• 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.

NJs: How do you relate to Ni as the Intuition of time (Socionics concept)?

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
On time I've decided it doesn't exist we are eternally stuck in the same moment forever. So it's neither linear nor spherical basically we don't exist nor does anything else, but I'll let you believe everything does, when it doesn't I forgive you
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
My sense of time is kind of parallel to actual time and is based on something different. Sometimes it lines up remarkably well and sometimes really poorly. INJ's I think mark time around patterned events, which is how they can see the future, but they may also think they can cram a million things into a small space of time or think they have forever when they don't. My experience anyway, which seems to accord with what I've gotten from other people.

I intend to read the OP later, but this is what I have to offer for now.
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This.

The idea is retarded.

Time is linear, and anyone who doesn't think so is an idiot.

There are some ways of looking at it that can bring in elements of cyclicality, but it is indeed still linear.

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION], [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION], [MENTION=19700]Fuzzy Conduit[/MENTION] --

I know the OP is about Socionomics, but the picture is so accurate I felt duty-bound to post it.

4ef4951a28ff11e3b23122000a1f98cf_8.jpg
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION], [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION], [MENTION=19700]Fuzzy Conduit[/MENTION] --

I know the OP is about Socionomics, but the picture is so accurate I felt duty-bound to post it.

View attachment 11685

I'm actually more P, in that diagram.

Part of the reason I find the J vs P axis to be much more ambiguous/meaningless than it is often made out to be.

There are some tendencies that can be derived from it, but, for the most part, it just tells you which of the first two functions is dominant, and which is auxiliary.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
I relate to Ni being the intuition of time fairly well. The descriptions aren't that great and could be better, but they work for now.

I relate to Ni being more like a vortex (almost like an inversion, actually), especially when assimilating information passively (unconscious inf. Se/Suggestive Se) and reaching the "zen-like state" (as Dario Nardi describes it) when thinking about the future, which, to me, seems to be like gazing inwardly and cutting oneself off with the physical world entirely in favor of mental imagery.

I posted this on a thread on a different forum regarding Ni.

For me at least, I think of Ni as sort of like an inversion. Normally I just sort of nibble on various little musings I have grabbed from my environment or own thoughts, playing out little timelines based on small things that will probably never happen for my own amusement. If I actually get stimulated and highly interested in something that I'm thinking about, trying to solve, etc., I sort of completely detach from reality in an inverted manner, as if I'm drawing my entire focus inward to manipulate a problem, a thought, etc. When I'm engaged in this state, I literally have no connection to the external world; I just completely neglect all sensory input in favor for the imagery in my mind. The best way to describe the exact process would be ripping the thought/problem to shreds in my mind with such celerity that my own reasoning can't keep up with it to make sure it hasn't made an illogical tear at the stimuli. It sort of feels like sprinting in your own mind while cleaning up the footprints behind the sprinter at the exact same time. Sometimes I will reach a conclusion and have forgotten my entire process for arriving at the conclusion, meaning that I have to retrace my thoughts while already having the conclusion in my mind to double-check my own rapid, uncontrollable work. I stay completely drawn into my own mind while in this state, and the deeper the thoughts/problems go, the more internalized my focus becomes. Eventually, I get to the point where I completely assimilate an idea, a conclusion, a solution, etc., where it feels personalized, as if it is mine. Thus begins a wave of idiosyncratic associative weaving where I knit a visual perspective through information that had been drawn into the abyss that is me. I favored Chemistry much due to the fact that I would absorb the information, rip it apart, and weave it back together to form my own artistry of atoms colliding in clouds of gas, and electrons oscillating energy levels and orbital shells all while seeming to pop into existence and out of existence due to wave particle duality. It feels like the world itself has been ripped apart by my mind, and I get to see the beautiful mechanism that governs everything about it.

I have begun to question whether or not the assimilation of information becoming personalized is due to the Ni-Fi mechanism, where Ni has weaved its artistry and Fi projects, as a Ji function, positive/negative values on it.

Ni - Shredding, weaving, mental exploration of Se's factual/observable information
Te - Applying Ni/Fi digested information to the external world
Fi - Verifies Ni's artistry in accordance with one's own belief structure/value system, adds emotional weight to internalized conceptual information
Se - Unconscious absorption of factual/observable information
 

Geonat

New member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
134
I have an INFJ perspective on time and everything that I was pretty satisfied with at the time of writing. It is in Swedish though and about one A4-page large in normal font. I'll try to translate it this evening. It makes very much sense to me but I've learned to be careful with Ni and objectivity. I would love to have it critizised so that it may be improved.
 

Thursday

Earth Exalted
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
3,960
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Time is ruled by emotions, and moved by events, not my measurements.
 

Geonat

New member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
134
As promised here is my take on the subject.
I wrote it in 2005 and it is heavily influenced by ideas from Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Camus, with some amendments about classical physics and general math/logic that weren't known to them.
The consequences of the model, would it be true, are none :)
Emotionally I liked coming to closure after five years thinking about the subject and I haven't thought about it much since then.
But I didn't really like the conclusion and I still don't :)


The world exists both as subject and object.
This is the root cause of all differentiation.
The subject corresponds to the desire/will of the world (that which experiences).
The object corresponds to the representation of the world (that which is experienced by that which experiences).

But the desire/will (the subject) can only experience * itself * as there is nothing else.
The world thus becomes self-conscious, that is, the object (the representation) is a
subset of the subject.
Subset because the world does not know itself completely.

Complete self-awareness would namely imply that the set itself (the subject) could be an element (an object) in the same set, i.e. that infinite recursion would be possible.
Had the world known itself completely then subject had been identical with object, but reality contradicts this.
Infinity does thus not need to be introduced as a concept.
Discrete theory building is therefore the logical choice (except for approximations).

Suppose the possible states of the world F(n) are finitely many (n = 0,1, 2, ..., N) and that those states can be described by finitely many degrees of freedom dim (F) = M.
Now let F(n+N) = F(n), i.e., let the states be ordered in a cyclic way.
Beginning and end thus coincide, and become arbitrary.

According to experience, all interactions diminish with distance.
The world is therefore as most self-conscious when its representation is as small as possible.
Similarly, the world is as most unaware of itself when its representation is as large as possible.
Let the latter state (arbitrarily) be F(0), i.e. n = 0.
Here Sisyphus looks at the stone that he is about to roll up the hill, so to speak. Note that F(0) = F(N).

The world experiences painful interaction, which it wants to minimize.
This is formalized in physics as “the law of least resistance”, that is, the desire to minimize the potential energy.

In its efforts to minimize the suffering, the subject gets to know its surroundings, and gradually the world as a subject realizes that its surroundings (the representation) in fact is a part of the world itself, i.e. the subject realizes that knowledge building, in fact, means getting to know itself, to become self-conscious.
At the same time it realizes that the price to become conscious is suffering, because knowledge building requires examining the object, that is, interacting with it, which always results in some pain.

A way for the desire/will to completely avoid suffering would therefore be making itself completely unaware. In the world as representation one can imagine that this is equivalent to elementary particles being so far apart that they completely cease to influence each other. This in turn can be achieved if the desire/will produces one last very painful effort and gathers all space-time and matter in a single, completely symmetrical, zero-dimensional region (one point) and fires off.

The symmetry in this perfect Big Bang would result in matter to spread uniformly in all directions and no particle would experience any net force from the other particles. The consciousness of the desire/will would slowly drain away.

The world, however, as mentioned, may never become fully self-aware and therefore the region was not entirely symmetrical and point-like, which in turn gave rise to a new aggregating of matter and a new long pursuit of complete self-knowledge. The circle is closed and the cycle repeats itself identically.

The overall objective of minimizing the suffering gives time direction, i.e. the ability to arrange the states of the world F(n) in a sequence.

As space-time expands, so does entropy, and suffering declines.
In this phase the world becomes less and less self-conscious.
Sisyphus’ stone rolls down the hill.

When space-time is compressed, entropy is reduced and suffering increases.
In this phase the world strives for complete self-awareness.
Sisyphus pushes the stone up the hill.

The transition between these phases correspond to the Big Bang:
The world has become aware that it causes itself pain as it strives to minimize the suffering by learning to know itself.
Sisyphus is on top and has just rolled the stone all the way up.
It recognises that one way to escape out of the paradox and the suffering is to try to become completely unconscious.
The stone starts rolling down again.

The model is fully deterministic and makes the concept of free will meaningless. It's just a matter of interpretation: I *must* follow the laws of nature (I have no free will) is the same as I *want to* follow the laws of nature (I have free will).
 

Geonat

New member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
134
I'm actually more P, in that diagram.

Part of the reason I find the J vs P axis to be much more ambiguous/meaningless than it is often made out to be.

There are some tendencies that can be derived from it, but, for the most part, it just tells you which of the first two functions is dominant, and which is auxiliary.

The Socionics p and j are more direct in that they convey whether the dominant function is perceiving or judging, irrespective of whether it is extraverted or intraverted. But no new information wrt MBTIs P and J.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
The Socionics p and j are more direct in that they convey whether the dominant function is perceiving or judging, irrespective of whether it is extraverted or intraverted. But no new information wrt MBTIs P and J.

Just depends on how you look at it, actually...

The MBTI J and P tell you the attitude of the first judging and first perceiving function, which they surmise is more important.

Regardless, when I said "ambiguous/meaningless", I was referring to the effects on the individual of their last letter/function arrangement.

When it comes to extroverts, J/j and P/p tell you A LOT; but for introverts it's much more ambiguous/meaningless.
 

Geonat

New member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
134
Just depends on how you look at it, actually...

The MBTI J and P tell you the attitude of the first judging and first perceiving function, which they surmise is more important.

Regardless, when I said "ambiguous/meaningless", I was referring to the effects on the individual of their last letter/function arrangement.

When it comes to extroverts, J/j and P/p tell you A LOT; but for introverts it's much more ambiguous/meaningless.

Agreed.
The headings J and P in the picture should perhaps be replaced by j and p.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
The headings J and P in the picture should perhaps be replaced by j and p.

Well, I don't think Socionics' interpretation is necessarily any more accurate.

When it comes to J/j and P/p for introverts, I think each system has something meaningful to say.
 

Geonat

New member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
134
Well, I don't think Socionics' interpretation is necessarily any more accurate.

When it comes to J/j and P/p for introverts, I think each system has something meaningful to say.

But it would better reflect the fact that you are more P in the picture (if that is the case), despite being J.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
But it would better reflect the fact that you are more P in the picture (if that is the case), despite being J.

Yeah, but I'm sort of a mix.

I mean, you should see my desk: extremely organized.

And I pretty clearly use a lot of Te, as anyone here will tell you.

I just have a mix of "Jish" and "Pish" qualities, and that one happens to be Pish.

I'm definitely more flexible and open to improvisation than one would expect from your stereotypical J.
 
Top