[Ni] A Challenge to Ni users

[doppelganger]

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."

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.

Research has shown that ppl are usually wrong in their first impressions and that only "logical thought" or "slow thinking" can get at the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PirFrDVRBo4

 

[Forever]

All I believe that Ni is a synthesizing function that is creative to come up with new more powerful and mediatory (probably not a word) when engrossed in deep intellectual thought and suddenly the answer appears. I think someone wanted to have fun extracting Ni hardcore and then everybody started believing they had a super power with this *magical* way of knowing.

I do also believe that the lack of Si, or Se as an inferior gives a dreamy and surreal feeling of life making dreams feel so real, that's only my subjective experience.

 

[Mademoiselle]

Why do you think I’d accept the challenge?

 

[doppelganger]

Why do you think I’d accept the challenge?

You have Ni, so you tell me.

 

[Jaguar]

Research has shown that ppl are usually wrong in their first impressions and that only "logical thought" or "slow thinking" can get at the truth.

If you're going to genuflect while giving Daniel Kahneman the last word on the so-called truth, you're in deep shit. Wear galoshes.

 

[doppelganger]

If you're going to genuflect while giving Daniel Kahneman the last word on the so-called truth, you're in deep shit. Wear galoshes.

That's a funny thing to say, coming from someone with a worshipful quotation for his sig. But you are a Te user, right?

No, I cite Kahneman not because he is some kind of "god", but because his research has been vetted by a community of credible researchers--UNLIKE Jung.

 

[Jaguar]

But you are a Te user, right?
I cite Kahneman not because he is some kind of "god", but because his research has been vetted by a community of credible researchers--UNLIKE Jung. Dumbass.

Let's have some fun, courtesy of Myers:

Te: Relies on facts outside of the thinker, which are more decisive than the thinking itself for soundness and value.
Ti: Relies on the thinker's powers of observation, appreciation and use of the inner wealth of inherited experience for soundness and value.

Which do you think you prefer with your reliance on a "community of credible researchers" shining a light for the little, lost shepherd?
Good luck with that.

Oh, I'm glad I caught your "dumbass" comment before you removed it. Some people resort to that nonsense when their feathers get ruffled (along with having a weak argument).

 

[Mademoiselle]

You have Ni, so you tell me.

I’ve already.
How come you waste my time once you’ve known?

 

[skylights]

Anyone could predict everything if they could see all of the threads. The problem is gathering enough of the threads when we can't immediately see them as tangible things. One can look between events and see them as processes; one can begin to understand with time where they are most likely occur. And sometimes one whose mind is particularly honed on those threads can, in instances, suddenly see where they intersect. But other times there are other threads they don't realize exist that intercept first and change the direction of the whole. To ask someone to predict the future is to ask them to see everything. Even Ni doms with their thread-awareness are not omniscient, only prescient in blinks and whispers.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Let's have some fun, courtesy of Myers:

Te: Relies on facts outside of the thinker, which are more decisive than the thinking itself for soundness and value.
Ti: Relies on the thinker's powers of observation, appreciation and use of the inner wealth of inherited experience for soundness and value.

Which do you think you prefer with your reliance on a "community of credible researchers" shining a light for the little, lost shepherd?
Good luck with that.

Oh, I'm glad I caught your "dumbass" comment before you removed it. Some people resort to that nonsense when their feathers get ruffled (along with having a weak argument).

Here's my problem with all of this: There are no facts 'inside the thinker'. Everything you think comes through your senses, and is therefore derived from the outside in some part. If the difference is just that one checks sensory input with personal beliefs, then anything called 'introverted' , be it Si, Ti or Ni, is just another kind of Xe.
Case in point: no one have ever offered an explanation of Ni that doesn't include florid, metaphorical language, which points to the fact that it cannot be described accurately in itself, and if that is the case, then it probably doesn't exist.
The fact is that there is nothing to think about that is not derived from the world of the senses, or is connected to it metaphorically ('it's like looking through a keyhole'). You cannot see anything in your mind's eye that is not itself based on something you have actually seen. A unicorn looks like a horse...
I think Ni is simply a way to complete the theory, and to make it symmetrical. The trouble is that this is a artificial construct. Most times, There is no real symmetry, despite our desire for it. The skull looks symmetrical, but the brain is not. The heart is slightly off center to make room for the spine, and the lungs are different shapes to compensate. So the 'vaporware' of the mind seeks a thing that seems balanced, even if this makes no sense in reality.
Ni is fiction, just as a unicorn.

 

[Mademoiselle]

Please stop making the functions talk.
I’ll get a psychological disease.
@___@

 

[doppelganger]

Let's have some fun, courtesy of Myers:

Te: Relies on facts outside of the thinker, which are more decisive than the thinking itself for soundness and value.
Ti: Relies on the thinker's powers of observation, appreciation and use of the inner wealth of inherited experience for soundness and value.

Which do you think you prefer with your reliance on a "community of credible researchers" shining a light for the little, lost shepherd?
Good luck with that.

Oh, I'm glad I caught your "dumbass" comment before you removed it. Some people resort to that nonsense when their feathers get ruffled (along with having a weak argument).

OK, let's play, little lamb. You cite Jung in your sig simply because he is a so-called "authority" figure. That's blind Te adoration and worship of authority w/o proper vetting of the authority's claims--ie, it's dumb Te. Kahneman, otoh, has been properly vetted, meaning not only that his ideas have been tested against the facts (Te) but also that they've been evaluated for their internal consistency (Ti). Jung can't claim either. And neither can you.

 

[doppelganger]

Here's my problem with all of this: There are no facts 'inside the thinker'. Everything you think comes through your senses, and is therefore derived from the outside in some part. If the difference is just that one checks sensory input with personal beliefs, then anything called 'introverted' , be it Si, Ti or Ni, is just another kind of Xe.
Case in point: no one have ever offered an explanation of Ni that doesn't include florid, metaphorical language, which points to the fact that it cannot be described accurately in itself, and if that is the case, then it probably doesn't exist.
The fact is that there is nothing to think about that is not derived from the world of the senses, or is connected to it metaphorically ('it's like looking through a keyhole'). You cannot see anything in your mind's eye that is not itself based on something you have actually seen. A unicorn looks like a horse...
I think Ni is simply a way to complete the theory, and to make it symmetrical. The trouble is that this is a artificial construct. Most times, There is no real symmetry, despite our desire for it. The skull looks symmetrical, but the brain is not. The heart is slightly off center to make room for the spine, and the lungs are different shapes to compensate. So the 'vaporware' of the mind seeks a thing that seems balanced, even if this makes no sense in reality.
Ni is fiction, just as a unicorn.

So Ni is just the residual effect of the imbalance of the other functions, like lopsided lungs making room for one-sided heart?

 

[Stanton Moore]

So Ni is just the residual effect of the imbalance of the other functions, like lopsided lungs making room for one-sided heart?

No. The quest for symmetry is the problem, because it implies that the construct is itself balanced in that way, but it is not. The theory (MBTI/Jungian typology) is internally inconsistant, but our need for symmetry gives the illusion that Ni must exist. As I wrote, all intuition is derived from the senses and nothing else, which by definition in the theory, using it's own construct, must make all intuition of an extroverted nature; really there is just intuition, the I or E parameter is artificial and useless.
Therefore Ni is a unicorn: it is composed of elements that you have already seen or experienced, filtered through the unconscious giving it the appearance of a new realty. It may be novel, but it in no way argues for the existence of Ni.

 

[Jaguar]

You cite Jung in your sig simply because he is a so-called "authority" figure. That's blind Te adoration and worship of authority w/o proper vetting of the authority's claims--ie, it's dumb Te. Kahneman, otoh, has been properly vetted, meaning not only that his ideas have been tested against the facts (Te) but also that they've been evaluated for their internal consistency (Ti). Jung can't claim either. And neither can you, Dumbass.

Jung isn't an authority figure. But then I don't view many, if any, as authority figures. Let's get back to business instead of you wasting more of my time looking for The Illuminati or who really shot Kennedy in my sig.

As for Kahneman, if you can't open up his book and find the numerous flaws in how he thinks, you have much work to do. Nothing has been "properly vetted" when Kahneman makes a claim of "what we all see" while looking at an image when it takes merely one person to see it differently to prove his claim wrong. That one person is me. I'm a visual thinker, and what I see doesn't gel with Kahneman's dogmatic approach. Go to pages 26- 28 for starters. You probably love the guy since he makes statements such as "the leading authority confirmed . . ." when speaking, as if it somehow makes an opinion true. I found it comical. Kahneman is not one who can easily generate alternative possibilities. If he can't see X well, hell, then it isn't possible. Get a dictionary and look up myopic. You'll see his picture next to the word.

As for you prior post to Ene (which is how this all started), Ene commented:

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."

Notice Ene said, "my world." Oddly enough, you responded with:

Research has shown that ppl are usually wrong in their first impressions and that only "logical thought" or "slow thinking" can get at the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PirFrDVRBo4

Your response doesn't refute Ene's post and even worse, that is where you farmed out the task of getting at the truth to ol' Danny boy Kahneman and his "credible" cronies. What so-called research shows doesn't refute how Ene may be individually wired or what works best for that individual. What's next - claiming someone can't possibly run a mile at a certain speed until a panel of researchers tells you they can?

Frankly, I think you started this thread because you don't like it that some people have certain abilities that you do not. Get the fuck over it.

 

[doppelganger]

So this challenge is on at all the others threads as well..
Tell me more, what I get/give if I accept?

Simply make a few predictions that can be verified on this thread. Get them right and you get this:

Amazon.com: Playmaker Toys Flingshot Flying Animal - Flying Cow With Mooing Sound, Model# 4551: Toys & Games

 

[Mademoiselle]

Simply make a few predictions that can be verified on this thread. Get them right and you get this:

Amazon.com: Accoutrements Yodelling Pickle: Toys & Games

You know that’s not enough to make me interested.
That’s offensive, I’m more valuable.. >:\
But anyway.

 

[doppelganger]

Jung isn't an authority figure. But then I don't view many, if any, as authority figures. Let's get back to business instead of you wasting more of my time looking for The Illuminati or who really shot Kennedy in my sig.

As for Kahneman, if you can't open up his book and find the numerous flaws in how he thinks, you have much work to do. Nothing has been "properly vetted" when Kahneman makes a claim of "what we all see" while looking at an image when it takes merely one person to see it differently to prove his claim wrong. That one person is me. I'm a visual thinker, and what I see doesn't gel with Kahneman's dogmatic approach. Go to pages 26- 28 for starters. You probably love the guy since he makes statements such as "the leading authority confirmed . . ." when speaking, as if it somehow makes an opinion true. I found it comical. Kahneman is not one who can easily generate alternative possibilities. If he can't see X well, hell, then it isn't possible. Get a dictionary and look up myopic. You'll see his picture next to the word.

And what are your credentials? Kahneman published a paper that opened a new field of investigation; it is the second most cited paper in economics research--ever. He was also awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work. If that isn't vetting I don't know what is. Oh, wait a minute--they forgot to ask your opinion. Well, that changes everything, doesn't it?

As for you prior post to Ene (which is how this all started), Ene commented:

Notice Ene said, "my world." Oddly enough, you responded with:

Your response doesn't refute Ene's post and even worse, that is where you farmed out the task of getting at the truth to ol' Danny boy Kahneman and his "credible" cronies. What so-called research shows doesn't refute how Ene may be individually wired or what works best for that individual. What's next - claiming someone can't possibly run a mile at a certain speed until a panel of researchers tells you they can?

Frankly, I think you started this thread because you don't like it that some people have certain abilities that you do not. Get the fuck over it.

I haven't noticed that anyone here has demonstrated an ability that I don't have. And that includes you. Notice, for example, that you've sidestepped the challenge and chosen instead to attack me. Where are your Ni powers, sonny?

If Ene can demonstrate his/her Ni powers here where we can verify it, then let him/her--ie, put up or shut up.

 

[Mademoiselle]

>>>>>Come at me bro.<<<<<​

 

[Coriolis]

The pointless and occasionally insulting bickering in the last several pages has been removed to Off-Topic Posts. If this is the best you can do, please don't. Attacks on the other person's argument (preferably with substantiation) are fine; attacks on the person are not.

Carry on.