User Tag List

First 243233343536 Last

Results 331 to 340 of 400

Thread: Signs of Ni

  1. #331
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    Can someone please explain to me how Ni system building works?
    In simple terms, an Si system is built in terms of where the things should go in the system. An Ni system is built in terms of where the functionality should go in the system. An analogy might be a library's card catalog for Si, a system where you need to know what something (a book) is called in order to figure out where it is in the system, and a computer or smart phone, where you need to know what something (an application) does in order to figure out where it is in the system.

    A more apt (but more technical) analogy is object oriented vs functional programming languages: Si is object oriented, where the code is centered on building things (objects) that have properties and methods, while Ni is functional, where the code is centered on building functionality than on building things. In C#, an object oriented language, every entity is an object: even integer, Boolean or string variables ... even functions are objects (when treated as a delegate). In F#, a functional programming language, every entity is a function ... even a "variable" is simply a function that is defined as taking no arguments and returning a specific result, and an "object" is simply a function that takes no arguments and returns the object.

    As such, Ni systems will tend to center around modeling the dynamic behavior of things, while Si systems will center around the more static relationships between things. To Ni, the "things" are merely details of the system, while to Si, the functionality is merely one kind of detail of the "things" in the system.

    These are just overall tendencies of course. Ni doesn't ignore the "things" any more than Si ignores the functionality, but there is definitely a preference on the part of each.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  2. #332
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    ^wow, you said the same thing 5 times.
    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    In simple terms, an Si system is built in terms of where the things should go in the system. An Ni system is built in terms of where the functionality should go in the system. An analogy might be a library's card catalog for Si, a system where you need to know what something (a book) is called in order to figure out where it is in the system, and a computer or smart phone, where you need to know what something (an application) does in order to figure out where it is in the system.

    A more apt (but more technical) analogy is object oriented vs functional programming languages: Si is object oriented, where the code is centered on building things (objects) that have properties and methods, while Ni is functional, where the code is centered on building functionality than on building things. In C#, an object oriented language, every entity is an object: even integer, Boolean or string variables ... even functions are objects (when treated as a delegate). In F#, a functional programming language, every entity is a function ... even a "variable" is simply a function that is defined as taking no arguments and returning a specific result, and an "object" is simply a function that takes no arguments and returns the object.

    As such, Ni systems will tend to center around modeling the dynamic behavior of things, while Si systems will center around the more static relationships between things. To Ni, the "things" are merely details of the system, while to Si, the functionality is merely one kind of detail of the "things" in the system.

    These are just overall tendencies of course. Ni doesn't ignore the "things" any more than Si ignores the functionality, but there is definitely a preference on the part of each.

  3. #333
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkgraffiti View Post
    ^wow, you said the same thing 5 times.
    That means you understood what I said each time! Communication succeeded.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  4. #334
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Lol.

  5. #335
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    That means you understood what I said each time! Communication succeeded.
    Well I didn't, explain it again! Of course I possess no understanding of programming so the analogy means nothing to me.

    Ironically my parents often express exasperation at my refusal to go into a computer based career based on my amazing ability to look problems up on google and solve them on our pc's by copying what others have already done.

    Really?

  6. #336
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Well I didn't, explain it again! Of course I possess no understanding of programming so the analogy means nothing to me.
    Heheheh!

    OK. Think in terms of LEGOs.

    LEGOs of course have different shapes and sizes, and the little connector thingies that let you attach them however you wish. It's obvious that both the shape/size AND the connector thingies are important. But when figuring out how to put them together, Ni and Si tend to look at a different aspect, first. Si looks at shape/size, and thinks in terms of where all the pieces should go. Ni looks instead at the connectors, and thinks in terms of what other connectors fit with this connector. Given a little LEGO person, Si will put the arms where the arms go, the head where the head goes, and the legs where the legs go. Ni will see no problem, however, putting the arm on top of the head, or a leg on an arm, or giving him four arms. Why? Because the connectors fit! As long as the connectors fit it's a good system.

    These seems nonsensical, of course: 4 arms isn't a good system if you need to walk, for example. But in real life, the connectors are more complicated; in real life, there are only very few ways they can fit together. LEGOs see connectors the way Si people see the connectors: a minor detail. Everyone knows where the arms go, right? Ni people see the connectors more like those of a jigsaw puzzle than LEGOs: it doesn't matter what the picture is on the puzzle; the pieces either fit together or they don't.

    So an Ni system is comprised of figuring out how the connectors all work, and building around that. An Si system is more about connecting things together based on what they "are", and the connectors are secondary.

    Thus an Si system is based on one's internal understanding of things and how they are classified and organized, which helps to explain its effective rigidity. An Ni system is based on the connectors, and thus can build things inconceivable in the usual Si sense, putting things in the "wrong place" because it's the connectors matching up, not the classification of the thing, that determines its place.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  7. #337
    In orbit
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3 sx
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    There was a point where I thought Kierkegaard was an INFP because his works were a bit more tangential, open, and his earlier works were pseudonymous. He also concealed much about his personal life with a sociable veneer, all of which suggested a "work behind the scenes" attitude. Now, after listening to a biography that mentioned how he could insert himself into the context of history and fiction, and how he consistently kept his intellect and character rather low-key to appease his father as a child with an inert acceptance that he would die early, I'm more convinced he preferred Ni and Fe; in retrospect, his analyses were very "meta". A "wise child".
    Very interesting. I definitely have had a similar childhood experience of muting myself in some sense. I come from a long line of people who were very versatile, intelligent and talented but who had few accomplishments, so being witty and talented was somehow perceived almost as a personal insult and an unpleasant reminder of a perceived failure so I think I internalized a lot of things and there was a definite theme of hiding your true self. Subsequently this life journey has definitely had a theme of conquering fear, unravelling binds and an unmasking of sorts. I don't know how it is for other INFJs and why a specific individual would respond in such a way. My other siblings are not INFJs.

  8. #338
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverie View Post
    Very interesting. I definitely have had a similar childhood experience of muting myself in some sense. I come from a long line of people who were very versatile, intelligent and talented but who had few accomplishments, so being witty and talented was somehow perceived almost as a personal insult and an unpleasant reminder of a perceived failure so I think I internalized a lot of things and there was a definite theme of hiding your true self. Subsequently this life journey has definitely had a theme of conquering fear, unravelling binds and an unmasking of sorts. I don't know how it is for other INFJs and why a specific individual would respond in such a way. My other siblings are not INFJs.
    Maybe that challenge was there to help you in the long run. I'm sorry to hear about the misunderstandings in your professional life.

  9. #339
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Heheheh!

    OK. Think in terms of LEGOs.

    LEGOs of course have different shapes and sizes, and the little connector thingies that let you attach them however you wish. It's obvious that both the shape/size AND the connector thingies are important. But when figuring out how to put them together, Ni and Si tend to look at a different aspect, first. Si looks at shape/size, and thinks in terms of where all the pieces should go. Ni looks instead at the connectors, and thinks in terms of what other connectors fit with this connector. Given a little LEGO person, Si will put the arms where the arms go, the head where the head goes, and the legs where the legs go. Ni will see no problem, however, putting the arm on top of the head, or a leg on an arm, or giving him four arms. Why? Because the connectors fit! As long as the connectors fit it's a good system.

    These seems nonsensical, of course: 4 arms isn't a good system if you need to walk, for example. But in real life, the connectors are more complicated; in real life, there are only very few ways they can fit together. LEGOs see connectors the way Si people see the connectors: a minor detail. Everyone knows where the arms go, right? Ni people see the connectors more like those of a jigsaw puzzle than LEGOs: it doesn't matter what the picture is on the puzzle; the pieces either fit together or they don't.

    So an Ni system is comprised of figuring out how the connectors all work, and building around that. An Si system is more about connecting things together based on what they "are", and the connectors are secondary.

    Thus an Si system is based on one's internal understanding of things and how they are classified and organized, which helps to explain its effective rigidity. An Ni system is based on the connectors, and thus can build things inconceivable in the usual Si sense, putting things in the "wrong place" because it's the connectors matching up, not the classification of the thing, that determines its place.
    Interesting. Your understanding of Ni still makes no sense to me, but of course you could say this is my fault, however to me this is a good example of how people can understand and interpretate the functions in completely different ways.

    Or maybe you do understand it in a similar way to me but I just do not understand the explanation.

    In any case, to me when someone looks at something, (something being anything within whatever context you can imagine), using Ni all the potentials*, pasts and implications that can be connected to the object stream out from it in a complex web, these can then be formulated into part of a personal and internal system that produces something like an insight or new way of looking at something.

    Si on the other hand....and those in vent with me today will have already heard this, but put simply my understanding is that it is just personal sense impressions used almost like a series of flashcards.

    Two Si-doms could remember the same fact at the same time but from different prompts, because they have both experienced the context of this fact in a different way. Something prompts them and bam the brain shoots out something relevant because at some level it recalls an experience associated with whatever is being perceived.

    Obviously one thing I do understand is the point of this possibly becoming a system built out of how things should be based upon these past experiences....not to be confused with memories although there is a connection there perhaps.




    *Not to be confused with the idea potentials of Ne.

  10. #340
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    In any case, to me when someone looks at something, (something being anything within whatever context you can imagine), using Ni all the potentials*, pasts and implications that can be connected to the object stream out from it in a complex web, these can then be formulated into part of a personal and internal system that produces something like an insight or new way of looking at something.
    I won't try to elaborate on Uumlau's explanations, but here's how I see it. I can't really look at anything with Ni, unless it is something rather open-ended like a problem, question, or creative opportunity. Ni is too indirect for looking at things that are concrete or well-established. Even though I may not look, though, I will see all sorts of things, but more through Ni than with Ni. Pasts and implications do not stream outward from these things. The things form connections with other things that may not even have been part of my conscious thought at the outset, and it is this whole that forms the web, an apt metaphor. The web is not a reaching out from all the things, it is rather a bringing together of the things into a single, meaningful pattern. When Ni is working well, this will reveal the solution to the problem, the answer to the question, or the fundamental form of the creative output required.
    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...

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