Ne in Academia

[RobinSkye]

Are you primarily focused on people as a whole (not specific people although this can be true also), world issues through people or groups of people?

Although it has lots of possible implications, so I'm not completely sure what you mean, I have to say people as a whole.

 

[andresimon]

Although it has lots of possible implications, so I'm not completely sure what you mean, I have to say people as a whole.

Well the question you asked "Ne in academia" is highly indicative of an Ne dom person whose primary function is Observation of Theoretical People vs a ESFP would be observation of individual people through Se.

- - - Updated - - -

Even when you talk about others, do you find yourself generalizing it? Gravitating toward the whole vs the individual?

- - - Updated - - -

Is that your primary focus?

 

[rmrf]

Too lazy to read the thread. I think it is silly to claim that Ne in itself is 'good' for academia. Conventional wisdom would have a greater case for Se/Si (being well focused to taking in class. most exams are just recalling etc). Intuition is a double edged sward. If someone is highly intuitive as well as highly intelligent, then that can create the stereotypical ingeniousness, but what is more often the case, is that high intuition can be a hindrance because it will make learning the material theory and facts non-stimulating and will distract you with tangents. Most of the very N dominated people I know are far from "book smart" because having such strong intuition makes them 'airy fairy'.

It's also worth remembering N/S are not mutually exclusive, it is a preference of one. I think it is a balanced cooperation between the two domains that is the most successful, you intuit and abstract the data you have taken in through sensing.

The qualities that breed success in academia are far more banal than people think. It's not really being some maverick intellectual or mad scientist, it is diligence, grit, motivation, to be engaged and willing to do all the boring first year revising and assignments to build your knowledge. Most of the professors I know are INTP (reasonable low P preference) but INTPs grounded with active Si (The INTPs with weak Si tend to stereotypically be the otakus and smart underachievers as opposed to the professors, in my opinion)

 

[andresimon]

Too lazy to read the thread. I think it is silly to claim that Ne in itself is 'good' for academia. Conventional wisdom would have a greater case for Se/Si (being well focused to taking in class. most exams are just recalling etc). Intuition is a double edged sward. If someone is highly intuitive as well as highly intelligent, then that can create the stereotypical ingeniousness, but what is more often the case, is that high intuition can be a hindrance because it will make learning the material theory and facts non-stimulating and will distract you with tangents. Most of the very N dominated people I know are far from "book smart" because having such strong intuition makes them 'airy fairy'.

It's also worth remembering N/S are not mutually exclusive, it is a preference of one. I think it is a balanced cooperation between the two domains that is the most successful, you intuit and abstract the data you have taken in through sensing.

The qualities that breed success in academia are far more banal than people think. It's not really being some maverick intellectual or mad scientist, it is diligence, grit, motivation, to be engaged and willing to do all the boring first year revising and assignments to build your knowledge. Most of the professors I know are INTP (reasonable low P preference) but INTPs grounded with active Si (The INTPs with weak Si tend to stereotypically be the otakus and smart underachievers as opposed to the professors, in my opinion)

I think for the most part we all agreed that Ne isn't the best for academia. Great input.

 

[andresimon]

Although it has lots of possible implications, so I'm not completely sure what you mean, I have to say people as a whole.

I posted this on another thread for Ni. Might help you start understanding things better. To lazy to do Ne right now. But know that Ne focuses only one type of information, conceptual character observations.

Better to describe what something (Ni) is rather then describing its functions (Function in the mathematical sense not cognitive sense). They are not the same thing. Also, Ni can never be looked at in isolation. As 8 cognitive types use Ni for 2 different purposes. (Conceptual Actions and Conceptual Principles). INTJ's, INFJ's, ENFJ's, ENTJ's use Ni for Conceptual Principles. Models/Beliefs about the world through generalizations. While ESFP's, ESTP's, ISFP's, INFP's use Ni for Conceptual Actions. Or actions based on what they think will happen based on general situations.

Ask an INTJ how Ni works for actions and they won't be able to tell you. They use it to think of Principles about the world and they use Te to take the most useful action based on those principles.

Now from the two sets of behaviors mentioned above SPAWN all types of behaviors, some often become very very different then what most people think of when they think of Ni. What's interesting is that an INFJ (most zoomed out all of types) may not use Ni the same way a INTJ does even though the purpose of the cognitive function is the same (Conceptual Principles). The reason is because the rest of the functions are different and so each cognitive iteration produces a different tilt. (Hence an INTJ may spend a lot of time on totally different thoughts then say an INFJ because each function feeds into the next and then it all comes around full circle). Combine that with the infinite number of inputs from the environment and you are going to find RADICALLY different behaviors for the same cognitive function. Trying to figure out your COGNITIVE function through behavior is OK so long as you realize you are going about it backwards and you can only at best hope to use behavior as a guide but not a rule. In short Behavior (the function) radically divorces itself from the cognitive function itself due to non-linear outcomes.

 

[andresimon]

Although it has lots of possible implications, so I'm not completely sure what you mean, I have to say people as a whole.

Just start being honest with yourself. Are you thinking about general principles or more general people principles?

 

[SpankyMcFly]

I'm an Ne Dom and I gravitated toward academia because I liked discussing and researching/writing about topics more than 'practicing' them. I think that's super type related in my case.

I chose to practice for reasons of practicality and found the minutia and attention to detail was way too much for me. I still think about getting my phd and teaching college courses. I've had that dream for a long time.

"It's never too late to be what you could have been." ~ C.S. Lewis

 

[prplchknz]

"It's never too late to be what you could have been." ~ C.S. Lewis

i think it is too late for me to be a cat that thinks it's a panda who is addicted to bamboo and clover honey. that had to happen at conception and born in the wrong creature.

 

[RobinSkye]

I posted this on another thread for Ni. Might help you start understanding things better. To lazy to do Ne right now. But know that Ne focuses only one type of information, conceptual character observations.

Better to describe what something (Ni) is rather then describing its functions (Function in the mathematical sense not cognitive sense). They are not the same thing. Also, Ni can never be looked at in isolation. As 8 cognitive types use Ni for 2 different purposes. (Conceptual Actions and Conceptual Principles). INTJ's, INFJ's, ENFJ's, ENTJ's use Ni for Conceptual Principles. Models/Beliefs about the world through generalizations. While ESFP's, ESTP's, ISFP's, INFP's use Ni for Conceptual Actions. Or actions based on what they think will happen based on general situations.

Ask an INTJ how Ni works for actions and they won't be able to tell you. They use it to think of Principles about the world and they use Te to take the most useful action based on those principles.

Now from the two sets of behaviors mentioned above SPAWN all types of behaviors, some often become very very different then what most people think of when they think of Ni. What's interesting is that an INFJ (most zoomed out all of types) may not use Ni the same way a INTJ does even though the purpose of the cognitive function is the same (Conceptual Principles). The reason is because the rest of the functions are different and so each cognitive iteration produces a different tilt. (Hence an INTJ may spend a lot of time on totally different thoughts then say an INFJ because each function feeds into the next and then it all comes around full circle). Combine that with the infinite number of inputs from the environment and you are going to find RADICALLY different behaviors for the same cognitive function. Trying to figure out your COGNITIVE function through behavior is OK so long as you realize you are going about it backwards and you can only at best hope to use behavior as a guide but not a rule. In short Behavior (the function) radically divorces itself from the cognitive function itself due to non-linear outcomes.

This makes me want to start considering INTJ :/

Just start being honest with yourself. Are you thinking about general principles or more general people principles?

I still don't know what you mean by this. Most of my thoughts are not related to people. If they are, it's about how those people may affect me, and if it's out of concern for a certain person it's generally not until someone very close to me is in dire need. I usually am not the shoulder to cry on but the one who tries to rationalize the problem and give insight/advice.

I want to make what I consider to be art for the sake of making the art. I don't actually care about how it influences the masses, so long as my art can reflect in the way I want it to. If it happens to become a big hit, very well, but if not it still means just as much to me having been successful in my own mind.

 

[Avocado]

I'm an Ne Dom and I gravitated toward academia because I liked discussing and researching/writing about topics more than 'practicing' them. I think that's super type related in my case.

I chose to practice for reasons of practicality and found the minutia and attention to detail was way too much for me. I still think about getting my phd and teaching college courses. I've had that dream for a long time.

You are limited only by your will to succeed.

 

[andresimon]

Are Ne doms typically the types that naturally grab on to new material/concepts but then do so-so because they lack the desire to go back and review material? I feel like all these years if my Si just kicked in more frequently, I would probably be a straight A student.

So you figured out that you are an INTP. Do you start with details and expand out to larger truths?

- - - Updated - - -

Everything is type related. We just don't understand types fully.

 

[thoughtlost]

Absolutely, and it is obviously type related. The entire education system as it presently sits is completely favoring Si + Te (and in some areas/levels of study Fe) users, the inherent injustice being that intuitives (Ne doms are most vulnerable IMO) are capable of doing the Si + Te type work, but expecting an Si user to quickly grasp the subject material the same way an interested and invested Ne user could is akin to expecting a miracle, and hence everything is taught and graded in a way that supposedly favors everyone while not realizing the sheer levels of pain inflicted upon high stimulation-seeking N users when they are forced to adopt the SJ timeline and expectations. Not only this, but the subject matter itself is inherently Si favoring in pretty much all disciplines of study, even those that should definitely not be (psychology - behaviorism, anyone?). Don't expect much support for your point of view on this here though, it goes against the SJ groupthink. (To them it is as if Ne doesn't really exist, they cannot see it in others either or its merits, and nor do they want to, because if there was a bias in the system that favored them their egos couldn't handle it.)

1.) In academia, you do have to quickly grasp concepts. This is not undergraduate education where they will go over an algebra equation twenty billion times so you can do your physics homework that has one problem repeated many times but asked using a different scenario.

2.) I think what you mean is that Si types DO understand concepts (btw, you make SJs sound as if they are totally stupid and can't learn ANYTHING ...when of course, that's not true at all ...it's like saying SJs never learn how to tie their shoes). Also, not only do they understand them, then are good at creating hypotheses from their theories and then testing them (and then using statistics that favor the theory that they like *cough* jkjk but some do that). They are good at understanding concepts and they can apply them to situations that fit the theory This is what academics do (although it's not the only thing that one can do in academia). Is this creative? NO. In fact, I find this approach to academia VERY boring. I am actually struggling to pay attention in my courses because this is all we do. It's very narrow-minded (not in the immoral way ...just in general).

3.) Also, even with this narrow minded approach to science, they need to be entrepreneurial in some. They have to sell their ideas to get funding or sell their ideas to get a patent. So not all aspects of an academic is strictly tied to Si thinking.

4.) On the vain that being an academic doesn't mean that you have to be a certain type of way to fit into the environment of academia, there are academics who can challenge the groupthink (meaning people who don't sit there and think that history is simply about remembering facts). In fact, my friend (she is in graduate/PhD land), and her purpose for being in a PhD program is to challenge the education system in the United States. [MENTION=25723]RobinSkye[/MENTION] ...who hated history, was not allowed to see history in a more holistic light. All he saw was "facts" that allows us humanity to continue along the path we're going now. They paint industrialism as "good" and ignored how biased the laws were to one mode of thought.

Same with behaviorism. We think we can simplify human behavior and remove the human aspect of it.... by saying we are humans that animals that can be trained just like a bird can. Although to some degree, I do not think that we're independent of our conditioning (if we were completely independent ...then we couldn't reset our circadian rhythms).

What I am saying to you, I wouldn't have realized before I got into the graduate program I am in. (I am quite lucky because ...from what I am hearing from some of my fellow graduate school-mates, most graduate schools are pretty shitty and do expect you to fit into a particular mode of thinking).

So I do agree with you, [MENTION=9627]Xann[/MENTION], when you say that due to certain atmosphere, there are those who won't get to fit into graduate school.

....but I am not quite done with my thought. I gotta go... but I shall explore this more when I don't need to catch the bus.