• 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.

[Ni] A Challenge to Ni users

BlackDog

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
569
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
what a biased hypothesis. of course the US are going to enter a war (you always do it), but they are going to lose and will have to forsake the project of ruling the world (when I hear americans saying "why don't we send soldiers here and there" my usualy answer is "because the wolrd is not yours neither risiko").
just look at how China bought your debt, is builiding a web of economic alliance with many emerging countries (never heard of yellow africa before?) and is overall playing much better on the global chessboard.
moreover, many of your old allies are beginning to look around to seek more reliable partners that won't treat them as servants.
what the hell do you think Europe thought after you spied the whole continent? of course they will look pleasing for a while, but underneath many people here hold a grudge against the US and would rather see you minding your own business. in short, everybody's just playing along.
haven't you noticed how NATO takes less and less action toward terrorism and in general global threats?
we failed to protect Ukraine successfully, and you will fail to protect Japan from China once time will come.
I do foresee a war incoming, but the result will only be a major change in the words' setting, and nothing will be like it was before.

The dominating power is feared and hated. It has always been so.

What do you think will happen to your country if it is not the next dominating power? The nature of strategy makes it certain that we will always live in a brutal world so long as brutality is a by-product of effective coercion. The best we can hope for is to live under the protection of tyrants.

EDIT: I would also note that we in fact gained over Ukraine. It was Russia's historically; in fact, we faithfully swore to Gorbachev in the days of Clinton that NATO would never go east of Germany. Instead, after we perceived the weakness of Russia, we advanced NATO up to Russia's very borders. Today, it makes news headlines when Russia dares to mass troops on its own border; what kind of power or rivalry is this? U.S. is trying hard to encircle Russia.
 

Bush

cute lil war dog
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
5,182
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Forum: MBTI (tm) and Jungian Cognitive Functions
All things related to MBTI, including cognitive functions, Kiersey temperaments, and more!

Hmm
 

DsTeP

New member
Joined
Nov 15, 2014
Messages
23
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
649
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
How did you come to foresee what would happen in Ukraine and the formation of ISIS?

And what will happen in Ukraine now? What will happen in Syria?

The Ukrainians had a d deep hatred for Putin as he helped the former corrupt President rig the vote. The cops/government was seen as the Mafia. The revolution will leave a debt on the country leading them to join in the EU after another year of argument between the Ukraine and Russia (Putin will either quit on his own terms or will have to be murdered.)
Syria is the Iraqi revolution all over, the USA will help the revolutionary team and arm them which may lead to a peaceful state for the country or another ISIS at this time it is to early to tell.
 

Mane

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
828
Just for fun:

I predict a revival of gothic architecture with it's flavor for fine detail and ornaments, as the game of light and shadows, the break down of space and the visual pull of curvature combined with increasing the density of details enables us to make smaller space seem bigger, a selling point that would get stronger the more dense cities become an will eventually outweigh the cost as 3d printers will chip away from the cost benefit of having identical mass produced blocks.
I predict that due to the limitation on air time, the current experiments with drone delivery systems will fail to reach mass market use until they can be used legally in conjunction with driverless vehicles, which would take time because the legal requirements for a road vehicle that has no driver at all - nobody there to take over and nobody's insurance to sue - are well beyond the legal acceptance of simply equipping self-driving system.
I predict that privacy will come back, and with it the biggest blow to our current institutions and systems as we know them: Quantum encryption would not only allow security code you can not break, but will usher a new age of online currencies who's transactions are completely untraceable by any government agency, making huge portions of the tax code completely unenforceable for a larger and larger part of the population - starting from the top.

(To my knowledge no Ni has being used in the process of the above - just good old fashioned analysis-guided imagination with some of the basic principles of scenario planning).
 

teothebest

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
54
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp
The dominating power is feared and hated. It has always been so.

What do you think will happen to your country if it is not the next dominating power? The nature of strategy makes it certain that we will always live in a brutal world so long as brutality is a by-product of effective coercion. The best we can hope for is to live under the protection of tyrants.

EDIT: I would also note that we in fact gained over Ukraine. It was Russia's historically; in fact, we faithfully swore to Gorbachev in the days of Clinton that NATO would never go east of Germany. Instead, after we perceived the weakness of Russia, we advanced NATO up to Russia's very borders. Today, it makes news headlines when Russia dares to mass troops on its own border; what kind of power or rivalry is this? U.S. is trying hard to encircle Russia.

being feared and hated does not mean anything. believing that you can challenge the whole world's will is just delusional. the US have enjoyed their brightest years during the last two decades (since the fall of the Berlin wall), but now the tables are turning.
so in your opinion the matter is that you will be either dominated or domineering? well, this sort of makes sense but the power games are already going on.
many of you americans see the rebellions in the Middle east just as a problem of safety, which is to simplicistic. people want a change. in Brazil, in Africa, in the Muslim world and even in China (just look at what's going on in Hong Kong).
You guys are just too blinded with your self-righteous boastful behaviour to see what's going on. as for my own country, I don't give a fuck about, honestly :D
in fact I am planning on moving abroad.

I don't see how you hardly gained anything over Ukraine. I mean, broadening the NATO is history already. let's look at the present situation:
firstly, you lost your economic exchange with Russia, which was relatively low if compared to the EU's (which in fact was doubtful about the sactions against Russia, because we could have ended up without gas with the winter incoming), but imposing the embargo, on the other hand, made the EU even less likely to second your cross-ocean economic agreement (which in the end will end up being nothing).
ah, you seem to be forgetting that NATO is not the same as US navy.... even if at times it is.
so, to sum up:
geopolitically speaking, the one true winners is the EU, which managed to expand as far as Ukraine (the countries that entered NATO after the USSR fall joined the EU too, and EU is much a stronger bond than a military alliance about to fall apart).
economically speaking, the winner is China, which got his hands on a huge amount of gas for cheap money, just because Putin realized too late he had fucked up with Ukraine.

lastly, I'd appreciate if you gave up on your risiko view of the world. wars cannot be openly fought among great powers since the UN became a thing after WW2, and diplomacy can do wonders nowadays.
 

BlackDog

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
569
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
lastly, I'd appreciate if you gave up on your risiko view of the world. wars cannot be openly fought among great powers since the UN became a thing after WW2, and diplomacy can do wonders nowadays.

I sincerely hope you are correct. We can both agree on that.
 

teothebest

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
54
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp
let's say it: with this ultraconnected world, wars are just a mess and a big loss of money :D

they want our oranges? we want thier gas? so what's the problem, let's hug and cherish each other and pretend to be good friends just for the sake of money :D

oh, and if I were you, it would go easy on Putin, lest you want to be jailed for gay propaganda XD
 

DsTeP

New member
Joined
Nov 15, 2014
Messages
23
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
649
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Wars will be fought by teenagers with video game controllers
 

PocketFullOf

literally your mother
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
485
MBTI Type
NeTi
Enneagram
pot
You laid out three options that I could make out and they are general enough to cover all the possibilities: ISIS loses, ISIS changes itself into a peaceful organization working within the system, or the system changes to give ISIS a role.
Yes.
A fourth possibility is ISIS wins.
I listed that as a highly unlikely possibility.
Maybe this is what you alluded to? What are the "overarching structures" ISIS would be integrated in to?
Into the state system as a political party to work within the already existing framework of IR.
Right now, ISIS is not allied with either the US or Russia, is despised by both Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two antagonists in the unofficial Islamic civil war, and its war on Assad and the US is confined to Syria and Iraq. So how will this conflict widen to a war that can escalate into a something like a WWIII?--ie, how will the bigger powers be drawn in?
Because bigger powers don't want to lose areas or resources that are strategic within the larger geo-political picture.
 

PocketFullOf

literally your mother
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
485
MBTI Type
NeTi
Enneagram
pot
Since Bush was able to convince the allies to act using lies, it can be supposed they could have done the same thing using (more) lies.
I disagree, I think what happened was so bad that allies were able to overlook the fact that the Bush Administration was being a little trigger happy. The US felt very vulnerable and it was obvious for her allies to see, and since at that time the US was the most powerful (or one of the most powerful) countries in the world, the fact that this could happen in the US scared all her less powerful allies that none of them were safe, therefore there was more leeway for action than there otherwise might have been if the attack had been thwarted, because it would show that the US could guard themselves against such a threat and there wasn't a need for immediate eradication which would mean that the Bush Administration would have to pursue other options first to not seem rash.
And even if they had not succeeded in getting UN agreement, Bush would've gone in with a few close allies (like the UK) anyway.
There is no way to know that, but it is likely.
So I'm not sure history would have changed, but I am sure many lives and the biggest symbols of American power would have survived. That is, if there was a conspiracy. And I don't believe there was.
Like I said, calling it a conspiracy is massive overkill.
 

doppelganger

New member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
93
MBTI Type
INTP
No, that wasn't my argument. My argument is that if the system was upheld by random factors, it would have collapsed long ago. It stands for reasons, and as long as those reasons stand the system is upheld. I named what I believe to the the reasons.

Your wrote:

The major power guaranteeing global trade cannot succumb to debt problems without the compromise of the whole system that it is guaranteeing. It is inconceivable outside massive environmental damage that the system which has expanded continuously since the 1700s will collapse. WWI tanked the British and transferred the role over to the U.S,but the U.S. is in no similar position to be tanked and replaced by a similar rival with sophisticated financial systems, raw industrial power, and a powerful navy and general security power.

First of all, Britain didn't "hand over the role to the US" after WWI. The US dollar became the world's reserve currency after WWII following the Bretton Woods agreement. Second, your argument is that as long as there is no viable alternative to the US it will remain the guarantor of the world's reserve currency. This assumes there has to be a single reserve currency backed by a single national power. But what did ppl do before there was a reserve currency? Is it not possible for countries to trade in their own currencies, especially large trading partners? China, for example, has signed several agreements to conduct bilateral trade in renminbi, not dollars. Russia is beginning to do the same. And why can't a transnational body like the IMF assume the role? In fact, there has been talk of using the IMF's Special Depository Rights (SDRs) as the reserve currency. It would be backed by a basket of currencies including the dollar. Third, it isn't necessary for the country backing the reserve currency to have the strongest military. It is necessary that the country have one of if not the strongest economies. This ensures there are large and sophisticated markets to finance trade and facilitate the flow of capital. A strong economy with low inflation also ensures the stability of the reserve currency. The military has nothing to do with any of these conditions, and is why the yen at one time was thought to be a candidate for reserve currency status. (See below for discussion about Japan.)

The role of depressions is overexaggerated by those suffering them. Because the world economy waxes and wanes does not mean that the relative position of the U.S. is fundamentally damaged relative to the other economies.

History is not a collection of isolated events but a sequence of events one leading to and producing the other. WWI produced the boom in the US in the 20s that lead to the Great Crash and Depression of the 30s. In Germany, WWI produced the hyperinflation of the 20s that lead to Hitler and Nazism in the 30s. Both the Depression and Nazism lead to WWII that produced the demise of the British Empire and the ascension to superpower status of the US. So depressions are not isolated events that touch only the countries or ppl that suffer them. Worldwide depressions touch everyone and changes history, including the country backing the reserve currency.

Britain lost its colonies because Japan took Singapore and showed once for all that the hold Britain had over them was mainly psychological.

Soldiers from all over the Commonwealth fought on behalf of the British in both WWI and WWII. Britain fought against Axis aggression and for the independence of occupied states. It was patently hypocritical for Britain to ask the Commonwealth states to fight for the independence of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc, when they themselves maintained colonies in the middle east, Asia, and elsewhere. That hypocrisy and the weakened postwar British military and economy were the primary reasons for the loss of many colonies after WWII.

The whole point is that the US won't find itself in such a position. The U.S. is more powerful than Britain ever was relative to its rivals. The EU is finished as a military power; they've been a virtual protectorate since WWII.

You don't understand the scenario. Go back and reread what I wrote. The US enters a war that another power such as Europe or China manages to avoid. As a result, the US suffers significant military and economic losses while Europe or China escapes unscathed. This leaves Europe or China in a much stronger position vis a vis the US, just as WWII left the US in a much stronger position vis a vis Britain. At that point, Europe or China will have the wherewithal to assume the role of economic and military leadership of the world.

China is overhyped. They are surrounded by U.S. created protectorates or former protectorates like Japan, Taiwan (right on the Chinese coast, preventing them from projecting their navy abroad like the U.S. does), South Korea and others. Obama's fabled pivot to Asia; it didn't happen, but what was that about? It's about the beginning of pressure on China.

This is still in the erroneous pre-war context, but let me just say that Japan is not militarized and neither Taiwan nor S Korea have a nuclear arsenal. They are both dependent on the US for their protection. But it is that protection that is "overhyped". If China, for example, invaded Taiwan tomorrow, do you think the US would really risk a war with China? What did NATO do when Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine?

In addition to this, if you look up the statistics on the amount of value added in Chinese factories, you'll find that it is very minimal. China is much hype and little substance; in practice they have been converted into a big factory for the assembly of cheap goods. It is far easier to do this than it is to develop research facilities and industries necessary for developing new and competitive military technology.

Show me the statistics. The Chinese are not just producing "cheap goods" anymore. They have steadily moved up the manufacturing value chain. Ever heard of Lenovo? Or Alibaba? Or Huawei?

Sure, the economy of the U.S. is propped up by artificial measures. This has been true since WWII at least. How else do you maintain such extraordinary wealth disparities, both domestically and in comparison with the world? But this doesn't mean that such artificial measures can't continue and even increase. Someday the U.S. will lose its position, but I find it hard to imagine that it will be in the foreseeable future.

A country doesn't have to adopt artificial measures to produce unequal results. Capitalism guarantees that by its very nature. And the easy monetary policy of the last fifteen years has actually helped narrow the gap with the rest of the world by financing our purchases of inexpensive goods from China and other developing countries.

Just think of it this way. The Japanese, a U.S. ally, did great up to a certain point. But then they ran out of things to copy in the West because technology peaked out. And their lack of R&D came back to bite them. The same thing will happen with China. The developer is tremendously advanced with respect to the imitator.

Really? So the Japanese didn't copy our MP3 players and smartphones? Or our personal computers? Or big screen TVs? And they don't have the internet? And haven't developed electric vehicles?

No. Japan peaked because they had a real estate bubble. When it popped, rather than forcing the sick banks to write-off bad debts the authorities dragged their feet and propped them up. Banks with bad debts can't perform their job of supplying credit, and because credit is the fuel of our modern capitalist economies, the Japanese economy languished.
 

BlackDog

New member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
569
MBTI Type
NiTe
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
[MENTION=22814]doppelganger[/MENTION] : I'll just let a response on this one pass. I think on both sides we've reached the point where it is just assertion and counter-assertion; and in fact on some points I agree with you. If this hypothetical war did happen, it could hypothetically play out as you've laid out. No contest there. But it hasn't happened yet so we don't know what 'would happen'.

I'm not invested enough in the issue to do research. :)
 

Ene

Active member
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
3,574
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
5w4
So, I've heard a few Ni-doms describe Ni as a "powerful" cognitive function. Supposedly, one of its powers is the ability to look into the future and foresee what will happen. YET, when you look at the real world, there are no ppl who can consistently predict what will happen in human affairs, no sage stock market forecasters, no prescient political pundits, no genius military leaders, no insightful intelligence agents who can tell us what is going to happen with any degree of consistency or reliability. Just look at 911. Where was the Ni-dom to tell us that was going to happen?

So, this is my challenge. Give us a demonstration of your Ni powers, right here, right now. Tell us something that is going to happen. And not just this one time. Not even twice. But consistently. Over time.

You can't do it. Not better than a flip of a coin.

As an aside, I have a INTJ friend who is a student of history, and he tells me that at critical junctures in history, when there was great upheaval and the future was uncertain, there typically was only one person who correctly foresaw how events would unfold--and sometimes there wasn't even one. And even when there was, successfully anticipating only one event is a poor test of real ability. It is beyond normal human powers to consistently anticipate the future. History shows this. As will this thread.

It doesn't really work like that, at least not in my understanding. I believe the whole psychic/ precog thing is a misconception about Ni. Ni isn't about predicting economic collapses, wars or political upheavals. It's not about predicting the future of the world. It's about finding one's own way in the world. Every time I've ever ignored my initial impression about a situation or a person, I've regretted it. I can't tell what course of action is best for the world, but I do listen to my intuition when dealing with "my world."

Ni dominants are adept at connecting unseen dots, at constantly picking up nuances. Because of the ability to connect those dots, to synthesize an overall pattern and predict a plausible (not definite) outcome, some people want to stick the label “psychic” into the mix, which I do not like. I think a huge portion of it is just in subconsciously connecting current trends of people’s actions to past outcomes and formulating a probable result. I think the greatest use of Ni is in navigating the course of one's own life.

Still, it’s important to note as I said in another post, that while a well-developed intuition can often be dead on the money, intuition can also be wrong sometimes. There's always the chaos factor, randominities. It must be balanced with logical thought.

Anyway, I think there's nothing to prove. Ni is what it is just like any other lead function. It has advantages and disadvantages.
 

Bush

cute lil war dog
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
5,182
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
My vote is to close this thread down now, then open it up in 10 years to see which set of predictions came true. We'll have answers on the predictive powers of whatever the hell then.

And also the thread will be closed for 10 whole years, which is a pretty damn good side effect.
 

GarrotTheThief

The Green Jolly Robin H.
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
1,648
MBTI Type
ENTJ
The US won't be ready for him in his lifetime.

That might be the case...but I'm reminded of the idea that progress also might not be linear and if progressive attitude expansion is accelerating we might see exponential support in a shorter time frame than we think. Ten years ago the political landscape was radically different. Of course there is the possibility that political landscape might actually be quite stagnant and linear in nature. I'm not expert. I just get an intuition that is more possible than we think.

I see you decided on entp instead of entj...interesting.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I'm sure I read an analogy of Ni that likened it to looking through a keyhole, you can see something is there, you know it exists but until the door is opened you have no clear idea of what you were looking at, but once seen it couldn't possibly have been anything else.

Either that or wigfzgelnvecgjvgygb. Stuff over the next few years could be fairly well predicted using data, trends, analysis etc.. You don't need intuition for it since the information is available NOW.

Although seriously you can't make truly accurate predictions once you aim too far forward in time. Know why?

Because without context it sounds like nonsense. Basically look up Agnes Nutter. What would a computer look like to an individual from an ancient civilisation if it could be predicted? Or even a hundred years ago?
 
Top