How would you pick up that someone is using Ni?

[Poki]

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.

Actually I argue its purple then explain how the light actually refacts because of the water that is present in the air giving it a blue color. If it really was blue, then why is it black at night time?

 

[uumlau]

Actually I argue its purple then explain how the light actually refacts because of the water that is present in the air giving it a blue color. If it really was blue, then why is it black at night time?

Um, no.

The sky, doesn't have a color, but the light scatters (not refracts) from the sun. The red light wavelength is longer than the size of the particles (not just water) in the atmosphere, and just passes through. The blue light wavelength is shorter, and thus is more likely to scatter. So light from the sun (at sunset, for example) gets split up, with red going straight through (making the sun look red), while the higher wavelengths scatter (dominated by blue). The scattered light is then REscattered, with that same split based on wavelength happening. This REscattered light is what we see as the color of the sky. It also happens to be polarized by the scattering, which is why polaroid sunglasses work well eliminating "glare" from the sky and from reflections of the sky (on a body of water or a window).

 

[proteanmix]

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.

STPs and NFJs use Ti-Ni/Ni-Ti without their heads exploding. I don't think Ni baffles Ti anymore than Fi baffles Ni.

 

[Poki]

Um, no.

The sky, doesn't have a color, but the light scatters (not refracts) from the sun. The red light wavelength is longer than the size of the particles (not just water) in the atmosphere, and just passes through. The blue light wavelength is shorter, and thus is more likely to scatter. So light from the sun (at sunset, for example) gets split up, with red going straight through (making the sun look red), while the higher wavelengths scatter (dominated by blue). The scattered light is then REscattered, with that same split based on wavelength happening. This REscattered light is what we see as the color of the sky. It also happens to be polarized by the scattering, which is why polaroid sunglasses work well eliminating "glare" from the sky and from reflections of the sky (on a body of water or a window).

Lol, I know the sky is not a color. I knew it wasnt refactoring or else it would be more rainbow not solid. Didnt know what exactly it was called as I hadnt actually looked it up.

So why are sunsets/rises red?

edit: nm I read something that said that the light passes through more of the atmosphere which explained why its red not blue. blue scatters to the point where more red passes through.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This is because Ni is consistently the most poorly defined process.

 

[IZthe411]

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."

I can, and have done this, as a Si dom. Sometimes my recollection is instant, sometimes it takes hours/days/weeks to conjure up, and sometimes I don't ever make the connection.

I too, prior to externally laying claim that what I am perceiving is the end all, be all, sometimes have to do more 'work' to be sure of it. So that part I don't think is exclusive to Ni.
Like other's have said, I believe that if you know a person or have some understanding of the underlyings, or the Ni-er takes the time to explain it, that a non-Ni also can make the connection.

I know this guy- a public speaker. When he speaks, people say he goes all over the place with his points, but when he brings it home, it all makes sense. He wraps it up neatly (well, sometimes). That's Ni. I love how he takes seemingly unrelated things and is able to make connections, or use them to support his conclusions. Sometimes as he's setting up his points, I'm able to make the connection before he actually says it. Not that I am using Ni, but at least my Si ability helps me to follow what he's saying and build right along with him, not look at him with the face.

Si and Ni are explained in polar opposites- with Si being so simple and straightforward, and Ni being so complex. Neither is the case.

 

[uumlau]

Lol, I know the sky is not a color. I knew it wasnt refactoring or else it would be more rainbow not solid. Didnt know what exactly it was called as I hadnt actually looked it up.

So why are sunsets/rises red?

I'd already explained that, sort of. The light is passing through more atmosphere, and hence more particles. The red light will just pass through the particles. (Some red light scatters, too, if the particles are big enough - but that just means everything other than red is scattering even more.)

The physics concept is easily analogized by imagining a small boat in the ocean. There are a lot of big waves (long wavelengths) in the ocean that just make the boat bob up and down. It doesn't move, and the waves just pass on by. The small waves will hit the boat and bounce off, because the waves are smaller than the size of the boat.

There is a cool experiment you can do with a flashlight, a fish tank full of water, and some milk. Shine the light through the water of the fish tank (so that it passes through the most water). Gradually add in the milk, and stir the water so it is evenly distributed. As more milk is added, the beam of light in the water becomes more visible, initially with its typical yellow-white color. Then as even more milk is added, the beam starts turning red. The water around the beam (with lots of milk particles in it) starts turning blue. As you add more milk, the beam gets redder and the milk gets bluer. The blue part of the milk is analogous to the sky, while the red beam is analogous to why the sun looks red. And if you look at the flashlight from the far end of the tank, it looks like it's only emitting red light, even though it is surrounded by the glowing blue water of the tank.

 

[Poki]

The physics concept is easily analogized by imagining a small boat in the ocean. There are a lot of big waves (long wavelengths) in the ocean that just make the boat bob up and down. It doesn't move, and the waves just pass on by. The small waves will hit the boat and bounce off, because the waves are smaller than the size of the boat.

There is a cool experiment you can do with a flashlight, a fish tank full of water, and some milk. Shine the light through the water of the fish tank (so that it passes through the most water). Gradually add in the milk, and stir the water so it is evenly distributed. As more milk is added, the beam of light in the water becomes more visible, initially with its typical yellow-white color. Then as even more milk is added, the beam starts turning red. The water around the beam (with lots of milk particles in it) starts turning blue. As you add more milk, the beam gets redder and the milk gets bluer. The blue part of the milk is analogous to the sky, while the red beam is analogous to why the sun looks red. And if you look at the flashlight from the far end of the tank, it looks like it's only emitting red light, even though it is surrounded by the glowing blue water of the tank.

So what function is this? What function did you use to explain this and what function are you catering to?

 

[uumlau]

So what function is this? What function did you use to explain this and what function are you catering to?

Fi, obviously.

Isn't the picture pretty?

 

[onemoretime]

I can, and have done this, as a Si dom. Sometimes my recollection is instant, sometimes it takes hours/days/weeks to conjure up, and sometimes I don't ever make the connection.

I too, prior to externally laying claim that what I am perceiving is the end all, be all, sometimes have to do more 'work' to be sure of it. So that part I don't think is exclusive to Ni.
Like other's have said, I believe that if you know a person or have some understanding of the underlyings, or the Ni-er takes the time to explain it, that a non-Ni also can make the connection.

I know this guy- a public speaker. When he speaks, people say he goes all over the place with his points, but when he brings it home, it all makes sense. He wraps it up neatly (well, sometimes). That's Ni. I love how he takes seemingly unrelated things and is able to make connections, or use them to support his conclusions. Sometimes as he's setting up his points, I'm able to make the connection before he actually says it. Not that I am using Ni, but at least my Si ability helps me to follow what he's saying and build right along with him, not look at him with the face.

Si and Ni are explained in polar opposites- with Si being so simple and straightforward, and Ni being so complex. Neither is the case.

Perhaps, then, this is just the result of introverted judgment.

So, if I get what U's saying correctly, a better way of describing Ni is to say "this is clearly, utterly correct. However, you're not seeing it this way, not because you're stupid, bad, or deficient in any way, but because you don't have either the same internal or external frame of reference for this to make sense to you. Here, let me illustrate/explain/show to you what exactly I mean, so you can understand where I'm coming from."

 

[uumlau]

Perhaps, then, this is just the result of introverted judgment.

So, if I get what U's saying correctly, a better way of describing Ni is to say "this is clearly, utterly correct. However, you're not seeing it this way, not because you're stupid, bad, or deficient in any way, but because you don't have either the same internal or external frame of reference for this to make sense to you. Here, let me illustrate/explain/show to you what exactly I mean, so you can understand where I'm coming from."

Yes, that is an accurate description of what I'm saying.

 

[onemoretime]

I'd already explained that, sort of. The light is passing through more atmosphere, and hence more particles. The red light will just pass through the particles. (Some red light scatters, too, if the particles are big enough - but that just means everything other than red is scattering even more.)

The physics concept is easily analogized by imagining a small boat in the ocean. There are a lot of big waves (long wavelengths) in the ocean that just make the boat bob up and down. It doesn't move, and the waves just pass on by. The small waves will hit the boat and bounce off, because the waves are smaller than the size of the boat.

There is a cool experiment you can do with a flashlight, a fish tank full of water, and some milk. Shine the light through the water of the fish tank (so that it passes through the most water). Gradually add in the milk, and stir the water so it is evenly distributed. As more milk is added, the beam of light in the water becomes more visible, initially with its typical yellow-white color. Then as even more milk is added, the beam starts turning red. The water around the beam (with lots of milk particles in it) starts turning blue. As you add more milk, the beam gets redder and the milk gets bluer. The blue part of the milk is analogous to the sky, while the red beam is analogous to why the sun looks red. And if you look at the flashlight from the far end of the tank, it looks like it's only emitting red light, even though it is surrounded by the glowing blue water of the tank.

Whereas, the Ni determination would simply be an immediate "oh, the milk is diffracting the light" upon seeing the end result of the experiment, without any need for further demonstration.

Makes sense.

 

[Poki]

Fi, obviously.

Isn't the picture pretty?

It does look pretty cool. I do think that the write up caters to a certain perception though.

 

[IZthe411]

If you would have dumbed it down a little more, I'd be happy......... It sounds like you're joking here, but it's close.

I'm refining my description of both as I learn lot more like myself.

Perhaps, then, this is just the result of introverted judgment.

In what way?

 

[onemoretime]

So, if anything, the conflict/misunderstanding between Se/Ne and Si/Ni can be reconciled as follows:

The inexperienced ego of someone with a strong Se/Ne function expresses suspicion when someone comes to a conclusion based on limited sets of data, because it implies that the effort that Se/Ne exerts is somehow unnecessary or wasteful. With experience, the mature ego recognizes that by virtue of either past experience or unconscious recognition, others can be trusted to make accurate judgments based on limited information.

The inexperienced ego of someone with a strong Si/Ni function expresses offense when someone questions the conclusion the person has determined, because it attacks their credibility as a person. With experience, the mature ego recognizes that the questioning doesn't spring from distrust, but rather recognizes that limited data can produce inaccurate results, and that one should be constantly revising their determination as new information is known.

 

[Poki]

So, if anything, the conflict/misunderstanding between Se/Ne and Si/Ni can be reconciled as follows:

The inexperienced ego of someone with a strong Se/Ne function expresses suspicion when someone comes to a conclusion based on limited sets of data, because it implies that the effort that Se/Ne exerts is somehow unnecessary or wasteful. With experience, the mature ego recognizes that by virtue of either past experience or unconscious recognition, others can be trusted to make accurate judgments based on limited information.

The inexperienced ego of someone with a strong Si/Ni function expresses offense when someone questions the conclusion the person has determined, because it attacks their credibility as a person. With experience, the mature ego recognizes that the questioning doesn't spring from distrust, but rather recognizes that limited data can produce inaccurate results, and that one should be constantly revising their determination as new information is known.

Yes, and also recognize when an Ne/Se person has hit a shadow and actually reaches a Strong Ni/Si and stops revising or vice versa with an Ni/Si person.

 

[NotOfTwo]

Um, no.

... which is why polaroid sunglasses work well eliminating "glare" from the sky and from reflections of the sky (on a body of water or a window).

Where can I get me some of these!?! They sound awesome.

 

[uumlau]

Where can I get me some of these!?! They sound awesome.

Most any drugstore in the summertime. You have to look for the "polaroid" designation.

 

[Poki]

Most any drugstore in the summertime. You have to look for the "polaroid" designation.

or "polarized". Dont want them to end up with a camera.

 

[onemoretime]

Yes, and also recognize when an Ne/Se person has hit a shadow and actually reaches a Strong Ni/Si and stops revising or vice versa with an Ni/Si person.

I'm of the opinion that the other person's functional traits are irrelevant; we all have to develop ourselves to be able to coexist with all kinds of people.