How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

[sculpting]

"Unfortunately I take little stock of new theories, as my empirical temperament is more eager for new facts than for what one might speculate about them, although this is, I must admit, an enjoyable intellectual pastime."

-Carl Jung

"It cannot be overemphasized that Jung is above all an empiricist."

-Jalonde Jacobi

ah red=Te and blue argues against Ne or Ti? Is that correct?

 

[Jaguar]

ah red=Te and blue argues against Ne or Ti? Is that correct?

You decide.

 

[sculpting]

Uumlau's point in case.

That is the N-similarity: that of connection-making.

The difference between the two, after recognizing that significant similarity, is the attitudinal direction.

Ne doms would certainly be able to do that N-styled connection-making of figuring out that the men are all touching an elephant as well.

I'm not so sure, however, that they'd do the same when that analogy is pressed more fully into reality -- like when various people are arguing about their takes on a political or philosophical issue.

That's the realm where Ni meta-perspectivizing really seems to thrive, imo.

But about an elephant: yes, Ne could do that.

I somewhat disagree with Mr U, even though I adore him with great delight. We can mutually perhaps peek into our opp attitude....but very often we deviate widely...then interestingly end up back at the same place at the end of the story.

Perhaps this is why I find the Ni processes more intriguing than the Ni end point of a predictive pattern/archetype. The Ni processes can be very complementary and serve as a good check against Ne processes. I often find the Ni endpoint to be incomplete...but the Ni questions raised to be exemplary and they spark my Ne to look in very new places...which can form the basis of new input to the Ni processes.

 

[onemoretime]

I don't think it matches up with those Jungian concepts quite like that.

Yeah, I was getting cavalier with the terminology, but that's because it was the best way to describe what I was thinking.

Archetypes lie in the collective unconscious. When we have personal experiences that fit them, they then enter the personal unconscious and become complexes. This is one of the first things that Lenore taught me in response to questions about Beebe's theory.
So when I have experiences that make me react in a grumpy way, it falls into an archetype called the "Senex". This then for me takes on a perspective of Ni, and the Senex becomes a complex through a negative Ni perspective for me.

I agree, when the archetypes in question are the roles humans play. However, I also think we have archetypal understandings of things in nature, though we would likely call that "instinctual". A lot of our thought is pre-programmed, so to speak, or is at least learned early enough to be indistinguishable from genetically universal. This also correlates with the tendency of humans to anthropomorphize nature, which would then start to draw on human archetypes.

In my mind, the personal unconscious are those bits and pieces of actual sensory information that affected us, but we don't consciously experience them. They stick around, and that's why it's the province of Si. Meanwhile, the collective unconscious are those bits of behavioral patterns (thought being a behavior here) that became encoded within our genes as vital to human survival. They pop up "seemingly from the blue", and are of a very deep, ethereal and quasi-mystical nature. That's why it's Ni's area.

Now, Ni is often linked to the "unconscious", and inasmuch as it is said to deal with "the archetypal" (one of the cognitive process test questions even asks this) there might be some truth to that.
But I don't think the extraverted functions then deal with "the conscious", while Sensation necessarily deals with "the personal".

Sensation deals with the things that actually happen or have happened to a person, which is why I characterize it as "personal." Intuition deals with things that are universal to all humans in some way, which is why I characterize it as "collective." The extraverted functions deal with "the conscious" because they require stimulation in a conscious state to function. The introverted functions do not require consciousness in the same way: the impact of your repressed or forgotten memories are going to still affect you because of Si, and you will still have those archetypal structures floating throughout your brain even if not actively recalling them.

An Si perspective is in the "unconscious" for NJ's, SP, and perhaps young NP's, but not for an SJ or mature INP. Some memories might fall into the personal unconscious (and that's what that is; memories, images, etc. that you have experienced, but forgotten, yet it is still "in there" somewhere). But the functional perspective itself is not unconscious, simply because it's internal. And external perspectives are not necessarily conscious.

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is. It's not the engagement of the perceiving function that is conscious or unconscious, as much as it is the source of information that it is drawing from. Extraverted perceiving functions require conscious stimuli to utilize information, while introverted perceiving functions rely on stimuli from the unconscious mind. Does that make sense?

 

[sculpting]

You decide.

You know I have no judging functions!!!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dont make me make a choice!!!

yeah I vote INTJ all the way as I can understand him, albeit slowly.

 

[onemoretime]

"Unfortunately I take little stock of new theories, as my empirical temperament is more eager for new facts than for what one might speculate about them, although this is, I must admit, an enjoyable intellectual pastime."

-Carl Jung

"It cannot be overemphasized that Jung is above all an empiricist."

-Jalonde Jacobi

Yup. Describe the software all you like, it means nothing unless you can apply it.

 

[SillySapienne]

From the way understand it, Ne is quite the opposite. Ne expands while Ni collapses.

I was poking fun earlier and accusing the Ni dom users of having a god complex for believing they have a meta-perspective on things, and in that context, I was translating meta to mean above, but...

(God, I love Wikipedia )

Meta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that meta-processing, and meta-analyzing, and meta-everything has a strong correlation to N-ness.

Meta can mean in the middle, or in between, but often it's used as a prefix to various Higher Order of Thinking, or HOT topics.

Ne draws and sees connections between and patterns within seemingly disparate ideas/concepts/constructs/things too.

But you are right, we do make networks, multidimensional frameworks from the information we assimilate.

But, It's kinda like a fractal, Ne, so there is a cohesion and a global-ness to our synthesizing data.

I've been obsessed with fractals since I was a little girl.

"Everything in every thing"

Is that Ni or Ne?

Or is it just me, I read it from a human geography textbook introduction, the introduction was so moving, (I was somehow forced to take the class which ended up being awesome, my prof was a total genius ), that I actually copied it and have it archived in my room. True story.

 

[Zarathustra]

I somewhat disagree with Mr U, even though I adore him with great delight. We can mutually perhaps peek into our opp attitude....but very often we deviate widely...then interestingly end up back at the same place at the end of the story.

And I agree with you on this point.

They're similar in their Nness, but they are different in their attitude.

Perhaps this is why I find the Ni processes more intriguing than the Ni end point of a predictive pattern/archetype. The Ni processes can be very complementary and serve as a good check against Ne processes.

Agreed.

I often find the Ni endpoint to be incomplete...

That's the attitudinal difference.

Does the desire for connection-making ever stop for the Ne-user? The answer is: nope.

You guys are always looking to make new connections to better fill out the sphere's surface area.

We are always focusing in on the center.

Therein lies the difference.

...but the Ni questions raised to be exemplary and they spark my Ne to look in very new places...which can form the basis of new input to the Ni processes.

Very true.

 

[sculpting]

Silly...

check this out...just in case you ever want to be an Fe user...

NLP Meta Programs, by John David Hoag


Also do you have any suggested reading in abstract math? I am considering a new topic outside of jungian psychology to become my new time sink. I have determined I am morally offended by 4/0=undefined, so I would like to dig a bit deeper into math.

 

[sculpting]

Does the desire for connection-making ever stop for the Ne-user? The answer is: nope.

You guys are always looking to make new connections to better fill out the sphere's surface area.

Practically the Ne search never ends...but the ultimate beauty would be at the end of the search when everything is connected...and thus is unity.

infinity=unity

"Everything in every thing" by Silly!

But this may be NeFi, as i suspect NeTi has very different objectives, thus I shall refrain from speaking for them.

 

[SillySapienne]

Does the desire for connection-making ever stop for the Ne-user? The answer is: nope.

You guys are always looking to make new connections to better fill out the sphere's surface area.

We are always focusing in on the center.

Therein lies the difference.

What's your center?

No one grows from ceasing to allow themselves to know more about what they think they already know.

You always do this, "I know this already"

"Waste of my time"

Do you know what my center is?

Know thyself, and by knowing yourself you must realize that you are a dynamic living sentient being dealing with a highly unpredictable dynamic environment.

Life changes, circumstances change, but if you stay true to yourself and what you love, you must commit to fostering and facilitating those things.

There is no carrot, there is no enlightenment, there is inevitable death, that's all.

So, what's left, the life that you as an adult *choose* to live.

The more you know the more you grow, intellectually, and even spiritually.

But, there are sometimes when you have to just let go of your(pl.) need to mentally understand and control your surroundings, sometimes the answer also lies in just letting go, letting go.

I like to do both.

 

[Jaguar]

Yup. Describe the software all you like, it means nothing unless you can apply it.

You don't read between the lines very well.

No one grows from ceasing to allow themselves to know more about what they think they already know.

Absolutely true.

 

[Zarathustra]

What's your center?

No one grows from ceasing to allow themselves to know more about what they think they already know.

You always do this, "I know this already"

I know you like to consider yourself smarter than me, but have you considered the possibility that in those circumstances I do already know whatever you're bringing up, and have integrated it into the surface area of the sphere?

You still seem to be missing out on the point that the sphere is the totality of potential perspectives about the matter, and that we have integrated everything we've learned throughout our life -- and otherwise -- into our perspective that focuses, from that base of knowledge (the surface area) onto the center (i.e., the issue at hand).

 

[Zarathustra]

Absolutely true.

But useless (and indeed, detrimental) when falsely applied.

 

[Jaguar]

But useless (and indeed, detrimental) when falsely applied.

Are you going to edit 22 or 23 more times?

 

[SillySapienne]

Silly...

check this out...just in case you ever want to be an Fe user...

NLP Meta Programs, by John David Hoag


Also do you have any suggested reading in abstract math? I am considering a new topic outside of jungian psychology to become my new time sink. I have determined I am morally offended by 4/0=undefined, so I would like to dig a bit deeper into math.

Rudy Rucker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loved this one

Infinity and the Mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's the MAN.

Total ENTP.

Me likey his work a lot.

OOOoOOoOoooOOOOooooooo.

This next non-fiction piece you MUST READ, I read it in a day, simply enthralled.

You're a science gal so you can take it, it's a relatively dense read, ridiculously interesting though, and totally comprehensible.



Charles Seife - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea.

I was obsessed with Zero and infinity since I was a young girl, I always thought that a number divided by zero was infinity, don't exactly know why, but that's what I thought, but my teachers always told me no, it's undefined.


Division by zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have such crazy theories regarding numbers and math it's silly really.



Enjoy!

 

[onemoretime]

You don't read between the lines very well.

Maybe. What can I say, I'm having fun here.

 

[Zarathustra]

Are you going to edit 22 or 23 more times?

What can I say?

I'm a perfectionist.

 

[sculpting]

SS, you are now my goddess! (Did you ever take linear algebra? it almost gives me orgasms....)

I also have always been obsessed with zero and infinity. When I learned about limits I was utterly enthralled as it completed a little portion of my world...what happens as things get closer and closer together....? Another moment of utter beauty was in pChem when I learned that half of the D orbitals in a metallic bond are actually imaginary numbers. WTF does that really mean, except that we really lack a complete understanding of the world around us?

In these nooks and crannies is where, if there is a god, I think he may reside.

Ahhh....

And Z, the danger of being an INTJ, is that you falsely limit your Ni input, granted I appreciate why you do so, however that boundary condition prevents you at times from building proper Ni models. To limit information input prematurely-especially if it is Si input, which you will innately distrust, is a very real hazard. It will be "just a story", thus you will disregard it. Si is your weakest link....

 

[Zarathustra]

And Z, the danger of being an INTJ, is that you falsely limit your Ni input, granted I appreciate why you do so, however that boundary condition prevents you at times from building proper Ni models. To limit information input prematurely-especially if it is Si input, which you will innately distrust, is a very real hazard. It will be "just a story", thus you will disregard it. Si is your weakest link....

Regarding rejecting input: I am an extremely curious person, always looking for new information. But when I hear someone explaining something to me that I already know: what am I to do? Unlearn it for them so they can teach me?

Regarding Si: my dad's an ISTJ, my mom's an ESFJ, and my sister either ISTJ or INTJ: I think I'm actually pretty good with Si...

Fe, on the other hand...