• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Müller runs and he scores !!!!!!!! goaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall :D

a cent per bad joke and we gonna be rich in notime :D

You're not doing it right unless people are paying you to NOT crack bad jokes.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
*judges you all... maintains edge*

:thelook:

Ni, specifically, is supposed to be able to find the connection that others can't. It's supposed to be that Ni creates knowledge as opposed to discovering it from outside. The distinction is slim, and is a perceived difference based on Ni being introverted--it perceives itself to be independent of the outside world. An Ni user will understand himself to be manipulating or synthesizing connections, finding what wasn't there before.

I don't see how it could be called a true connection, if it wasn't already there.

And, if the connection was already there, it would rightly be called a discovery, not an invention.

It would seem that, if the connection isn't really there, then it would be a false connection...

The obvious caveat is in the creative realm, but, even then, that only makes sense regarding the actual creative process, not the critique or analysis of art.

If a critic pointed out an aspect or quality of a film, and you yourself had not seen that aspect or quality in the film beforehand, but, after hearing it, you can either immediately, or upon going back and rewatching the film, see that the aspect or quality is indeed in the film and is as clear as day, well, it would seem the aspect or quality had been there in the film all along, but you just hadn't seen it...

(A common refrain is that, if the director didn't intend to create that particular aspect or quality, then it doesn't "really" exist in the film; however, as I was told would happen back in college by one of my favorite professors, as I've gotten older and grown more comfortable with analyses of art, I have let go of the need for the creator's intention to necessarily be the end-all, be-all of what's true about a piece [aka, The Death of the Author].)

Even the creative process, though, comes under some suspicion when you poke at it. What sculptor was it who said something along the lines of, "The way I make my sculptures is that I see the finished piece within the marble, and then I chip away everything else." I mean, is that, when you really get down nitty gritty and analytical-like, truly invention, or is it discovery?

Ask yourself, do you ever feel that sometimes, when you are writing a post, you are actually trying to execute the exact post that you already knew you wanted to write. In some sense, that ideal post "existed" in the future/your mind and you did not really invent it (consciously at least), so much as express what was already in (some mode of) existence.

Some people will call this kind of talk claptrap, but I truly do believe it.

Been playing around with the idea long enough to see manifestations of it many times.

Kinda like seeing that previously unrecognized aspect or quality in a movie -- you might not have considered it before, but it's still out there...

:cheese:

Introverted functions are cut off, deliberately, from external checks. There is some reality checking involved, but too much of that kind of nonsense, ironically, leads one astray--we map too closely to the real world and don't see the rest of what's there to see.

:thinking:

I like to fact check to see if what I'm coming up with is indeed in accordance with reality. It's like I start with a bunch of raw data and connections I have accumulated over the years, new data comes in and/or I try to create new connections with the data and connections I already have, and *bam* new connections are made.

Then, to verify whether the connections I have come up with are really out there or not (i.e., are true), I'll constantly be on the lookout (whether consciously or unconsciously) for data that either contradicts or confirms my speculative connections. If the new data doesn't reconcile, then the connections must be reconsidered, the flaws must be figured out, and new connections must be made. The ex post facto fact-checking then proceeds again. Rinse and repeat.

The more a particular connection is able to repeatedly and reliably pass the fact-check, the truer it is deemed to be...

So, anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is: why would I want to make connections that aren't really out there already (apart from creative reasons, which I've second-guessed anyway)? And, if I make these connections with the desire for them to be true, then why wouldn't I go back and fact-check them to verify whether they really are true?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
I don't see how it could be called a true connection, if it wasn't already there.

And, if the connection was already there, it would rightly be called a discovery, not an invention.

It would seem that, if the connection isn't really there, then it would be a false connection...

Yeah, but we're talking of "connections", content relationships between concepts. How are they ever going to be "really there"? The Ne users probably have an answer for that, and it'll be something like "they just are", but us, the introverted connection makers? The connections will have been really there if once they were discovered, some constructive process could be built on them. As such the connections can have an indirect objective life but, as befits the products of a perception function, the issue for the connections is not really their truth or falsity, but that they were perceived at all. At least, this would be something like what it is to have introverted intuition be a dominant process taking all precedence over other functional perspectives. In a subordinate role or in an introvert where dealings with the world are emphasized, then fact checking would be a more substantial part of the cognitive ideology.

Ask yourself, do you ever feel that sometimes, when you are writing a post, you are actually trying to execute the exact post that you already knew you wanted to write. In some sense, that ideal post "existed" in the future/your mind and you did not really invent it (consciously at least), so much as express what was already in (some mode of) existence.

I notice that when INTJs want to speak of things of the world, we use the verb "think" and when we speak of the inside, we use "feel". Even we downplay "intuit" as a verb. I once surprised an INFJ with the word. As part of an prior conversation she'd asked, "Is that what you think or what you know?" I said, "It's an intuition." "Intuition!" she said. "I like that word." (Freakin Ti users.) But it's interesting, this use of "feel". It makes the fact checker for interior things be feeling.



Whoa! Having a Victor moment. Over-generalising into claustrophobic interiority. Which raises the fact checking question again. Too much interior vision creates a sickness of vision. Fact checking, real world bench-marking remains vital. God bless the auxiliary function.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Something interesting I just put together.

I know some of you don't like to assign any value to this data, but I (and many others) think it's relevant.

This data comes from that study that looked at some 5,700+ "gifted" high school students, based on their MBTI results.

Interestingly enough, I was probably part of this study.

Anyway, a few months ago, I'd taken that data and sliced it and diced it many different ways in Excel, but Silly and I recently came up with a new way of slicing it (her Ne-ism came up with it, my Ni-ism focused and figured out how to put something together) that came out very interestingly.

Here it is:

Function Gifted % Norm % Ratio
  1. Ni 12.3% 4.4% 2.79x
  2. Ne 26.8% 12.5% 2.15x
  3. Ti 15.3% 7.7% 1.98x
  4. Fi 12.6% 9.3% 1.35x
  5. Si 9.6% 13.7% 0.70x
  6. Te 9.7% 18.9% 0.51x
  7. Fe 7.9% 17.6% 0.45x
  8. Se 5.8% 15.9% 0.37x
The column directly to the right of each individual function (Gifted %) represents the % of gifted students who had that function as their dominant function.

The next column to the right (Norm %) represents the % of the overall population who had that function as their dominant function.

The next column to the right (Ratio) forms a ratio of the % of gifted students who had that function as their dominant relative to the % of the overall population who that function as their dominant function.

As such, assuming the data is meaningful, the Ratio column should indicate how much each function is associated with giftedness when it's in the dominant position.

I've sliced this data a hundred other ways as well; if you're interested in seeing it, let me know, and I'll send it to you.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
I dunno Z...

I have an MBTI manual full of stats....I also just admin the step II to ten folks....the results are fucked up. So just understand that anything that traces back to MBTI results should immediately come under question....

Id trust the MMTI-c results though.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Id trust the MMTI-c results though.

I just saw the sample items and they're ridiculous.

What bothers you more:

Not knowing the answer
People getting angry

As a child I would answer BOTH.

Kids who steal should be:

Helped to stop stealing
Punished

BOTH.

Choose the word you like better:

Challenge
Helpful

BOTH

I can't stand any more of their questions.

Common knowledge about MBTI:

"The T-F scale tends to have the lowest reliability of the four scales. "
"T-F scales show relatively weak validity"
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Something interesting I just put together.

I know some of you don't like to assign any value to this data, but I (and many others) think it's relevant.

This data comes from that study that looked at some 5,700+ "gifted" high school students, based on their MBTI results.

Interestingly enough, I was probably part of this study.

Anyway, a few months ago, I'd taken that data and sliced it and diced it many different ways in Excel, but Silly and I recently came up with a new way of slicing it (her Ne-ism came up with it, my Ni-ism focused and figured out how to put something together) that came out very interestingly.

Here it is:

Function Gifted % Norm % Ratio
  1. Ni 12.3% 4.4% 2.79x
  2. Ne 26.8% 12.5% 2.15x
  3. Ti 15.3% 7.7% 1.98x
  4. Fi 12.6% 9.3% 1.35x
  5. Si 9.6% 13.7% 0.70x
  6. Te 9.7% 18.9% 0.51x
  7. Fe 7.9% 17.6% 0.45x
  8. Se 5.8% 15.9% 0.37x
The column directly to the right of each individual function (Gifted %) represents the % of gifted students who had that function as their dominant function.

The next column to the right (Norm %) represents the % of the overall population who had that function as their dominant function.

The next column to the right (Ratio) forms a ratio of the % of gifted students who had that function as their dominant relative to the % of the overall population who that function as their dominant function.

As such, assuming the data is meaningful, the Ratio column should indicate how much each function is associated with giftedness when it's in the dominant position.

I've sliced this data a hundred other ways as well; if you're interested in seeing it, let me know, and I'll send it to you.

If it's the study I'm thinking of, wasn't the highest correlation with "INxx" as being the most gifted, overall, with fairly insignificant differences between the options for xx?

It sort of made sense to me, in that "INxx" basically means, "spends lots of time thinking about things in an abstract way, without much social interaction."

The reason that Ti and Fi are "scoring lower" in your list above is that you're bringing in ISFP and ISTP to aggregate with the INFP and INTP results. This isn't to suggest that Se isn't as bright, but they don't dwell on abstract ideas in the same way, and abstract ideas tend to correlate with the classical definitions of IQ and "gifted." INxx as a type would imply that one gets a lot of practice "just thinking," hence a high correlation with skill on IQ tests and the like.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Agreed...

Mind explaining why you'd trust one over the other?

I mean, when n=5,700+, I'd think it would be reasonably accurate...
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
If it's the study I'm thinking of, wasn't the highest correlation with "INxx" as being the most gifted, overall, with fairly insignificant differences between the options for xx?

It sort of made sense to me, in that "INxx" basically means, "spends lots of time thinking about things in an abstract way, without much social interaction."

The reason that Ti and Fi are "scoring lower" in your list above is that you're bringing in ISFP and ISTP to aggregate with the INFP and INTP results. This isn't to suggest that Se isn't as bright, but they don't dwell on abstract ideas in the same way, and abstract ideas tend to correlate with the classical definitions of IQ and "gifted." INxx as a type would imply that one gets a lot of practice "just thinking," hence a high correlation with skill on IQ tests and the like.

Here's the raw data off which I based everything.

I've literally sliced the data 100 different ways, and there's tons of interesting observations you can make...

Sorry for the formatting, but there's no good way to display it on the forum without a considerable amount of effort...

Type Ratio Gifted % Norm %
INTP 3.40 12.03 3.54
INTJ 2.87 7.53 2.62
INFP 2.68 10.41 3.89
INFJ 2.67 4.78 1.79
ENTP 2.32 11.35 4.89
ENFP 2.03 15.45 7.6
ENTJ 1.49 5.84 3.93
ENFJ 1.26 4.55 3.61
ISTJ 0.99 6.83 6.92
ISTP 0.78 3.23 4.16
ESTP 0.49 3.21 6.52
ISFJ 0.40 2.73 6.82
ISFP 0.40 2.15 5.4
ESFP 0.28 2.63 9.37
ESTJ 0.26 3.89 14.97
ESFJ 0.24 3.31 13.97
Overall 1.00 99.92 100
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Here's the raw data off which I based everything.

I've literally sliced the data 100 different ways, and there's tons of interesting observations you can make...

Sorry for the formatting, but there's no good way to display it on the forum without a considerable amount of effort...

Type Ratio Gifted % Norm %
INTP 3.40 12.03 3.54
INTJ 2.87 7.53 2.62
INFP 2.68 10.41 3.89
INFJ 2.67 4.78 1.79
ENTP 2.32 11.35 4.89
ENFP 2.03 15.45 7.6
ENTJ 1.49 5.84 3.93
ENFJ 1.26 4.55 3.61
ISTJ 0.99 6.83 6.92
ISTP 0.78 3.23 4.16
ESTP 0.49 3.21 6.52
ISFJ 0.40 2.73 6.82
ISFP 0.40 2.15 5.4
ESFP 0.28 2.63 9.37
ESTJ 0.26 3.89 14.97
ESFJ 0.24 3.31 13.97
Overall 1.00 99.92 100

Yeah, that's the one. I don't regard the data as extremely reliable, but it is rather suggestive.

Note all the "INxx" at the top. Notice how your alternate slicing hides the top-level INTP result. Notice how the other results in INxx are not terribly different, statistically speaking.

The main things I note is a primary indication that N > S (in terms of the specific "gifted" definition ... these may well include "S" folks in the "N" group due to an aptitude for abstract thinking regarded as a preference for abstract thinking), and as a secondary indication I > E. If you spend your time extroverted toward people or the world as a whole, you tend not to be a classic "nerd" who gets put into a gifted program.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Yeah, that's the one. I don't regard the data as extremely reliable, but it is rather suggestive.

Note all the "INxx" at the top. Notice how your alternate slicing hides the top-level INTP result. Notice how the other results in INxx are not terribly different, statistically speaking.

The main things I note is a primary indication that N > S (in terms of the specific "gifted" definition ... these may well include "S" folks in the "N" group due to an aptitude for abstract thinking regarded as a preference for abstract thinking), and as a secondary indication I > E. If you spend your time extroverted toward people or the world as a whole, you tend not to be a classic "nerd" who gets put into a gifted program.

True all.

I think "suggestive" is the appropriate term for the data.

The fact that the data corroborates very well with my own a priori assumptions, gathered mostly from being in the GATE program, but also my own studies into MBTI, further supports its "suggestiveness", in my opinion.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
The main things I note is a primary indication that N > S (in terms of the specific "gifted" definition ... these may well include "S" folks in the "N" group due to an aptitude for abstract thinking regarded as a preference for abstract thinking), and as a secondary indication I > E. If you spend your time extroverted toward people or the world as a whole, you tend not to be a classic "nerd" who gets put into a gifted program.

Also, note that the ESTPs break this correllation of introverts scoring higher than all the extroverts.

From scouring the data, I've noticed that it's the times when the correlations break that are just as important as the times that they hold.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Type Ratio Gifted % Norm %
INTP 3.40 12.03 3.54
INTJ 2.87 7.53 2.62
INFP 2.68 10.41 3.89
INFJ 2.67 4.78 1.79
ENTP 2.32 11.35 4.89
ENFP 2.03 15.45 7.6
ENTJ 1.49 5.84 3.93
ENFJ 1.26 4.55 3.61
ISTJ 0.99 6.83 6.92
ISTP 0.78 3.23 4.16
ESTP 0.49 3.21 6.52
ISFJ 0.40 2.73 6.82
ISFP 0.40 2.15 5.4
ESFP 0.28 2.63 9.37
ESTJ 0.26 3.89 14.97
ESFJ 0.24 3.31 13.97
Overall 1.00 99.92 100

Another very interesting correlation is that, if you take the varying definitions for Jness and Pness between MBTI and Socionics, that the types that are J by one definition and P by the other, tend to score the highest amongst their perceiving group (N vs S).

The types that score P by both definitions (I call them the "PPs") tend to score below the "JPs", but higher than those who score J by both definitions ("JJs", who tend to score the lowest of their perceiving group).

To be more specific, INTPs, INTJs, INFPs and INFJS are the "JPs" of the Ns, and they score the highest amongst the Ns. The PPS (ENTPs and ENFPS) come in after them. The JJs (ENTJs and ENFJs) come in after them.

Almost the same correllation holds true for the Ss (with the ESTPs, once again, being the exception to the rule).

:nerd:
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
And just for fairness, when you look at the types that have any one function in either their dom or aux position, Ne is actually the most highly correllated with giftedness:

Function Ratio Gifted % Norm %
Ne 2.47 49.24 19.92
Ni 1.90 22.7 11.95
Ti 1.56 29.82 19.11
Fi 1.17 30.64 26.26
Te 0.85 24.09 28.44
Fe 0.59 15.37 26.19
Se 0.44 11.22 25.45
Si 0.39 16.76 42.68
Overall 1.00 199.84 200
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
And just for comprehensiveness' sake, here are the results for when a function is in only the aux position:

Function Ratio Gifted % Norm %
Ne 3.02 22.44 7.43
Te 1.51 14.36 9.54
Ni 1.38 10.39 7.54
Ti 1.28 14.56 11.41
Fi 1.07 18.08 16.97
Fe 0.87 7.51 8.61
Se 0.56 5.38 9.56
Si 0.25 7.2 28.94
Overall 1.00 99.92 100
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
And just for fairness, when you look at the types that have any one function in either their dom or aux position, Ne is actually the most highly correllated with giftedness:

Function Ratio Gifted % Norm %
Ne 2.47 49.24 19.92
Ni 1.90 22.7 11.95
Ti 1.56 29.82 19.11
Fi 1.17 30.64 26.26
Te 0.85 24.09 28.44
Fe 0.59 15.37 26.19
Se 0.44 11.22 25.45
Si 0.39 16.76 42.68
Overall 1.00 199.84 200
Doesn't shock me in the least. ;)
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
I just saw the sample items and they're ridiculous.

What bothers you more:

Not knowing the answer
People getting angry

As a child I would answer BOTH.

Kids who steal should be:

Helped to stop stealing
Punished

BOTH.

Choose the word you like better:

Challenge
Helpful

BOTH



I can't stand any more of their idiotic questions.
If I have to lie to get a result, that test is silly.

I think we all need to get drunk today....

I took this test and it was hysterical as could not map some the questions into T or F....but my choice was always obvious. unlike the MBTI, I had no second thoughts about any answers...I have no doubts whatsoever what my answer should be to each of the above-as an adult or as a kid.

She rewrote all the Qs...unlike the original Qs from the MBTI which many are from the original MBTI years ago...because she had the flexibility to do so, she could start from scratch.

the funniest q was this one:

Which do you prefer:

A) B, C, D, E, F, G, H
B) %, $, #, !, 1, (, ^,

This question brought glee into my soul for some reason.....I actually laughed out loud in happiness...
 
Top