S and N... work in progress on a working definition

[Kalach]

I'll chime in with my input.

First, N vs S:

Intuition is about patterns and relationships (between patterns and entities).
Sensing is about specific entities.

Just to be picky, patterns and relationships are specific entities. Might be easier to say sensing is about physical information.

Intuition is a model that we have in our heads.

Ne works that way too?

Sensing is, for lack of a better word, being more "present" and grounded in reality. Of course there is information in our heads, but Sensors generally don't "add to it" in the way intuitives do.

I'll bet my pension that they do add to the information in their head. I'm betting that equating Si with memory and N with imagination is wrong.

See, e content is immediately current, um, equation, but all i content comes from the "the present" too. A past "present", but a present nonetheless.

We did this in the Ni vs Si thread, but i functions abstract content from real entities--they create subjects. And, as more time goes by and the creation date of the original data sinks further into the past, they do stuff with those subjects. So Si isn't just memory. And likewise Ni isn't just abstracted features of reality.

Etc.

 

[uumlau]

Ni- is Si’s intuitive counterpart. While Si stores data of what has been Ni stores data of what might be. Si processes and stores data in files marked “what is” while Ni’s files are marked “what will be” "how things work". Ni sees a world of icebergs… what we see is only the tiniest part of what actually IS… that all things must be filtered through the seives of purpose, hidden meanings, signs and symbols. Ni sees itself as seeing the “true meaning” behind situations, though it often comes across as somewhat cynical or paranoid to the other functions at times (just as Ni can view Se as shallow for absorbing what is sensed). Ni usually takes the form of just knowing something or having hunches about things… there’s not a thought process that goes into deciding that you don’t trust that guy, Ni has put it all together without telling you and you instinctively don’t trust him. To everyone else, Ni users can appear to be rather paranoid about things.

My critique of the this Ni description, based on my INTJ self knowledge. Crossed out is just wrong. It isn't even close. My bold addition is correct. The purple is very INFJ, and does not reflect INTJ well at all.

To me, as INTJ, it's as if I can just guess how things objectively factually work, and I'm correct 95% of the time, even if I've never studied a particular aspect of a particular phenomenon. I know enough to know pieces that are definitely, factually true, and what physics/engineering is involved, and I can guess the rest without having to think very hard at all.

The reason Ni often seems to store files about "what will be" is that Ni data has very high predictive power. But what is stored is not predictions, but phenomenological patterns. A simple such pattern might be "My friend always forgets his cell phone." We safely predict that our friend doesn't have his cell phone. Sure enough, he asks to borrow mine.

A more complicated pattern would be "This is how data is retrieved from the database." Let's say there is a problem with the data retrieval. I look at the problem, add in the complicated Ni pattern, and the two together end up saying to me "Oh, the third step is wrong, it's doing A instead of B" without even having to look at the steps and review them. Sure enough, I open up files, eventually find the step I'm looking for, and there's the problem, plain as day.

Most other people seem unable to do this, are not convinced when we work jointly that what I just diagnosed is the problem, and then while it takes me only 5 minutes to find the problem and another 5 to implement a fix, I spend the next hour having to prove to my co-workers that my solution is correct, because, according to them, "That couldn't possibly be the problem, it shouldn't work like that."

 

[veins]

My critique of the this Ni description, based on my INTJ self knowledge. Crossed out is just wrong. It isn't even close. My bold addition is correct. The purple is very INFJ, and does not reflect INTJ well at all.

To me, as INTJ, it's as if I can just guess how things objectively factually work, and I'm correct 95% of the time, even if I've never studied a particular aspect of a particular phenomenon. I know enough to know pieces that are definitely, factually true, and what physics/engineering is involved, and I can guess the rest without having to think very hard at all.

The reason Ni often seems to store files about "what will be" is that Ni data has very high predictive power. But what is stored is not predictions, but phenomenological patterns. A simple such pattern might be "My friend always forgets his cell phone." We safely predict that our friend doesn't have his cell phone. Sure enough, he asks to borrow mine.

A more complicated pattern would be "This is how data is retrieved from the database." Let's say there is a problem with the data retrieval. I look at the problem, add in the complicated Ni pattern, and the two together end up saying to me "Oh, the third step is wrong, it's doing A instead of B" without even having to look at the steps and review them. Sure enough, I open up files, eventually find the step I'm looking for, and there's the problem, plain as day.

Most other people seem unable to do this, are not convinced when we work jointly that what I just diagnosed is the problem, and then while it takes me only 5 minutes to find the problem and another 5 to implement a fix, I spend the next hour having to prove to my co-workers that my solution is correct, because, according to them, "That couldn't possibly be the problem, it shouldn't work like that."

Is Ni more along the lines of filling in the gaps? Or something deductive? Supposing Si is "What was," then Ni is "What should be?"
If Se is taking in data real time and Ne extrapolates from that, then it seems that Si takes in data from past experiences and Ni extrapolates from that. - is what I'm getting so far, unless I'm off the mark.

 

[miss fortune]

@ uumlau... I understand INFJs a bit better than INTJs... they're my opposite and I tend to stalk them

and like I said... I need more opinions to add in here always because everyone has different strengths...

 

[the state i am in]

My critique of the this Ni description, based on my INTJ self knowledge. Crossed out is just wrong. It isn't even close. My bold addition is correct. The purple is very INFJ, and does not reflect INTJ well at all.

To me, as INTJ, it's as if I can just guess how things objectively factually work, and I'm correct 95% of the time, even if I've never studied a particular aspect of a particular phenomenon. I know enough to know pieces that are definitely, factually true, and what physics/engineering is involved, and I can guess the rest without having to think very hard at all.

The reason Ni often seems to store files about "what will be" is that Ni data has very high predictive power. But what is stored is not predictions, but phenomenological patterns. A simple such pattern might be "My friend always forgets his cell phone." We safely predict that our friend doesn't have his cell phone. Sure enough, he asks to borrow mine.

A more complicated pattern would be "This is how data is retrieved from the database." Let's say there is a problem with the data retrieval. I look at the problem, add in the complicated Ni pattern, and the two together end up saying to me "Oh, the third step is wrong, it's doing A instead of B" without even having to look at the steps and review them. Sure enough, I open up files, eventually find the step I'm looking for, and there's the problem, plain as day.

Most other people seem unable to do this, are not convinced when we work jointly that what I just diagnosed is the problem, and then while it takes me only 5 minutes to find the problem and another 5 to implement a fix, I spend the next hour having to prove to my co-workers that my solution is correct, because, according to them, "That couldn't possibly be the problem, it shouldn't work like that."

i don't really identify a whole lot to the descriptions so far. as to what you've written, i agree that Ni is far more than a future-focused Si. i can imagine what is possible based on seeing the complex layers of the past. it all feels present, making the current moment pregnant with possibilities.

what happens when my Ni model of the universe (which also corresponds to being an e5--and what feels most like me) must express something, must extrovert bits and pieces of itself, is that i need to figure out how i want to inspire someone else, or help them see what i see in the way that i want them to see it. it's very rhetorical. once i start talking, identifying the problems we can try to solve, and identifying the ideas the person has and the ways in which i want the conversation to go, how to explore each other--and once i become engaged in real dialogue with someone else, my Ni has enough information, sees enough patterns, has enough mapped out on different layers of mappings, zooming in to submaps to consult with a more specific picture, and zooming out to look at higher orders of meaning. this process of scaling through abstraction and dialoguing with different domains of information internally, organized by conversation externally, enables me to generate a lot of new content. i can synthesize the pieces i choose to use to create a fuller perspective from bottom to top, that somehow introduces new ideas, INTERPOLATES new connecting links between what i already know. it's very gestalt--depending on how much i trust the information i have at my disposal, i'll be able to fill in, creating hypotheses to investigate and generalized understandings to explore and test in conversation, and frequently asking to borrow an understanding someone else might have to fill in the gap in my knowledge, or to borrow their rationale (Ti or Fi) to deduce information from the information we collectively have at our disposal while maintaining an awareness of my certainty level based on the information i have to use and the judgments made from it.

a good rule of thumb is that Pi users are more inductive in learning and Pe users are more deductive. i move from the specific to the general and store the general, with enough crosslinks in encoding to hopefully remember some of the particulars and have some kind of signaling retrieval cue. but generally my ability is that once i get the beginning part of the pattern, i can fill in anything bc my pattern reference book is enormous and my most developed skill set. at times, this can feel like the imaginary replacing the real for others, especially Se dom Ni inferior types. with Fe the external organization is focused on conveying attitude, intention, gesture, inflection of meaning, etc.

as you can see, unchecked Ni can write in chaotic, unfinished, wandering sentences. generating more perspective based on the infinite webs of meaning between each phrase, idea, etc. but it can just sound like droning in in pure abstraction. yet i can take in all the specifics and make sense of it without having anything concrete, without having a really strong form, and without having a well-defined center. i imagine the center by exploring the inner-relationships of all the parts and expanding the possibilities/meanings of each.

 

[Poki]

i don't really identify a whole lot to the descriptions so far. as to what you've written, i agree that Ni is far more than a future-focused Si. i can imagine what is possible based on seeing the complex layers of the past. it all feels present, making the current moment pregnant with possibilities.

what happens when my Ni model of the universe (which also corresponds to being an e5--and what feels most like me) must express something, must extrovert bits and pieces of itself, is that i need to figure out how i want to inspire someone else, or help them see what i see in the way that i want them to see it. it's very rhetorical. once i start talking, identifying the problems we can try to solve, and identifying the ideas the person has and the ways in which i want the conversation to go, how to explore each other--and once i become engaged in real dialogue with someone else, my Ni has enough information, sees enough patterns, has enough mapped out on different layers of mappings, zooming in to submaps to consult with a more specific picture, and zooming out to look at higher orders of meaning. this process of scaling through abstraction and dialoguing with different domains of information internally, organized by conversation externally, enables me to generate a lot of new content. i can synthesize the pieces i choose to use to create a fuller perspective from bottom to top, that somehow introduces new ideas, INTERPOLATES new connecting links between what i already know. it's very gestalt--depending on how much i trust the information i have at my disposal, i'll be able to fill in, creating hypotheses to investigate and generalized understandings to explore and test in conversation, and frequently asking to borrow an understanding someone else might have to fill in the gap in my knowledge, or to borrow their rationale (Ti or Fi) to deduce information from the information we collectively have at our disposal while maintaining an awareness of my certainty level based on the information i have to use and the judgments made from it.

a good rule of thumb is that Pi users are more inductive in learning and Pe users are more deductive. i move from the specific to the general and store the general, with enough crosslinks in encoding to hopefully remember some of the particulars and have some kind of signaling retrieval cue. but generally my ability is that once i get the beginning part of the pattern, i can fill in anything bc my pattern reference book is enormous and my most developed skill set. at times, this can feel like the imaginary replacing the real for others, especially Se dom Ni inferior types. with Fe the external organization is focused on conveying attitude, intention, gesture, inflection of meaning, etc.

as you can see, unchecked Ni can write in chaotic, unfinished, wandering sentences. generating more perspective based on the infinite webs of meaning between each phrase, idea, etc. but it can just sound like droning in in pure abstraction. yet i can take in all the specifics and make sense of it without having anything concrete, without having a really strong form, and without having a well-defined center. i imagine the center by exploring the inner-relationships of all the parts and expanding the possibilities/meanings of each.

This pretty much matches perfect in what I see in my interacting with Aprhodite-Gone-Awry.

I know my favorite jobs that require Se has to do with those that are hands on and require speed, accuracy, and alot of physical movement. I enjoyed working at discount tire in the back room. It was fun racing, showing off, trying new things, seeing how fast you could get cars in and out without losing any accuracy at all.

To some this is "grunt" work or a laborer job, but to me its fun. Who cares what I do, I did it because I enjoyed it, not because its the only thing I could do. The second we got a manager that was all uptight and "safety" cautious the job became boring and mundane. Dont throw or spin the bars as you change tires, dont hop over tire stacks and pop them up with your feet, no using the flat top changer even though it twice as fast because its dangerous, grab the ladder instead of scaling the tire stacks when putting away tires, blah, blah, blah.

 

[gromit]

This pretty much matches perfect in what I see in my interacting with Aprhodite-Gone-Awry.

I know my favorite jobs that require Se has to do with those that are hands on and require speed, accuracy, and alot of physical movement. I enjoyed working at discount tire in the back room. It was fun racing, showing off, trying new things, seeing how fast you could get cars in and out without losing any accuracy at all.

To some this is "grunt" work or a laborer job, but to me its fun. Who cares what I do, I did it because I enjoyed it, not because its the only thing I could do. The second we got a manager that was all uptight and "safety" cautious the job became boring and mundane. Dont throw or spin the bars as you change tires, dont hop over tire stacks and pop them up with your feet, no using the flat top changer even though it twice as fast because its dangerous, grab the ladder instead of scaling the tire stacks when putting away tires, blah, blah, blah.

 

[sculpting]

--and once i become engaged in real dialogue with someone else, my Ni has enough information, sees enough patterns, has enough mapped out on different layers of mappings, zooming in to submaps to consult with a more specific picture, and zooming out to look at higher orders of meaning. this process of scaling through abstraction and dialoguing with different domains of information internally,

The few times I have sensed Ni-in its tiny puny form for me-the scaling through abstraction sounds quite right. It was strangely focused on the particular object and just kept adding layers and elaboration to it.

Very weird as my typical Ne is content to just link strings of new things together, but then wants to step back and extend linkage A to the entire alphabet.

For instance for a funny example-it isnt just enough to Ne link one individual (Provoker the INTJ) to a chicken-I then have to link all MBTI types to various chickens and then in my mind link that to all sorts of other funny stuff as well. Layers and layers of silly defective Ne linkages in this case.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/graveyard/30197-chicken-typology.html#post1133881

i can synthesize the pieces i choose to use to create a fuller perspective from bottom to top, that somehow introduces new ideas, INTERPOLATES new connecting links between what i already know.

Weird-so I constantly look outwards to find new items to connect to the old items I already know. But instead you zoom in on the link (or lack thereof ) between two mental objects??? And as you look deeper, the layers spontaneously emerge-like a fractal?? Neeeeaaaatttt. Do you ever feel the urge to take that new idea and externalize/generalize/broaden the application of the idea as much as possible? (Ne...) ie apply it to a very broad range of contexts.

it's very gestalt--depending on how much i trust the information i have at my disposal, i'll be able to fill in, creating hypotheses to investigate and generalized understandings to explore and test in conversation, and frequently asking to borrow an understanding someone else might have to fill in the gap in my knowledge, or to borrow their rationale (Ti or Fi) to deduce information from the information we collectively have at our disposal while maintaining an awareness of my certainty level based on the information i have to use and the judgments made from it.

Yeah I kinda do this with Ne as well. Cross checking and requests for feedback as well as tracing of symmetry. So as can be seen above I invested a substantially amount of time Ne linking chickens and MBTI, as it was utterly hysterical. I giggled for hours. But part of the funny Ne brain is understanding that 90% of the time, the "connections" are not really connected. Ne strikes out a lot and I have to look back at the Si patterns (data?), to have any confidence in the Ne connections.

Do you look to Se to comfirm the Ni interpolations? Is that part of the conversation with others you mention?

 

[miss fortune]

I'll give you a Se-Ni example from a Se dom... you don't usually get as many of those examples here

Ni for me mostly involves hideous paranoid hunches at the back of my mind which I find quite unsettling... when these strike I then find it necissary to examine situations that could lead to this and analyze them (investigating thoroughly with Se and analyzing input data with Ti)... this proves the Ni insight to either be a rational fear or paranoid babble from a part of my brain that probably needs a nice slap

 

[sculpting]

This pretty much matches perfect in what I see in my interacting with Aprhodite-Gone-Awry.

I know my favorite jobs that require Se has to do with those that are hands on and require speed, accuracy, and alot of physical movement. I enjoyed working at discount tire in the back room. It was fun racing, showing off, trying new things, seeing how fast you could get cars in and out without losing any accuracy at all.

To some this is "grunt" work or a laborer job, but to me its fun. Who cares what I do, I did it because I enjoyed it, not because its the only thing I could do. The second we got a manager that was all uptight and "safety" cautious the job became boring and mundane. Dont throw or spin the bars as you change tires, dont hop over tire stacks and pop them up with your feet, no using the flat top changer even though it twice as fast because its dangerous, grab the ladder instead of scaling the tire stacks when putting away tires, blah, blah, blah.

Are you sure you arent really my ex husband????

 

[Poki]

I'll give you a Se-Ni example from a Se dom... you don't usually get as many of those examples here

Ni for me mostly involves hideous paranoid hunches at the back of my mind which I find quite unsettling... when these strike I then find it necissary to examine situations that could lead to this and analyze them (investigating thoroughly with Se and analyzing input data with Ti)... this proves the Ni insight to either be a rational fear or paranoid babble from a part of my brain that probably needs a nice slap

With me the situations that lead to them become extremely and painfully obvious very quickly so I dont have to examine areas that cause this as I already have enough to know the cause. I then have to proceed down those paths to get past what it is that drives this. Once I work through this its nice to have Se see that the world didnt actually crash from what my tertiary Ni jumped into for a second and worknig through it gives me better direction. I dont act on hunches at all until enough becomes apparent that Ni kicks in instantly.

 

[uumlau]

State's description of Ni is apt.

The few times I have sensed Ni-in its tiny puny form for me-the scaling through abstraction sounds quite right. It was strangely focused on the particular object and just kept adding layers and elaboration to it.

This sounds right.

Very weird as my typical Ne is content to just link strings of new things together, but then wants to step back and extend linkage A to the entire alphabet.

As does this. I think there is an Ne desire for "completeness", whether that completeness is achieved via Fi, Ti, or Si.

For instance for a funny example-it isnt just enough to Ne link one individual (Provoker the INTJ) to a chicken-I then have to link all MBTI types to various chickens and then in my mind link that to all sorts of other funny stuff as well. Layers and layers of silly defective Ne linkages in this case.

Not defective. It's applying the "chicken" pattern to the MBTI pattern. That's how Ne works. Much of the time, the resulting patterns are merely amusing nonsense, but there are times when the resulting patterns aren't merely amusing, but incredibly true. Feynman, an ENTP, said he discovered one key quantum mechanical principle by watching a plate spin. He took the plate spinning pattern and ran it against his quantum mechanics pattern and generated something that wasn't nonsense.

Weird-so I constantly look outwards to find new items to connect to the old items I already know. But instead you zoom in on the link (or lack thereof ) between two mental objects??? And as you look deeper, the layers spontaneously emerge-like a fractal?? Neeeeaaaatttt. Do you ever feel the urge to take that new idea and externalize/generalize/broaden the application of the idea as much as possible? (Ne...)

I know I do. Ni focuses down and figures out some sort of neat idea, and then as I look for logical consistency within that idea (Ti), I find myself exploring what that "new idea pattern" implies when I run it against other logical patterns I know.

Ne strikes out a lot and I have to look back at the Si patterns (data?), to have any confidence in the Ne connections.

Do you look to Se to comfirm the Ni interpolations? Is that part of the conversation with others you mention?

Yes, I use Se w/r to gaining direct evidence of Ni guesses. I also use Te to do so in a more abstract way.

 

[sculpting]

I'll give you a Se-Ni example from a Se dom... you don't usually get as many of those examples here

Ni for me mostly involves hideous paranoid hunches at the back of my mind which I find quite unsettling... when these strike I then find it necissary to examine situations that could lead to this and analyze them (investigating thoroughly with Se and analyzing input data with Ti)... this proves the Ni insight to either be a rational fear or paranoid babble from a part of my brain that probably needs a nice slap

I have seen an older ESTP to this odd thing. I asked him a question-a fairly complex emo one. He gave me an answer immediately that was sort of dismissive and immediate. A week later he gave me another answer-totally different and matching to my predictions (it was an Fe/Fi probe question ). I wondered if this was an example of him using Ni to view the question from a "different Ni perspective" after thinking about it. I dunno....

Another thing I see my ESFP sister and a few other very unhealthy ESFPs do-They rewrite history. My mom and I thought my sister was a pathological liar as she would tell us about a series of events from the past-but totally rewritten and factually incorrect in her favor. Yet she would swear by her story. I have seen a few other ESFPs do the same thing-thus I wonder if they use Ni to reperceive the historical story to protect their Fi judgments.

As an enfp I hide my Fi judgments so I assume an ESFP is as sensitive about Fi, but doesnt have Ne to find new ways to perceive what is in front of them-thus must find new ways to perceive what has already occurred via inferior Ni to protect post event?

I dunno, all ramblings though....

 

[Poki]

I have seen an older ESTP to this odd thing. I asked him a question-a fairly complex emo one. He gave me an answer immediately that was sort of dismissive and immediate. A week later he gave me another answer-totally different and matching to my predictions (it was an Fe/Fi probe question ). I wondered if this was an example of him using Ni to view the question from a "different Ni perspective" after thinking about it. I dunno....

I can be prone to doing this alot.

Another thing I see my ESFP sister and a few other very unhealthy ESFPs do-They rewrite history. My mom and I thought my sister was a pathological liar as she would tell us about a series of events from the past-but totally rewritten and factually incorrect in her favor. Yet she would swear by her story. I have seen a few other ESFPs do the same thing-thus I wonder if they use Ni to reperceive the historical story to protect their Fi judgments.

Its possible that all they really remember was Fi judgement. I have come across ENFPs that do this as well, I generally dismiss it as its not really important. Instead of a series of events its just a single detail.

 

[the state i am in]

The few times I have sensed Ni-in its tiny puny form for me-the scaling through abstraction sounds quite right. It was strangely focused on the particular object and just kept adding layers and elaboration to it.

Very weird as my typical Ne is content to just link strings of new things together, but then wants to step back and extend linkage A to the entire alphabet.

For instance for a funny example-it isnt just enough to Ne link one individual (Provoker the INTJ) to a chicken-I then have to link all MBTI types to various chickens and then in my mind link that to all sorts of other funny stuff as well. Layers and layers of silly defective Ne linkages in this case.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/graveyard/30197-chicken-typology.html#post1133881

Weird-so I constantly look outwards to find new items to connect to the old items I already know. But instead you zoom in on the link (or lack thereof ) between two mental objects??? And as you look deeper, the layers spontaneously emerge-like a fractal?? Neeeeaaaatttt. Do you ever feel the urge to take that new idea and externalize/generalize/broaden the application of the idea as much as possible? (Ne...) ie apply it to a very broad range of contexts.

Yeah I kinda do this with Ne as well. Cross checking and requests for feedback as well as tracing of symmetry. So as can be seen above I invested a substantially amount of time Ne linking chickens and MBTI, as it was utterly hysterical. I giggled for hours. But part of the funny Ne brain is understanding that 90% of the time, the "connections" are not really connected. Ne strikes out a lot and I have to look back at the Si patterns (data?), to have any confidence in the Ne connections.

Do you look to Se to comfirm the Ni interpolations? Is that part of the conversation with others you mention?

1 fractal maybe, the most obvious example of Ni vs Ne is microcosmic vs macrocosmic. i learned that distinction in a class on emily dickinson (Ni) and walt whitman (Ne).

2. Ne is more outside of itself, it merges with whatever it is intuiting. it sees possibilities emanating outside of its intended focus/synthesis. it's more exploratory, it feels random much of the time because it quickly opens up as many connections it can generate, pure possibilities. Ni tries to do the same but it's more on the level of integrating with as many maps already stored, exploring all of the potential patterns embodied in whatever it is we are trying to synthesize, and connecting everywhere that seems to fit. and then remembering the generalization we learn (the induction vs deduction thing).

3. as such, i need the context to trigger my imagination. i need more information before i have any sense of how to imagine it, i can't tell what it connects to if it doesn't have Je context, external constraint, purpose in order to refine the possibilities and provide a structuring element and a narrowing of focus. i am uninterested in reading something without it addressing a problem i've already identified or having a few hypotheses about the text i want to investigate or without knowing the person and feeling i'm learning useful information about this person's ____ while reading. otherwise i just don't give a fuck, because it's too big, and i don't enjoy having to generate all the structure myself, because it feels too exhaustingly experimental, when i could be learning something really specific, mapping out something in much greater detail with more information density, that would create an overall/generalized much better map of meaning that i could use for many things potentially.

4. for instance, i'm a writing/language/lit student, and to me the writing process stands in for all composition processes. i'm thinking about what i learn in that way. i'm learning how to build and construct meaning, consider its communicative effect, organize, revise, create my voice, allow a design to emerge through the conscious choices that i make, build complexity, etc. how to get my inner modeled world out into the extroverted/shared world skillfully and without feeling disappointed in the final product.

5. confirming Ni interpretations via Se? yeah, i think so. when i'm at my best, i get the best Fe information possible. which requires a bit more freedom to Se, to be in the moment, to open up myself and hear the situation and the actors and the needs presented and the overall drama with all of my attention and awareness. Fe is my ultimate authority in this way, and i absolutely have to rely on the extroverted (read: shared) world to give me appropriate feedback and let me know how i'm doing, what i'm missing, what others value, etc. much of the information i take in is with heavy inflection (although generally i feel mostly aware of where things have come from and in what mood/tone i have absorbed them) from the speaker, their attitudes and relationship to whatever it is i learn from them, getting a sense of their values and how those connect to the information i learn. just how many of my friends are Ti types and i just love exploring their minds and absorbing as much Ti knowledge as i can--i can't do it nearly as easily and nearly as finishedly, so it's like pure gold to me. the knowledge becomes part of my intelligence in a different way, while quickly stimulating Ti to try to keep up and check what they're saying. it's good practice too.

 

[miss fortune]

I have seen an older ESTP to this odd thing. I asked him a question-a fairly complex emo one. He gave me an answer immediately that was sort of dismissive and immediate. A week later he gave me another answer-totally different and matching to my predictions (it was an Fe/Fi probe question ). I wondered if this was an example of him using Ni to view the question from a "different Ni perspective" after thinking about it. I dunno....

Another thing I see my ESFP sister and a few other very unhealthy ESFPs do-They rewrite history. My mom and I thought my sister was a pathological liar as she would tell us about a series of events from the past-but totally rewritten and factually incorrect in her favor. Yet she would swear by her story. I have seen a few other ESFPs do the same thing-thus I wonder if they use Ni to reperceive the historical story to protect their Fi judgments.

As an enfp I hide my Fi judgments so I assume an ESFP is as sensitive about Fi, but doesnt have Ne to find new ways to perceive what is in front of them-thus must find new ways to perceive what has already occurred via inferior Ni to protect post event?

I dunno, all ramblings though....

I'm not sure on ESFPs that way (I'm not one!) but I DO identify with the double answering of questions... I'll give a top of the head answer that suits me at that moment and then I'll eventually think it through (usually when some little voice in the back of my head says "you didn't answer that right!!!") and conclude a different answer to give... those who know me have gotten used to this, those who don't occasionally find it confusing

And interesting to hear your description from a tertiary instead of inferior Ni poki! I'd wondered how the difference in placement there could really have an effect... it apparently does

 

[sculpting]

I can be prone to doing this alot.
Its possible that all they really remember was Fi judgement. I have come across ENFPs that do this as well, I generally dismiss it as its not really important. Instead of a series of events its just a single detail.

That is a good point Poki-The Fi judgment. Yeah I dont remember the Se details at all-but typically that isnt the point of the convo-it will be the judgment and resulting action. Dude, I cant figure out how this works for Fi used with Si.

For TeSi-lessons learned are etched in concrete. I cant "lie" to myself as it is flawed and will corrupt the Ne possibility loop. It will fuck up the new potentials too much and since I LOVE potentials, I wont sacrifice them in self delusion. I can choose to ignore the Si data library and recognize the inherent risk-but it is my own internal skeptic and I KNOW I ignored it. So FiSi?? Now that is some really weird shit. I'd like the INFP perspective as I think their version is much more evolved than mine..

 

[uumlau]

Its possible that all they really remember was Fi judgement. I have come across ENFPs that do this as well, I generally dismiss it as its not really important. Instead of a series of events its just a single detail.

Whoa! Now that's an interesting thought. Not just having a perceiving function as a "memory", but also a judging function can be a "memory."

Try this on for size:

Si == concrete memory
Ni == pattern/impression memory
Fi == feeling memory
Ti == thinking memory

I'm still working on what this would imply for Se, Ne, Fe and Te. Perhaps:

Se == concrete interaction
Ne == pattern/impression interaction
Fe == feeling interaction
Te == thinking interaction

Thoughts?

 

[Poki]

That is a good point Poki-The Fi judgment. Yeah I dont remember the Se details at all-but typically that isnt the point of the convo-it will be the judgment and resulting action. Dude, I cant figure out how this works for Fi used with Si.

For TeSi-lessons learned are etched in concrete. I cant "lie" to myself as it is flawed and will corrupt the Ne possibility loop. It will fuck up the new potentials too much and since I LOVE potentials, I wont sacrifice them in self delusion. I can choose to ignore the Si data library and recognize the inherent risk-but it is my own internal skeptic and I KNOW I ignored it. So FiSi?? Now that is some really weird shit. I'd like the INFP perspective as I think their version is much more evolved than mine..

But what if the "lie" didnt affect any lessons learned or had any effect on Fi. You could then pull an estimate out that may not be correct, but is just as good as the concrete data. Something that if someone changed that one thing you would simply respond, thats beside the point.

 

[sculpting]

Whoa! Now that's an interesting thought. Not just having a perceiving function as a "memory", but also a judging function can be a "memory."

Try this on for size:

Si == concrete memory
Ni == pattern/impression memory
Fi == feeling memory
Ti == thinking memory

I'm still working on what this would imply for Se, Ne, Fe and Te. Perhaps:

Se == concrete interaction
Ne == pattern/impression interaction
Fe == feeling interaction
Te == thinking interaction

Thoughts?

I think the roots/branches/theroems/axioms from the Fi thread may be partially grounded in FiSi. So for an INFP the Fi rules would be exceptionally strong and well defined given that Si is more developed. For an ENFP I would predict much more malleability and less development. In both cases those rule sets can be modified changed and pruned-but it takes a lot of effort and -um pain and feeling.

I would suggest very gently, since I do not occupy your brain-perhaps for an INTJ-you may use NiFi in the same sort of way, but the trees and branches are much easier to drop in and out of a pattern as they are Ni perceptions-not Si etched roots?

Now once the roots are built, what does Si do with them? It isnt concrete. It isnt entirely static, as pointed out by others in this thread previously. The roots can be changed. The roots/stored Si "stuff" can be used.

But how is the question.