User Tag List

First 16242526272836 Last

Results 251 to 260 of 400

Thread: Signs of Ni

  1. #251
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    I kinda disagree with this cutting things down to core essentials. INTJs seem to do a horrible job at this(have noticed it in real life and on these forums), while for INTPs the core essentials is all that matters.
    I do agree that INTJs try to see the core issue of things, but they approach it by looking at things at very superficial Te level and make Ni assumptions about the core issue from those surface level truths. This sort of approach is doomed to fail in reaching the core issue, even tho it might lead to assumptions that work, but only work at very superficial level. Naturally for INTJ it seems like they really understood the core issue, because it works on this superficial level, which is all they care about.
    INTPs on the other hand doesent tend to really care about this superficial level, but dig deep by looking at the issue from all angles and using logic to get to the core issue(opposed to seeing what makes logical sense about what is and making what ever logical or not assumptions about how these things fit together).
    This difference is really what causes most disagreements between INTJs and INTPs. INTPs looking at the core issue and because digging deep enough and because of that being able to apply these fundamentals to other things aswell seems untrusted and uncomprehensive to INTJ, because they make assumptions about the core issue based on superficial Te logic and cant see how INTP applies these core issues to other things aswell.

    Uumlau has shown this many times on this topic(and in other topics aswell) by making totally false assumptions about INTPs. Like this INTPs being so focused on perceived logical consistency that they stop listening and therefore interrupt. While in reality its not that we arent listening and are only focused on logic, its just that we ALSO focus on logic and are quick to see if what the other person is making illogical statements(or it just seems like it because the other person is leaving something essential out), so we ask for clarification in order to see the logic in what the other person says. And if there is no logic in what the other person talks about(assuming we are discussing about something where it matters, like science), its better that the other person realizes the logical mistake instead of talking bullshit for an hour, because if there is one fundamental mistake in logic, there is usually more than that one coming. Now lets assume that someone talks about how fairies used to rule the earth 10 years ago, and ill let him talk for an hour and at that time notice 43 logical mistakes. In order to point out these mistakes in logic, i would have to write them all down, so that i would be able to point them out and explain them later.
    Also in my experience INTJs are way worse at interrupting and whats worse, INTJs interrupt because they dont see something as relevant and dont give a chance for me to explain what it has to do with it..
    INTJs interrupt you because they are impatient and want you to get to the point.

    I must say that I completely disagree with almost your entire post. First, you rely entirely too much on logic. It's your cognitive bias and you don't seem to understand the limitations of it. With respect to getting to the "core" of things - INTJs are all about the core issues. They constantly search for them. It's what they do. Understand the largest possible big picture, distilling a large number of data points about it and then generate insights based on that. I have absolutely no idea how you can justify such nonsense - bad job on core issues? It's laughable.

    From a practical standpoint, I work with a lot of INTPs and find that they bring a perspective that I do not. They can be more flexible in their thinking than I am on the fly. They can be more facilitative. They bring up important things to consider and options. Are they as effective as getting to the heart of the matter and making a choice on actions? Generally no. I don't see it so often because they have such a difficult time making up their minds. It also can be frustrating because I feel like sometimes they are not actively listening. That is, they don't acknowledge the points of others who are communicating.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    I dont agree with this at all. For INTP the problem space is different to INTJ. For INTP the solution may be something outside the problem space, while INTJ tends to look solution only from the problem. So there is no need to change the problem space in order to find an solution outside of it or to switch the problem spaces. You need to remember that INTJs perceive external world via Se, while INTPs use Ne for that.



    This currently known version of reality is the key here. INTPs only accept one version of reality, but this version of reality is unknown. INTJs on the other hand claim to know the reality, even tho its just their version of the reality, not the real reality. Reality doesent change, only the perception of it does. The perception of reality isnt same as the reality, even tho INTJs see it as so and make the judgments(and the big picture based on them) based on the perception of reality and see it as the real reality. This is why INTJ approach seems ridiculously superficial to INTP. This superficial reality really is the perception of what is and analysis what it is(in other words SeTe), INTPs can instantly see that this isnt the reality if it doesent make logical sense compared to the core issue seen by NeTi. However, when it does, its most likely something the INTP didnt think before, at least from that perspective and can be useful.
    So much gobbledegook. I know INTPs understand detail and complexity very well but you get into too much detail when you explain things. Sometimes the thing that is the most profound is the thing that is communicated most concisely.

    INTJs tend to shift the discussion to whether or not the right question is being asked or problem being addressed. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Most times, it seems not and they can help guide the discussion to a result that is more effective. INTPs can do extremely well getting people to feel like they are part of a process but the end results are often not as good as they could be because they are more focused on process rather than product.
    Last edited by highlander; 03-29-2012 at 07:49 PM.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  2. #252
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    It's your cognitive bias and you don't seem to understand the limitations of it.
    Precisely.

    He's horrible about this.

    He actually knows a good amount about typology, but he's so bad in this regard, it's seriously pathetic what he writes sometimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    With respect to getting to the "core" of things - INTJs are all about the core issues. They constantly search for them. It's what they do.
    Yes, but Highlander, it's not the "core issues" as he thinks about core issues, and, as such, is not actually core issues.

    His cognitive bias is so strong that he would literally reply to you and try to argue that this is the case.

    I can write a mocking sentence that basically would say the same thing he would actually argue.

    It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

  3. #253
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I'm pretty sure neither one of you talk about the core issues.

    Case in point, this is already 26 pages on my browser.

  4. #254
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    That's the INTPs' fault.

  5. #255
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    The kicker is what is defined as the "core issue" can be different and also thinking that there is only a single "core" reason. I dont think INTPs define "core", i think they are more on a sliding scale with lots of different issues as culprits. All issues relate to the big picture, all move forward toward a single perfect all encompassing end result.

    Consider the placement of the issues as our judgement...a constant balance between perfection and functional. The placement is pretty objective i think, but the order it is tackled varies based on objective and personal. Inferioir Ti will attempt to place judgement, but they arent able to be objective because they tie together things that only slightly relate. They dont introvert things...analyse very much...so they jump on more "superficial" group issues, not actual issues based on the personal picture. Using the contrast to show Ti vs lack of Ti...it all lies in analysis vs lack of analysis. Ni/Si has a different analysis which usually revolves around finding a solution to a core problem...all other problems dont lie high enough on the sliding scale to find a solution. I personally move along the sliding scale and tackle different areas instead of always focusing on one. Sometimes i will push off "core issues" for a while until i am better prepared to tackle it.

    Now when it come to enjoyment then Ni can easily mimmick Ti analysis instead of being in "problem solving" mode. Guessing with ITJ its more technical based and IFJ its more person based.
    Im out, its been fun

  6. #256
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    From a practical standpoint, I work with a lot of INTPs and find that they bring a perspective that I do not. They can be more flexible in their thinking than I am on the fly. They can be more facilitative. They bring up important things to consider and options. Are they as effective as getting to the heart of the matter and making a choice on actions? Generally no. I don't see it so often because they have such a difficult time making up their minds. It also can be frustrating because I feel like sometimes they are not actively listening. That is, they don't acknowledge the points of others who are communicating.
    Yes, especially to the highlighted. INTPs make great devil's advocates, and will scrub an INTJ plan quite thoroughly by coming up with every possible thing that might go wrong. If I took it all at face value, I would never implement anything. Instead I use it to see into my own blind spots, evaluating each of the potential problems for probability and mitigation potential, and then adjust the plan accordingly. My old boss was like this, and my SO as well.

    My grad school advisor was INTP as well, and epitomized the aspect of continually putting off decisions and actions to keep considering the alternatives. I worked very well with him because I understood this, and could lay out the various options, pros and cons of each, and most importantly, the costs of deferring the decision too long. We made a good team.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #257
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Poki_ View Post
    The kicker is what is defined as the "core issue" can be different and also thinking that there is only a single "core" reason. I dont think INTPs define "core", i think they are more on a sliding scale with lots of different issues as culprits. All issues relate to the big picture, all move forward toward a single perfect all encompassing end result.
    Precisely.

    The biggest thing, imo, is the bolded.

    In what's known as the Linguistic Turn in 20th Century Philosophy, this issue became known as the "sliding signifier". It means that that signifier -- i.e., the word -- can mean different things, and, more generally, that in any statement/argument, there is always a sliding signifier. As applied to this situation, INTP would argue, "No, INTJs don't get to the core issues, INTPs do because yada yada yada", and, in the end, if you dissected this thought, you'd discover that all INTP is doing is defining "core issues" as "the way in which INTPs think about things", and, as such, his whole argument is tautological. Same would go for an INTJ, if he was likewise dumb enough to argue that, "No, INTPs don't get to the core issues, INTJs do." (Frankly, though, I don't think any INTJs have or would have argued that in this thread.) The more important thing, that actually gets to the core issue of this matter, is to develop an accurate understanding of how each type looks at things: what does "getting to the core issues" mean for an INTP, and what does it mean for an INTJ? In what ways are they similar and different from one another? In what contexts does one work better than the other, and in what contexts does the other work better than the other? And what does it mean to "work better" in these contexts? What does each of them offer that the other does not? How can they work together to more effectively achieve their goals? What are their goals? How do each of their goals fit into a larger picture? All of these, and there are certainly more, are relevant questions that get to the core of this issue.

  8. #258
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Poki_ View Post
    The kicker is what is defined as the "core issue" can be different and also thinking that there is only a single "core" reason. I dont think INTPs define "core", i think they are more on a sliding scale with lots of different issues as culprits. All issues relate to the big picture, all move forward toward a single perfect all encompassing end result.

    Consider the placement of the issues as our judgement...a constant balance between perfection and functional. The placement is pretty objective i think, but the order it is tackled varies based on objective and personal. Inferioir Ti will attempt to place judgement, but they arent able to be objective because they tie together things that only slightly relate. They dont introvert things...analyse very much...so they jump on more "superficial" group issues, not actual issues based on the personal picture. Using the contrast to show Ti vs lack of Ti...it all lies in analysis vs lack of analysis. Ni/Si has a different analysis which usually revolves around finding a solution to a core problem...all other problems dont lie high enough on the sliding scale to find a solution. I personally move along the sliding scale and tackle different areas instead of always focusing on one. Sometimes i will push off "core issues" for a while until i am better prepared to tackle it.

    Now when it come to enjoyment then Ni can easily mimmick Ti analysis instead of being in "problem solving" mode. Guessing with ITJ its more technical based and IFJ its more person based.
    I especially agree with the bolded items. As I was reflecting on my response after i wrote it, I thought about ISXJs. I also thought about INFJs. Take an ISFJ - the INTJ will come up with an elaborate explanation for something relating to a people situation (conflict or similar) after giving it a lot of thought. The ISFJ will come up with some incredibly simple explanation that the INTJ overlooks. The INTJ is like "duh". No one type has a monopoly on problem solving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Precisely.

    The biggest thing, imo, is the bolded.

    In what's known as the Linguistic Turn in 20th Century Philosophy, this issue became known as the "sliding signifier". It means that that signifier -- i.e., the word -- can mean different things, and, more generally, that in any statement/argument, there is always a sliding signifier. As applied to this situation, INTP would argue, "No, INTJs don't get to the core issues, INTPs do because yada yada yada", and, in the end, if you dissected this thought, you'd discover that all INTP is doing is defining "core issues" as "the way in which INTPs think about things", and, as such, his whole argument is tautological. Same would go for an INTJ, if he was likewise dumb enough to argue that, "No, INTPs don't get to the core issues, INTJs do." (Frankly, though, I don't think any INTJs have or would have argued that in this thread.) The more important thing, that actually gets to the core issue of this matter, is to develop an accurate understanding of how each type looks at things: what does "getting to the core issues" mean for an INTP, and what does it mean for an INTJ? In what ways are they similar and different from one another? In what contexts does one work better than the other, and in what contexts does the other work better than the other? And what does it mean to "work better" in these contexts? What does each of them offer that the other does not? How can they work together to more effectively achieve their goals? What are their goals? How do each of their goals fit into a larger picture? All of these, and there are certainly more, are relevant questions that get to the core of this issue.
    Actually, this is a good example of getting to the core issue.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  9. #259
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Though Ni is abstract, and its abstract schemes tend lack the clarity and rationale for advocating implementation, there is a unique practicality and reliability about Ni in that one can always think a different way, but one cannot always make everything else different. A reliable liberty in how one thinks and views the world makes life easier for one who doesn't want to waste time contorting what cannot be contorted or doing what observably cannot be done. Someone else mentioned Wittgenstein; later in the more reclusive years of his life, he studied logic rigorously with confidence that he would hone his intellect. Upon logical analysis of much of what he was given, he looked "into" the logic, the definitions and the premises, and countered with concise conclusions of his own. They were so concise and particular that he baffled his contemporaries, and he eventually became disillusioned with the idea that logic was an answer to philosophical riddles with a similar confidence, but tempered with humility. This sort of adaptability of perspective is what tends to distinguish Ni from Si; though Js are characterized as preferring preparation over improvisation, Ni's dependency on new contexts sometimes gives it an edge over Si if the locus of sensing information doesn't hold enough resemblance to the present situation to be applied on the spot. Their contrary perspectives also lend them the ability to form paradoxes by adding the mold of their vision to what presents itself to them, giving others the opportunity to see the sense in irony. Unlike adopting global, revolutionary, and restless candor about their intuition like those who prefer Ne, they tend not to be carried away by one idea after another that might dazzle them. Their intuition serves to guide them with steady direction, rather than pulling them this way and that way. Upon inspection, the Ne/Si combo gives one the impression that while Ne is tugged around by bits of novelty, there is an underlying compulsion to reshape or dominate older experiences through imagining or acting them out in a different way, maybe in an effort to resolve what issues repulse them. On the other hand, those who prefer Ni and Se steer themselves without second guessing their vision based on relics, being reassured by what they thought would come in hindsight, as though nostalgia is an affirmative looking glass into the present and even future.

  10. #260
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    In the context of this conversation, the preference for the "superficial reality" is Se, and the preference for the "deeper reality" is Si.

    If you don't understand why, then you don't understand typology basics very well.
    If you exclude intuition from having the potential to focus on reality, then you throw it, and your dominant function under the bus as nothing but geared toward delusion. There is a difference between what is, and what is concrete. If Ni can't grasp what is, then one can never hope it to hone on the core issue of anything.

Similar Threads

  1. Is anger a sign of righteousness?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-25-2010, 08:34 AM
  2. Literary Examples of Ni
    By Domino in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 11:21 AM
  3. [Ni] The pain of Ni in a male INFJ
    By nzAShadow in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 11-10-2009, 07:10 PM
  4. Tell-Tale Signs of the Types
    By RansomedbyFire in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 11:30 AM

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