SP vs. N

[Wonkavision]

I think it might be good to distinguish being "open-minded" from being "flexible". Being N means a person will tend to be more open-minded while being P means a person will be more flexible.

So NJ's for example are quite open-minded. This is because they are very imaginative. If you describe something unfamiliar to them they will be open to listening and digesting the new idea, because their imagination will help them to understand something totally unfamiliar. On the other hand once an NJ has decided the way things ought to be, then they won't readily change course in the same way that a P will. This means they are not particularly flexible. Usually an NJ needs time to reflect on their own to change the course they're on while P's do not.

On the other hand SP's are usually not exceptionally open-minded. If you try to describe something totally unfamiliar to them, they will often get bored or give you a funny look like you're crazy/retarded. On the other hand if you demonstrate this new concept to them they will readily grasp it and will not be so opposed or disinterested. SP's are very flexible and will readily change themselves to adapt to the things in their environment. So in this way a person can say that SP's are open to new experiences, but they might not be so open to new ideas especially if they are some abstract theoretical thing that can't be readily seen in the world around them. So I'd simply describe this as very flexible but not exceptionally open-minded.

I hope that makes sense. It's all semantics really, but I'm trying to explain what the meaning behind all of the semantics is.

This is very good. +1

I agree.

And this is very good as well:

You're being too reductive, it isn't just the difference between gullibility and paranoia. If one were to be reductive about Intuition, there's a better one at the bottom of that page:

Ni: Seeking context by avoiding observation
Ne: Seeking context by following observation

Ni is about considering all the possible interpretations of something. It's about finding a way of looking at things that doesn't show itself through typical observation. You don't become aware of these perspectives through interaction, because you can't find them in the outer world. It's like changing the lens on a camera; they allow you to perceive and interpret the world in a slightly different way.

Ne is about actively seeking a greater context in the outer world, and feeds off actual observation and participation. It's about finding hidden possibilities for action and meaning through outer context. The only time you would reinterpret something is when new, related information comes to light through an act of discovery.

Perhaps you're confusing one (or both?) with their sensate counterparts, which don't concern themselves with context at all.

 

[Heinel]

Ti is just about identifying tactile variables holistically. You might be associating Ni with Ti because you're ISTP.

(or maybe I just suck at expressing Ni)

The way I saw those statements is that you are trying to find a generalization that can be applied across the board (or in other words a definition or principle). I'm pretty sure that is Ti.

 

[brainheart]

Ne would see the teddy bear and start generating possibilities by linking it with other things contextually. It might think "that could make a great birthday present for my neice, she could play house with it, or give it a piggy-back ride, or put it in a pram and wheel it around like a baby, or throw it out of a window to make it fly, or even just stab it in the eye with a fork, or let the cat tear it to shreds, or dress it up using her old baby clothes, or run around the house holding on to it with one hand and letting it flap in the breeze behind her. what a wonderful toy full of wonderful possibilities!"

Ni might say "this bear is obviously meant to appeal to children, especially girls, because it's wrapped in bright pink packaging and has a big smiley face. Who says that even appeals to children? Why are children so drawn to bright pink packaging? Might someone from a different culture find pink packaging to be offensive? In what context would pick packaging be offensive? Why would they even be offended if it were pink? Why not blue? Why would pink be more offensive that green or black? Why can't a child enjoy black packaging? It's all so arbitrary!"

Doesn't everyone do both of these?

This seems like pretty basic stuff to me...

 

[Trepidation]

^ Agreed.

Ne would see the teddy bear and start generating possibilities by linking it with other things contextually. It might think "that could make a great birthday present for my neice, she could play house with it, or give it a piggy-back ride, or put it in a pram and wheel it around like a baby, or throw it out of a window to make it fly, or even just stab it in the eye with a fork, or let the cat tear it to shreds, or dress it up using her old baby clothes, or run around the house holding on to it with one hand and letting it flap in the breeze behind her. what a wonderful toy full of wonderful possibilities!"

Ni might say "this bear is obviously meant to appeal to children, especially girls, because it's wrapped in bright pink packaging and has a big smiley face. Who says that even appeals to children? Why are children so drawn to bright pink packaging? Might someone from a different culture find pink packaging to be offensive? In what context would pick packaging be offensive? Why would they even be offended if it were pink? Why not blue? Why would pink be more offensive that green or black? Why can't a child enjoy black packaging? It's all so arbitrary!"

These both are natural to me. Surely there's something more to it?

Bah, the more I think about the functions, the less I can understand them.

 

[VagrantFarce]

The way I saw those statements is that you are trying to find a generalization that can be applied across the board (or in other words a definition or principle). I'm pretty sure that is Ti.

Ni is about considering different perspectives that helps consider all the possible contexts of a given situation, in order to not be led by arbitrary assumptions. if you're ISTP, this is closesly associated with Ti, which is an inner categorizing of variables.

Doesn't everyone do both of these?

This seems like pretty basic stuff to me...

Yes, everyone can do these, just like everyone says "please" and "thank you" or follows a timetable or can describe the physical characteristics of an object. Remember that the functions determine preference and instinct rather than ability, and they determine natural behaviour depending on the order they're put in. Do you really think in these terms most of the time? I could think in terms of Se, doesn't mean that's what I naturally prefer to do most of the time!

I still think this is a great way of telling them apart:

• Ni's goal is to avoid being led by observation through abstraction
• Ne's goal is to follow observation through abstraction

Or again, maybe I just suck at illustrating intuition. Perhaps someone with dominant Ni could give a better example.

[edit]: Again, make sure you're not confusing them with their sensate counterparts:

• Se says that the world is filled with stimuli, and all you have to do is let yourself react to them. No need to think, just react. The meaning of a sign is what your gut tells you you should do in response. If it's not here or not now, it's not real.
• Ne says that everything you come across is connected to a greater context, and all you have to do is let yourself make the connection between this object and another one. Through this act of discovery, we become aware of greater possibilities for meaning, knowledge or action.
• Si says that the world is so overwhelmingly filled with stimuli that you need something stable to focus on or you'll just be permanently overwhelmed and confused.
• Ni says that the world is arbitrary and deceitful, and not representative of all the possible interpretations of itself. You have to liberate yourself from these arbitrary interpretations by considering all possible interpretations, or you will risk being led astray.

 

[the state i am in]

Ne would see the teddy bear and start generating possibilities by linking it with other things contextually. It might think "that could make a great birthday present for my neice, she could play house with it, or give it a piggy-back ride, or put it in a pram and wheel it around like a baby, or throw it out of a window to make it fly, or even just stab it in the eye with a fork, or let the cat tear it to shreds, or dress it up using her old baby clothes, or run around the house holding on to it with one hand and letting it flap in the breeze behind her. what a wonderful toy full of wonderful possibilities!"

Ni might say "this bear is obviously meant to appeal to children, especially girls, because it's wrapped in bright pink packaging and has a big smiley face. Who says that even appeals to children? Why are children so drawn to bright pink packaging? Might someone from a different culture find pink packaging to be offensive? In what context would pick packaging be offensive? Why would they even be offended if it were pink? Why not blue? Why would pink be more offensive that green or black? Why can't a child enjoy black packaging? It's all so arbitrary!"

this description of Ne has to have Ti or Fi encompassed within it already? you just have quick like flashes of association, and because you are already tied more directly into specific like OBSERVABLE information as you have distinguished, you have more sensible concrete imaginings of the associations. like the actual instance supplies more concrete extroverted merged with the world perception to your imagination/fantasy/future projection, so you get something that is more tangible?

i think your description of Ni is ok, but i think the whole idea of being critical of signage is but a small small fraction of Ni. and Ni is decidedly NOT explicit, especially for NiFe. you walk around and explore this massive architectonic structure collecting pictures, data, angles, viewpoints, anecdotes, impressions. Ni just wanders, does this own its own, i feel myself gravitating towards certain hubs where many associations congeal and the larger picture seems to best come into perfect focus. but i explore the little pathways very quickly, i try to boil down all explorations and examinations and wanderings into an essential underlying awareness (it's so like metaphysical). you know the word (read: concept) when you can simultaneously cue/hold up in your awareness all possible meanings, angles, perspectives, usages, contexts, etc simultaneously, when they merge into one cluster/mad/mindfuck simultaneity/singularity. then you KNOW.

i am very interested in the possibility that Ni and Ne create (or, J vs P) create a likelihood of verbal vs visual (something that, altho there's only a few responses, is a possible reading of lexicon's learning styles thread). tho, my intj 6w7 s.o. is very visual, altho the biochemistry background seems to integrate and develop the visual side excessively well. i wonder what effect Fe vs Te have on the organization of Ni. just like Ti would connect the dots of impression--> projection differently than Fi would. i don't think Ti should be described as holistic, i think Ji should be described as forms, expectations, judgment decisions, webs of meaning (for F) vs linear chains o meaning (for T), and this sense that internal judgment supplies organized experience as form to extroverted perception, like legal precedent, that Ji is this big vast framework/tool for organizing data, using previously stored relationships (either Ti or Fi), and employing those as you improvise them and find articulations and contexts in which they can emerge into the world. once you merge with the object/relationship, you use this to structure your way around, imagining other possibilities, like a shape or a molecule in chemistry would have different reactivity, provide different ways of exploring an environment, creating different expectations and different ways of navigating perceptions in order to see useful potential relationships/possibilities. that Pe is still projecting internal forms of experience, organization, decision, judgment that have been worked out from the data accumulated throughout life (for inp this would be Ne-Si at a like 2-1 ratio, for enp it would be more like 90/10 split).

 

[brainheart]

Here's a game: determine the function/s. I give as an example- duh dah duh- the thought process of my protagonist in the novel I'm working on:



All right, let's say my protagonist is sitting on a kitchen counter at some dumb party and he's bitter because he doesn't want to be there. He starts comparing the kitchen to a level in Dante's Inferno, in protracted detail. Something about that kitchen also reminds him of his mother, which makes him think about how addicted she got to baking bread and how she always had to feed this starter and it took over her life which gets him thinking about her other addiction- this discount department store which isn't actually an addiction, it's more of a religion for her. He expounds on this for a pretty stinking long time. Then he looks at his shoes and he realizes he still has his dress shoes on from the speech meet. That makes him think of his dad and how he takes him shopping for shoes and a new suit every year when it's totally stupid and pointless because he hasn't grown in three years.

But anyway, back to the counter. He thinks about how he's in hell and it makes sense because this kitchen is in the house of his arch-nemesis and she is for sure the devil. So he finds himself comparing her to Satan in Paradise Lost while he is Michael the archangel and how they engage in battle every Saturday at speech tournaments. He casts her down to hell every time.

After several hours of this banter, I yell at him, "Where the hell is your story arc, kid?"

Would I be correct in guessing this is Ne?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

From what I understand SPs can also be quite intuitive in the familiar sense of that word. They can accurately act on their gut instincts in the moment. They are skilled at improvising solutions and such.

 

[Totenkindly]

[edit]: Again, make sure you're not confusing them with their sensate counterparts:

• Se says that the world is filled with stimuli, and all you have to do is let yourself react to them. No need to think, just react. The meaning of a sign is what your gut tells you you should do in response. If it's not here or not now, it's not real.
• Ne says that everything you come across is connected to a greater context, and all you have to do is let yourself make the connection between this object and another one. Through this act of discovery, we become aware of greater possibilities for meaning, knowledge or action.
• Si says that the world is so overwhelmingly filled with stimuli that you need something stable to focus on or you'll just be permanently overwhelmed and confused.
• Ni says that the world is arbitrary and deceitful, and not representative of all the possible interpretations of itself. You have to liberate yourself from these arbitrary interpretations by considering all possible interpretations, or you will risk being led astray.

Nice summary of the four P functions. Especially for Pi, this is how I watch both Si and Ni types deal with stress, very literally.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Here's a game: determine the function/s. I give as an example- duh dah duh- the thought process of my protagonist in the novel I'm working on:



All right, let's say my protagonist is sitting on a kitchen counter at some dumb party and he's bitter because he doesn't want to be there. He starts comparing the kitchen to a level in Dante's Inferno, in protracted detail. Something about that kitchen also reminds him of his mother, which makes him think about how addicted she got to baking bread and how she always had to feed this starter and it took over her life which gets him thinking about her other addiction- this discount department store which isn't actually an addiction, it's more of a religion for her. He expounds on this for a pretty stinking long time. Then he looks at his shoes and he realizes he still has his dress shoes on from the speech meet. That makes him think of his dad and how he takes him shopping for shoes and a new suit every year when it's totally stupid and pointless because he hasn't grown in three years.

But anyway, back to the counter. He thinks about how he's in hell and it makes sense because this kitchen is in the house of his arch-nemesis and she is for sure the devil. So he finds himself comparing her to Satan in Paradise Lost while he is Michael the archangel and how they engage in battle every Saturday at speech tournaments. He casts her down to hell every time.

After several hours of this banter, I yell at him, "Where the hell is your story arc, kid?"

Would I be correct in guessing this is Ne?

I think this is far more likely to be Ne/Si than Ni/Se.

p.s. Dante's Inferno is a poor man's God of War and turns a classic piece of literature into an adolescent power fantasy god I hate it so much x_x

 

[brainheart]

I think this is far more likely to be Ne/Si than Ni/Se.

p.s. Dante's Inferno is a poor man's God of War and turns a classic piece of literature into an adolescent power fantasy god I hate it so much x_x

Hmm. You know, I really don't want to be an INFP for some reason. It pains me. Perhaps the fact that I have been married to a blatant SP for 11 years colors my perceptions a bit? But I know we are so different, despite our number of shared interests. He talks about skating and my eyes glaze over; I talk about whatever my thing of the moment is and his eyes glaze over. When we talk about the same thing, we approach it... so differently.

Ha ha about the Inferno. That's why I think it's so perfect for a seventeen year old boy to be mulling over at the house of his adversary. But I also think Dante really knows how to use words... some moments are breathtaking... but not so much when he's heaping on the vengeance... and I also think Dante is fully aware of it being an adolescent power fantasy- I mean, look at how the character Dante totally gets off on watching those he hates in pain. So I'd say it's pretty tongue-in-cheek... and of course once with Beatrice, Dante the character starts to realize what a hypocrite he is.

 

[BlueScreen]

Hmm. You know, I really don't want to be an INFP for some reason. It pains me. Perhaps the fact that I have been married to a blatant SP for 11 years colors my perceptions a bit? But I know we are so different, despite our number of shared interests. He talks about skating and my eyes glaze over; I talk about whatever my thing of the moment is and his eyes glaze over. When we talk about the same thing, we approach it... so differently.

I get excited talking about skating. I doubt it is an SP v N thing. Skating is such a rush as an Ne too.

 

[brainheart]

I get excited talking about skating. I doubt it is an SP v N thing. Skating is such a rush as an Ne too.

No, I know. I'd just rather do it or watch it or enjoy it vs talk it- I love Se stuff. But I suppose that's just an introvert vs extrovert thing.