching more. I tend to more easily identify the "digger/searcher Ni" than the "mystical/magical Ni." I'm a Battlestar Galactica geek and there was a storyline with Lucy Lawless's character D'anna. She kept shooting herself in the head in order to catch glimpses of the Final Five. She absolutely would not stop until she figured out who they were. Each time she killed herself and downloaded into a new body, it was more and more painful but she had to know who they were. It wasn't enough for her to just have the vision once and believe what she saw. She didn't necessarily think what she saw was untrue, but she needed more confirmation. I contrast this with Laura Roslin who had the vision once and didn't need to constantly revisit it in order to believe, it was seared into her the first time.
    Don't get me wrong, I agree that it can be decoded but only afterwards. If you notice, I was also piggybacking off highlander's comment about only seeing the end result of the Ni process in action. But I do stand by my comment that if you attempted to explain Ni as it's happening, the random nature of the extraction or sourcing of data would give someone a headache trying to sort through it.

    Imagine a random run-on sentence with many, many decision points of data being material or immaterial. It's not magical but it's most definitely not linear.

    I was chatting with another member about Ni and how particularly Te/Ni-ers will consolidate all that Te/Ni has gone through, into one short sentence. When asked to explain, it's not that we can't but that we don't even think about doing so since it's potentially something that should be obvious. Not condescension but if you were to say the sky is blue, you wouldn't expect to have to explain why it's blue every time.

  8. #38
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    I was chatting with another member about Ni and how particularly Te/Ni-ers will consolidate all that Te/Ni has gone through, into one short sentence. When asked to explain, it's not that we can't but that we don't even think about doing so since it's potentially something that should be obvious. Not condescension but if you were to say the sky is blue, you wouldn't expect to have to explain why it's blue every time.
    Yes.

    It is easy to forget that Ni is a perceiving function. Thus, when Ni is involved, that which is not obvious looks obvious. That's how it tends to flummox Ti (in INTPs for example), where the sounds as if the conclusion was stated without proof or foundation, and that the INTJ (for example) has to go and backtrack and prove that which the INTJ regards as obvious.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  9. #39
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Yes.

    It is easy to forget that Ni is a perceiving function. Thus, when Ni is involved, that which is not obvious looks obvious. That's how it tends to flummox Ti (in INTPs for example), where the sounds as if the conclusion was stated without proof or foundation, and that the INTJ (for example) has to go and backtrack and prove that which the INTJ regards as obvious.
    In other words, "I know this is right. I don't know how I know this is right, and I can't explain it to you right now, but give me some time, and I'll see if I can come up with something that explains it to you the best I can."

  10. #40
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    In other words, "I know this is right. I don't know how I know this is right, and I can't explain it to you right now, but give me some time, and I'll see if I can come up with something that explains it to you the best I can."
    Or more like, "I see this is right." I actually can explain it on demand, but the explanation is often odd. Usually, I will cite evidence, along the lines of how Oro describes Se being involved, and say that the evidence implies my conclusion. The problem (and this is where the Ne vs Ni confusion comes in) is that there is some Si-assumption on the others' part, such that my evidence implies no such thing as I describe. So we end up delving into our various assumptions until something arises that makes it clear where the crosstalk is happening.

    The point of my post is that, to Ni, it isn't always clear that the Ni-observations require explanation. It's obvious, after all.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

Similar Threads

  1. Religious people - How would you go about converting someone?
    By EcK in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-18-2015, 05:50 PM
  2. [ENFJ] ENFJs: How would you like someone to tell you that they are in love with you?
    By rosemilk in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-04-2014, 05:22 PM
  3. How would you type someone who...
    By CunningLinguist in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2009, 05:36 PM
  4. How do you figure out if someone is ENTP or ESTP?
    By KarenParker in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 03:30 PM
  5. [NT] how could/would you cheer up an INTP?
    By white in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 12-03-2007, 03:03 PM

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