• 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?

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
An e function contains no depth because there's some i function standing by, and likewise an i has no wider outreach than what can be provided by some e hanging around? The e will mirror and the i will tunnel into a hole? You HAVE to have more than one function to be a person? Or is there some accidental depth to every e and some incidental breadth to every i? A little bit of Fi in every Fe, a smidge of Ne in every Ni, a dollop of Xe leavening every Xi and some stain of Xi in the Xe? Or what?

WHY DO YOU DRIVE ME BONKERS?!!?!?!?

We are human beings, and moreso, we are human beings who are frequenting a site on Typology, OF COURSE EVERY EXTROVERT WHO FREQUENTS THIS SITE HAS SOME DEPTH, (well, maybe not all, but certainly most), also, this site is dominated by Ns.

NPs and INJs to be exact, of course there are others, but I believe we make up the majority here, hence most of the posters will be Ne+T/Fi, or Ni+ T/Fe, T/Fi + Ne, or T/Fe + Ni

I will say this, many of the frequent posters display depth, although, "breadth" the way I think you are defining it, errrr, I fear that many of the frequenters here are, um, hmm, lacking in this department.

Which is okay, I like freaks. :)

Also, I agree with what Orobas said, Ne is not a depthless function, GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ne inevitably leads to...

New Neural Networks

Nebulous nectars offer kernels of truth.

Infinitrees abound with branches up and down connecting everything.

Not to seek, but to see beneath the surface, to find patterns, and commonalities, to find something hidden yet so apparent.

Ne will always want more information, will always get excited by the concept of finding something NeW!
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Whoooeee!!!! Posts with content!

[Responding to a quote of Lenore's description of Ni.

In contrast, I find these sorts of definitions of Ni retarded. No offense. I mean, I don't know if the creator of said definition is trying to isolate Ni and only Ni (presumably so? And failing to really get at what it IS.. or perhaps it as an Ni definition is more applicable/pertinent as a tertiary function or beyond?), but it's not like I utilize Ni is some sort of vacuum where I'm just going off of hunches 24/7. That's dumb.
Indeed, it is essentially impossible to describe "Ni" ideas without context.
... all your perspective are belong to us.
:rofl1:
But, to be honest, all your perspectives are and will always be found to be lacking because in merely collecting perspectives there isn't the synthesis step. And Ni is introverted, so there will be a synthesis step, the part where I introvert to discover my perspective.

Let me illustrate this with a rather famous analogy. There are several blind men, standing around an elephant, and each is asked to describe what it is.

One says it's like a rope.
Another says it's like a snake.
Another says it's like a sail.
Another says it's like a tree.
Another says it's like a wall.

For one adept with Ni, this is what many other people seem like: each has a particular perspective, and made totally valid observations. But then we notice that each person is describing the same thing, not different things, but it seems totally impossible that these five observations could all describe the same thing.

Ni takes these contradictions and concludes, "It's an elephant!" Then comes the hard part: explaining to everyone that it's an elephant. Some people understandably tend to cling to their personal observations, and reject the elephant possibility. They will not only dismiss the Ni observation, but argue with each other how "everyone else is wrong," because a tree is nothing like a sail, therefore others are spouting nonsense.

There is a tendency on this board to distinguish Ne from Ni a bit too much. I believe that they are very closely related, N-types generally understand each other much better than they understand S-types. So let me say this: when I point out that "it's really an elephant" to other N-types, Ne or Ni, both types will usually pick up on my reasoning quickly, and say "Oh, yeah, that makes total sense!" With the S-types, it's generally slower, because any abstractions are generally distrusted - not because the abstractions aren't understood by the S-types in the first place.

To me, the Sherlock Holmes description of making a deduction, that after eliminating everything possible, that what remains, however improbable, is the truth: this describes Ni to me.

[DISCLAIMER: Yes, it's possible that our hypothetical Ni user doesn't conclude "elephant" and instead says "it's a fire hydrant" because they're aware of some other piece of data that a dog peed on it, and they don't let go of that point of view. However, most misunderstandings are because the valid Ni conclusion contradicts "common sense," not because the Ni user is a quack.]

Ne does something very similar, but it's differently directed. Ni can take several contradictory perspectives and glean a single real "truth", while Ne is inspired to consider new perspectives based on observations. Elsewhere on this forum, I described how waves in water can be intuitively Ne-related to sound waves and light waves or slinky waves, that the observation of one leads to understanding of the others. Feynman discovered new dynamics of quantum mechanics by watching a plate wobble on the floor after it had dropped, doing the math for its precession, and realizing that the math had application with his other work.

So both Ni and Ne approaches understand each other fairly readily, we dominant intuitives just happen to prefer one or the other to the degree that we do it without thought.


This is a very simple example of how Ni works. Of course, all of us here using type theory are engaging that process, but are not all Ni preferrers. So like seeing, remembering, thinking, feeling, etc. we all do it, but as Sim would point out, as a type preference, it would be the person's primary perspective or "world-view" of perceiving things.

This makes it sound less like some mystical superpower or something.
Experiencing the current experience is Se, and conceptualizing from it is Ne. For both forms of Pi; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside (memory), you are engaging Si. If, when you bring it up again from the inside, this time you conceptualize it, you are engaging Ni.
There is something to this, but the summary description is a bit poor.

I believe it is accurate to say that most people are capable of the kind of thinking that Ni-doms do habitually, but they don't "prefer" it, and therefore often don't understand or even distrust it. However, this doesn't really describe what that "kind of thinking" is.

This is why I try to use analogies and stories to describe how Ni "works," in order to lead others through something resembling the thought process. Most descriptions of Ni pretend that it's "mysterious." It really isn't: it's just well-practiced pattern-matching/spotting. The Ne users pattern match/spot among the things they observe in the external world. The Ni users pattern match/spot within themselves. In most instances, the pattern matching/spotting is utterly trivial and not even worth discussing. In exceptional instances, the Ne extrapolation leads to new truths by understanding how a pattern repeats itself everywhere in unforeseen ways, while the Ni "interpolation" takes all sorts of observations from different perspectives (which don't necessarily make sense together) and synthesizes them into a new truth that explains all of the different perspectives with a singular simple explanation.
 
R

ReflecTcelfeR

Guest
Hmmmm... I feel like I've been beaten over the head with a large 'redundency' stick. Oh, and as for the description of Ni by Sim (the actual question really asked in the first place)... it doesn't seem wrong. I can't really remember it after I stopped 13 pages in, but as I search back through my mind it seemed alright.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I personally didn't find Eric's description of Ni fruitful whatsoever...

Seems the Ti-users and a tert Ni-user do, though...

Yeah, when I read it, I was like..uh..... :huh:
OK, just curious; why?
You two are Ni dominant, and would have a better handle on what it is. I'm trying to give a more understandable definition. Did I miss anything? Or do you think it was oversimplified or something?

(Or do you just like people thinking you have a psychic super power function?:devil:)

What gets confusing is that bringing it up from the inside could also be termed "externalizing" it as it begins from within which means it goes to the outside or it "extraverts"(abstract action).

While bringing it in could be internalizing it even though the initial perception starts from outside.

This is why perception is important even in understanding perception.

No, the attitude is really more about where the standard is derived from. We often fall into thinking of "extroverting/introverting" as where the attitude denotes where the function is "used" or "applied". Inasmuch as it might be a bit of both, Jennifer just gave an excellent way of putting it in terms of the data "pinging" back and forth. For introverted functions, it will start from within, and return there.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...987-jung-s-definitions-i-e-2.html#post1277751
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
OK, just curious; why?
You two are Ni dominant, and would have a better handle on what it is. I'm trying to give a more understandable definition. Did I miss anything? Or do you think it was oversimplified or something?

(Or do you just like people thinking you have a psychic super power function?:devil:)

I believe I already answered your question.

Yeah, you see this often with tert-Ni users...

I would think that tert Ni would be so confusing to the user as it's developing, that they would just hope for a simple explanation to offer them some kind of understanding as to :wtf: is going on...

For Ni-doms, who are very facile with their Ni-use, these kinds of descriptions just sound rather shallow, clunky, and vapid.

Like a layman trying to explain how some aspect of an automobile works: his description might be more understandable to other laymen, but the auto-mechanics would probably find it very rudimentary, at best.

See this whole thread for better descriptions of what Ni is.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There is something to this, but the summary description is a bit poor.

I believe it is accurate to say that most people are capable of the kind of thinking that Ni-doms do habitually, but they don't "prefer" it, and therefore often don't understand or even distrust it. However, this doesn't really describe what that "kind of thinking" is.

This is why I try to use analogies and stories to describe how Ni "works," in order to lead others through something resembling the thought process. Most descriptions of Ni pretend that it's "mysterious." It really isn't: it's just well-practiced pattern-matching/spotting. The Ne users pattern match/spot among the things they observe in the external world. The Ni users pattern match/spot within themselves. In most instances, the pattern matching/spotting is utterly trivial and not even worth discussing. In exceptional instances, the Ne extrapolation leads to new truths by understanding how a pattern repeats itself everywhere in unforeseen ways, while the Ni "interpolation" takes all sorts of observations from different perspectives (which don't necessarily make sense together) and synthesizes them into a new truth that explains all of the different perspectives with a singular simple explanation.
That seems to pretty much match what I'm trying to say, in terms of "archetypes". Analogies and stories are examples of that, and they form these patterns referenced from within ones self.
(Though sometimes in analogies used to understand Ni, the meanings get lost, and you don't realize you're talking about a simple model of something used as a pattern).

There is a tendency on this board to distinguish Ne from Ni a bit too much. I believe that they are very closely related, N-types generally understand each other much better than they understand S-types.
What I've been saying regarding function attitude! They are really two sides of the same coin, and use the same process, just oriented differently based on the location of the preferred standard. That's what I was trying to convey in that summary description I tacked on (If, you were referring to te second paragraph in the quote).
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Introversion does not necessitate "depth", though it may lead to depth.

Extravertion does not necessitate "breadth", though it may lead to breadth.

Reasoning does not equal, nor is it necessarily the product of an "introverted perspective". Rather, reasoning is the cognitive process of looking for reasons, beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings, which may stem from any function or number of functions.

And yet the dominant function will tend to have the strongest influence--hence my assessment that it's responsible for certain types of reasoning in many cases.

Nowhere did I explicitly state that one perspective is inherently superior or inferior to another. Just because I am of a certain perspective does not mean that I think of myself as superior. Rather, my perspective is subject to a number of variables, some of which are in and out of my control.

Nope, you just repeatedly insisted that I believe that, despite the fact that I never made any such claim either. :doh:

Let it be known that if someone is an introvert, it does not mean they think introversion is superior. Likewise with extraverts, nor any other personality trait. They are only confined by their perspective, even if that perspective is having multiple perspectives.

In a way it kind of does, honestly. It's not a conscious decision to place depth over breadth; it's just part of their fundamental worldview to value things that way. Being introverted doesn't mean you think you're better than extroverts, but it does mean your dominant perspective will unconsciously lead you to prefer depth to breadth more often than not (whenever you are dealing with something handled by your dominant function.)

Introverts still prefer breadth when dealing with something handled by their auxiliary function, though.

I still don't understand how introversion necessitates precision. For Ni users, it is said that they have trouble conveying their abstract perspectives because they are so fundamentally introverted. It is also difficult for Fi users to convey their abstract feelings. Ti, on the other hand, motivates us to create models, systems, and archetypes which are derived from the unconscious. Because of this, I wonder if Ti motivates people to be more precise in their linear thinking and communication (though they still may be misunderstood).

Fi, for me at least, isn't "precise". It's just woven into the fabric of who I am, and it forms opinions based on worth that are often difficult to vocalize. It's not neat. It's not clean. The only way it is precise is that it's precision is focused on my internal state; and this is why I think that introversion is simply introversion.

It's very precise compared to Fe! Think of the relationship between the two:

Fi wants to know precisely what is moral, good, feels right to you. It will accept no compromise in figuring this out and it will block out external influence as much as possible in trying to determine exactly what feels right, on a very personal basis.

Fe eschews that in favor of widely applicable moral rules that can be used to govern everyone in a wide variety of different contexts. By generalizing morality, Fe removes the deeply personal aspect that Fi so highly values; it constructs morality based on generalized collective standards that we can apply to everyone wholesale, rather than focusing on the individual and what moral standards feel right to him personally.

Moving from a person-specific to a generalized concept of morality inherently necessitates that we lose a degree of precision: We are taking what Fi views as a highly individualized process unique to the person in question and morphing it so that it fits a much broader and more generalized context that can be applied to everyone.

This is why Fi doesn't like the idea of collective morality: It neuters the Fi user's individualism. The exact specifics of what he feels are right have to be cut off in order to make the concept of morality fit everyone simultaneously--from Fi's perspective, "We are all different individuals; how can a one-size-fits-all concept of ethics ever make any sense?"

Fe sacrifices the depth of individualistic ethics in favor of a more broadly applicable ethical standard that we can apply to everyone.

I understand why you would say that introversion is depth and extraversion is breadth, however, this could be grossly misinterpreted. The breadth of extraversion relates to the exterior world and the depth of introversion relates to the internal world. Once again, why I think that breadth and depth are excess to the archetypes of introversion and extraversion.

I know I am being extremely reductionist in my assessments here. My ultimate goal is to shave off misconceptions by eventually reaching the core of what defines each function. I feel that these definitions have already been stated by Jung and that they are only encumbered by the behavioral aspects of people being tacked onto them.

In other words, you don't like generalizing these ideas in order to apply them to as many different people as possible because you find that blunt and imprecise. :whistling:

I also do not think that cognitive functions can be used to define what a healthy individual is. Therefore, they cannot be interchanged, augmented, or combined to diagnose unhealthy individuals. I know that people may argue against that, saying that one can come closer to individuation; but just because someone is more well rounded in cognitive functions does not mean that they are healthy or that they can operate normally in society. Likewise, someone with functional atrophy may also be able to function, and may not have any mental disorders at all.

It's not one cognitive function that creates a healthy individual; it's balance between different ones. Too much of one perspective and too little of another creates imbalance; it's really that simple.

I can certainly imagine a sociopath being well rounded, and being well rounded may help that person carry out their sociopathic behaviors.

According to function theory, the functions on the same axis, whether it be the introverted or extraverted axis, work en tandem. This means that one's dominant function manifests itself alongside one's tertiary. This may lead many people into believing that they are in a "dysfunctional" loop of cognition and that they may be in danger of having a severe disorder.

It's not hard to see why too much introversion or too much extroversion leads to significant complications. We all need validation both from our internal selves and from the world around us. Too much of one and too little of the other and we become too dependent on personal subjectivity or too dependent on outer world conditions.

It's easy to look at diagnostics and definitions of disorders on wikipedia or in a mental health booklet, but once you see them occur in a real life setting, I think it would be easy to recognize and differ between someone who is in a "cognitive loop" and someone who is mentally fucked.

Mental disorders exist on a spectrum. I've been diagnosed with "ADHD", but really I think ADHD (as with most mental disorders) is just what we've chosen to term a high dependence on one particular type of mindset (in my case, Ne.)

Many of those disorders are simply extreme preferences for one or two particular types of cognition. We've termed them disorders simply because they're different from what most people are like, and so people who have them have a much harder time fitting into society.

So a dom/tert loop might be only slightly problematic and never cause enough of an issue to be diagnosed, or in a more extreme case might manifest itself as full blown psychosis.

For instance, relying on Fi+Ni doesn't guarantee that one will have severe enough symptoms to be diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder, but in extreme cases the symptoms become pronounced enough that this is often the diagnosis.

That said, I wonder what sim's motivations for posting that cognitive comparison were, as I have seen him designate himself in being in a "dom-tert loop". Does he actually identify with his Ne Fe mental disorder?

Sure, to some degree. I do exhibit symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, especially when I am in Ne+Fe mode. The solution is to develop Ti.

Again it's not black and white; it's a spectrum. Everyone exhibits some minor form of some personality disorder or another; the question is simply whether it's extreme enough to block out normal life functioning.

I don't think my NPD symptoms are severe enough to constitute a real NPD diagnosis from a psychological professional, but nonetheless they are there. This leads to my conclusion that most personality disorders are simply extreme preference for one or two types of cognition, to the exclusion of those that would balance them out.





Sim, what on earth are you talking about? I was referring to your method of argument, that of dismissing someone's statement with reference to what you presume their types to be, etc. Yer doing it again:

^ Like that. I just can't decide whether it's more boring, or funny. It's boring becuase you keep doing it in a very predictable way, no matter what the subject, but it's also funny for precisely the same reason, and because you responding to people in this way is so predictable. I could almost set my watch by it! Anyway, it's a meaningless generalisation.

Well no, unfortunately for you guys it has a much more profound effect on your outlooks than you've even begun to realize. It's predictable because your responses are predictable according to your function outlooks. (Predictable =/= wrong.)

Now, do we associate over-excitability and a tendency to caricature with ENTPs? :laugh:

YES, absolutely! The fact that it doesn't apply to every ENTP isn't the point. I'm speaking from an Ne perspective here: If it works more often than not and gives us a good generalized picture of a generalized trend, it's true. Your implied criticism that it's invalid because it's not perfectly correct in every case is yet another example of your preference for introverted reasoning.

Do you ever stop making deflective and irrelevant personal assertions based on your typological presumptions? This so far as I can see is what a number of people, including Tater, are objecting to in the first place. :rofl1: Tater's decisions on how he wants to use typology, which are not even the subject under discussion for anyone but yourself, have nothing whatsoever to do with the cohesiveness and applicability of your ideas. You're just trying to make it personal, and about someone else, in order to avoid the issue you're being challenged on.

Tater can feel free to use typology however he wants to. The cohesiveness of my ideas is dependent upon the interpretation of the person reading them.

Both of you keep insisting that there's some universally objective standard for evaluating ideas and that we all should just use that because it's so obvious, and somehow it escapes you that evaluation of ideas is purely dependent upon perspective and that no such universal standard exists. What really blows me away is that the standard both of you keep insisting is universally/objectively correct is just rooted in an introverted perspective and fails to consider that the opposing extroverted approach might have any validity.

Once again I'm not saying that either of you is wrong, necessarily, just that I want you to stop presuming that lacking precision invalidates my reasoning method. It's this assumption that's making both of you repeatedly miss the crux of how extroverted perspectives operate.


I only have to repeat myself with minor variations. But perhaps my question was rhetorical in the first place, eh? :whistling:

The function attitudes are never, ever irrelevant. Their constant pervasive influence affects everything about the way all of us see everything--all I'm asking you to do is set aside for a moment your assumption that precision is preferable to broader applicability.

Every response each of you makes boils down to, "BUT THAT'S CLEARLY WRONG BECAUSE IT'S NOT PERFECTLY TRUE IN ALL CASES!!!!", which just proves my point, yet again.

But neither of you seems to be getting it so this may be my last response to either of you in this thread.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
What I've been saying regarding function attitude! They are really two sides of the same coin, and use the same process, just oriented differently based on the location of the preferred standard. That's what I was trying to convey in that summary description I tacked on (If, you were referring to te second paragraph in the quote).

And here's the description of those two different sides:

This topic has been ridiculously well covered in other threads, but a great image to think of the difference between Ne and Ni (and probably even Se and Si) is that of a sphere.

Ni is like the inner surface area of that sphere, focusing in on the central focal point.

Ne is like that central focal point, looking out all over the place at the inner surface area of the sphere.

I personally believe Ne and Ni are highly related -- in one dimension -- but I believe the same could be said of Si and Ni -- in a different dimension.

Neither dimension: attitude or function should be ignored, imo.

I know uumlau tends to disagree...
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
OK, just curious; why?
You two are Ni dominant, and would have a better handle on what it is. I'm trying to give a more understandable definition. Did I miss anything? Or do you think it was oversimplified or something?

(Or do you just like people thinking you have a psychic super power function?:devil:)

Hmm...should be pretty clear based on my earlier posts that I despise people tying Ni to superpowers/voodoo/mysticism, and I've never jumped on the 'Yay, I'm psychic' bandwagon, as I don't see myself operating in that light.

Basically - the majority of your post went over my head, and I was confused trying to wrap my head around what in the world you were talking about. Now I may not be the brightest person in the world, but I couldn't immediately identify what you were saying, nor tie it into how I see myself. It may be that you as an outside observer see me or other dom-Ni's / dom-Ne's operating under this archetype concept, and perhaps this is in the end just a semantics issue and you're just using a different name for the exact same thing being described in the OP..I don't know..but, I guess I was just scratching my head after reading your post/description.

I mean, I kind of said it in my first post in this thread - that the description in the OP really resonated with me. Then you come in - you, not being a dom-Ni - and basically say that the OP and what I, at least, resonate strongly with, is in fact not a great way to describe Ni. :huh:

I mean, again it's fine if other people can grasp these other definitions/descriptions and have a better understanding of Ni as a result, I just find it ironic/fascinating/interesting that me, as a dom-Ni user, find most Ni definitions severely lacking, and find my own descriptions of what I relate to, and how I *actually operate*, dismissed. Not in so many words, and I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. I suppose the same principle could be applied to all of the other functions, however. Also similar to what Orobas was suggesting earlier -- we all filter our perceptions/ideas of each of the functions through our own lens, and to get away from that and be truly objective is difficult at best. Not impossible, no doubt.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Also similar to what Orobas was suggesting earlier -- we all filter our perceptions/ideas of each of the functions through our own lens, and to get away from that and be truly objective is difficult at best.

Yeah, Eric, I feel like you were kinda just Ti-ing Ni.

I mean, just read this hilarious sentence:

I think the best way to identify Ni, instead of with big terms such as "meta-perspectives" or "different angles" is simply by referencing of archetypal templates.

:laugh:

Instead of big terms like "meta-perspectives" or "different angles", you want to use archetypal templates?!?!

Basically, what you've done, is say that the words I, an Ni-dom, think are extremely useful and accurate to describe how we function, are indeed not so, or, at least, are less so than "archetypal templates", which is something I would never intuitively use to describe Ni.

You've brought in this term "archetypal template" because it's something you've probably defined and feel comfortable with, and thus it's palatable to your Ti-dom mind.

I, however, do not find it palatable. And I feel the other words, and other descriptions, are much more apt.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
:yim_rolling_on_the_

No typological bias to see here, people; keep on moving...

I feel bad sometimes for inferior Ne. The whole "related" part is not quite so good...but of course thats the inferior...we should add an extra word to seperate the good Ne from the Bad Ne;) Lets not keep them together and just say that Ne "sees" relations, but it doesnt mean its actually related. It basically "sees" 2 things at once and makes a connection. But thats to simple, we need complex so we can take a single element that stands on its own and seperate it. Oh wait...that seperated part actually fits over here as well...its related. Part one is related to part 2 and part 2 is related to part 3, that means part 3 is related to part 1 :D In other words Ohhhh a brown cow and a black cow. Cows are related which means that black and brown are related.

Push-poke-prod-:D Just feel like poking at Ne in the same manner that Se gets poked at:devil:
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Hmm...should be pretty clear based on my earlier posts that I despise people tying Ni to superpowers/voodoo/mysticism, and I've never jumped on the 'Yay, I'm psychic' bandwagon, as I don't see myself operating in that light.

Basically - the majority of your post went over my head, and I was confused trying to wrap my head around what in the world you were talking about. Now I may not be the brightest person in the world, but I couldn't immediately identify what you were saying, nor tie it into how I see myself. It may be that you as an outside observer see me or other dom-Ni's / dom-Ne's operating under this archetype concept, and perhaps this is in the end just a semantics issue and you're just using a different name for the exact same thing being described in the OP..I don't know..but, I guess I was just scratching my head after reading your post/description.

I mean, I kind of said it in my first post in this thread - that the description in the OP really resonated with me. Then you come in - you, not being a dom-Ni - and basically say that the OP and what I, at least, resonate strongly with, is in fact not a great way to describe Ni. :huh:

I mean, again it's fine if other people can grasp these other definitions/descriptions and have a better understanding of Ni as a result, I just find it ironic/fascinating/interesting that me, as a dom-Ni user, find most Ni definitions severely lacking, and find my own descriptions of what I relate to, and how I *actually operate*, dismissed. Not in so many words, and I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. I suppose the same principle could be applied to all of the other functions, however. Also similar to what Orobas was suggesting earlier -- we all filter our perceptions/ideas of each of the functions through our own lens, and to get away from that and be truly objective is difficult at best. Not impossible, no doubt.
Yeah, Eric, I feel like you were kinda just Ti-ing Ni.

Instead of big terms like "meta-perspectives" or "different angles", you want to use archetypal templates?!?!

Basically, what you've done, is say that the words I, an Ni-dom, think are extremely useful and accurate to describe how we function, are indeed not so, or, at least, are less so than "archetypal templates", which is something I would never intuitively use to describe Ni.

You've brought in this term "archetypal template" because it's something you've probably defined and feel comfortable with, and thus it's palatable to your Ti-dom mind.

I, however, do not find it palatable. And I feel the other words, and other descriptions, are much more apt.

OK, it looks like a perspective thing, as I thought. You have your understanding of your dominant function (the ego's "operating charter" Lenore Thomson has called it), and are used to seeing it that way.

I don't know why my description of it in terms of archetypes would go over your head. I guess you do not think of the patterns as archetypes?

It's often said with a dominant introverted function, that you might be so "used" to it, you might not identify with others' descriptions of it. That's one thing that makes it hard for those weighing between Ti and Fi dom. types (and even aux.). I had this problem reading so much about Ti "frameworks" and "categorizing".

Ti is also described in terms of "different angles", and the definitions become ambiguous then. And meta-perspective would be a perspective about a perspective.
For some reason, that doesn't seem to really describe much of a particular function to me. I imagine it could translate into these archetypes I am mentioning being these "meta-perspectives".

We do need descriptions that everyone can understand, not just the type preferring the function.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
"Meta-perspective" actually describes Ni rather well, when you can actually define what a "Meta-perspective" is. The one most directly related to our purposes:
Introverted iNtuition is "transcending to a meta-perspective." It's a way of seeing things that rises above competing views....

INFJ iNtuition
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I don't know why my description of it in terms of archetypes would go over your head. I guess you do not think of the patterns as archetypes.

I'm can't speak for cascedesco, but your description didn't go over my head; it's just that it's not at all what I feel best (or even aptly) describes introverted intuition.

Hearing it does not make me think, "Hey, now there's a description that people should be reading in order to better understand Ni."

Introverted iNtuition is "transcending to a meta-perspective." It's a way of seeing things that rises above competing views...

This, on the other hand, strikes me as "bingo!", and I would highly recommend anybody read it in order to gain a better understanding of Ni.

It's short, sweet, and accurate.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Sorry, just read up on some previous posts, and I gotta agree with Tater.

In REAL LIFE, whether one is extroverted by nature or introverted by nature does not define whether or not that person will be deep or shallow.

Nobody is making any evaluation of whether the person is deep or shallow. We are discussing which aspects of perspective focus on depth and which ones focus on breadth.

Nobody is saying that you can't be a deep person because you're an extrovert. Calm down.

Many people want to believe that extroverts just flit about and have absolutely no ability for self-reflection, introspection, and depth.

This is a false generalization.

Yes it is; however, if extroverts did not have auxiliary introverted perspectives balancing us out, that is how we would be.

For example, I have met many of introverts who are shallow, yes, shallow, as in they don't say much and they don't think much, they kinda just exist, in a bland human ficus kinda way.

I suspect that they simply did not share many of their thoughts with you and thus you have no idea what they actually think or don't think.

I have also met plenty of extroverts, myself included, who despite our predilection to become stimulated by external sources, utilize this stimulation, maximize it so the stimulation is not just simple stimulation, but stimulation that inspires, that facilitates growth, intellectual and personal. There are extroverts who seek what they deem to be *worthy* stimulation.

This is all really beside the point. Nobody is saying extroverts are shallow people. We are saying that the extroverted perspective favors breadth over depth and quantity over quality.

In practice, extroverted people also have introverted perspectives, which allow them to value depth sometimes as well.

It sounds like you think people are attacking your depth as a person and are thus responding with a lot of hostility because you missed the point that we are talking about isolated perspectives, not complete people.

Also, I know plenty of introverts who are entirely lacking of self-awareness and any type of intellectual depth.

Again you probably don't know what they're thinking because they probably don't feel like sharing it with you. Introverts have a tendency to do that.

But, if we are gonna talk about typological functions, the only two extroverted functions that are more breadth inclined are Se and Ne, however, both of these ext. functions are anchored by an internal focus.

Fe and Te are not about breadth at all, nor are they about depth, they are just functions that want their respective results/desires as fast and frequently as possible. These extroverted functions are not concerned with breadth, hell no, that takes too much time, they just want what they want/need asap, and hopefully will get at the very least satisfactory results.

No, this is pretty clearly wrong. Fe and Te choose objective standards that can be applied universally to as many different external contexts as possible. They eschew the depth of their introverted counterparts because they value external applicability/ability to accomplish external goals over absolute correctness from a Feeling or Thinking perspective.

Example: Fi wants to know exactly what feels right to the user. Fe wants to build a collective standard of morality that can be applied universally to everybody, which necessitates that we give up the depth of individuality that Fi values so highly.

Fi wants the depth of personal individuality; Fe wants a one-size-fits-all moral standard because it has broader external applicability.


Fi is emotionally/psychologically deep, depending on the person who has/uses it.

And, Ti is intellectually/logically deep, depending on the person who has/uses it.

But, and I've witnessed it here PLENTY O' TIMES where someone seems to be all Ne, or all Fe, or all Ni, or all Ti, notice how I say *all* and I consistently find these people to be "soulless", identity-less, without a core, without an anchor, without a purpose, but that can be my Fi talking, who knows.

This is a good point, as it illustrates why real people need a balance between introverted and extroverted perspectives.

As I said before, all breadth and no depth and we never stick with any one idea long enough to grasp its significance.

All depth and no breadth and we never learn to apply our ideas to anything real outside the self and thus are never really able to experience life.

Like yin and yang, the two perspectives are equally important. The key is that extroverts will tend to understand the breadth perspective more naturally, while introverts will tend to understand the depth perspective more naturally.

This does not mean that extroverts can't be deep people. Those with well-developed auxiliary functions ARE deep people because they have strong command of their introverted faculties.

:D
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Meta-perspective, above perspective, god-like, c'mon guys, just come out and say it, ya'll think your Ni gives you god-like powers of perception.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Ne inevitably leads to...

New Neural Networks

Nebulous nectars offer kernels of truth.

Infinitrees abound with branches up and down connecting everything.

Not to seek, but to see beneath the surface, to find patterns, and commonalities, to find something hidden yet so apparent.

Ne will always want more information, will always get excited by the concept of finding something NeW!

Very beautiful. To connect everything with everyone, with everything...not logically mind you, but holistically somehow...The world seems to be built of endless, limitless variation and endless differentation...yet under the surface is actually a part of a complete single, thing...thus we explore and push the edges of the world and our understanding searching for that ultimate truth that connects everything into one. I dunno if that is what you do, but that's me...

I like that you added the concept of multidimensionality to the Ne process.

This is why I try to use analogies and stories to describe how Ni "works," in order to lead others through something resembling the thought process. Most descriptions of Ni pretend that it's "mysterious." It really isn't: it's just well-practiced pattern-matching/spotting. The Ne users pattern match/spot among the things they observe in the external world. The Ni users pattern match/spot within themselves. In most instances, the pattern matching/spotting is utterly trivial and not even worth discussing. In exceptional instances, the Ne extrapolation leads to new truths by understanding how a pattern repeats itself everywhere in unforeseen ways, while the Ni "interpolation" takes all sorts of observations from different perspectives (which don't necessarily make sense together) and synthesizes them into a new truth that explains all of the different perspectives with a singular simple explanation.

Silly-U above suggests that Ne relies upon observation...once you see an observation, how long before you have Ne linked past the initial observation and are in a whole new sphere of thought? how many Ne layers do you go before you return to the object that initiated the Ne? I find sometimes my Ne will spark off an object but then Ne jumps inside my head....

So a dom/tert loop might be only slightly problematic and never cause enough of an issue to be diagnosed, or in a more extreme case might manifest itself as full blown psychosis.

Sure, to some degree. I do exhibit symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, especially when I am in Ne+Fe mode. The solution is to develop Ti.

Again it's not black and white; it's a spectrum. Everyone exhibits some minor form of some personality disorder or another; the question is simply whether it's extreme enough to block out normal life functioning.

I don't think my NPD symptoms are severe enough to constitute a real NPD diagnosis from a psychological professional, but nonetheless they are there. This leads to my conclusion that most personality disorders are simply extreme preference for one or two types of cognition, to the exclusion of those that would balance them out.
.

How would you distinguish between a PD and natural maturity? From another perspective, what ENTP under 20 isnt somewhat NPD like at times? Also, how do you "develop Ti"? How would other aux functions be developed in other types to prevent full blown PDs?
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
"Meta-perspective" actually describes Ni rather well, when you can actually define what a "Meta-perspective" is. The one most directly related to our purposes:

hmmmm I may use Ni all the time then...

Actually are you sure "meta perspective" isnt just a description of "the watcher" as taken from buddhist meditation? It is the ability to step away from our ego and watch our own behaviors form an almost third person perspective to gain perspective...

I have seen some very unself observant Ni doms though...who used massive amounts of Ni...
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
That seems to pretty much match what I'm trying to say, in terms of "archetypes". Analogies and stories are examples of that, and they form these patterns referenced from within ones self.
(Though sometimes in analogies used to understand Ni, the meanings get lost, and you don't realize you're talking about a simple model of something used as a pattern).

The below only applies to N doms/auxes

The "mysterious" part of Ni I would guess is its tapping into the "collective unconscious," compared to Si's tapping into the "personal unconscious". My guess is that we share the archetypes of the collective unconscious because they're instinctual response systems to certain environmental stimuli (which is why you can't have a high-functioning Ni without good Se information, that is, the "personal conscious" as I see it, I know it's not the same as Jung).

In much the same way, Ne (the "collective conscious") systematizes and universalizes its own experiences (Si), though often this is unnoticed by the person. It's less assured than its Ni counterpart, because it's trying to create a description of universal truth that it is unsure of, rather than instinctively flowing with the universal truth encoded within our DNA.

This is a pretty heavy leap, and YMMV, but it makes sense to me.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Ti is also described in terms of "different angles", and the definitions become ambiguous then.

I can see why this would trip you up; it's very understandable.

Perhaps you should try to figure out how Ti and Ni differ in this regard.

The first place I would start is your next few sentences:

And meta-perspective would be a perspective about a perspective.

For some reason, that doesn't seem to really describe much of a particular function to me.

Well, it does.

And until you understand it, you won't understand Ni.

If you are incapable of understanding "meta-perspectivizing" and/or are incapable of understanding how it could be a function, then you are incapable of understanding Ni.

I imagine it could translate into these archetypes I am mentioning being these "meta-perspectives".

And a square can be fitted into a round whole.

Why don't you try to understand it for what it is, instead of trying to shift it into your definitions?

We do need descriptions that everyone can understand, not just the type preferring the function.

I agree (to an extent).

We also need accurate ones.
 
Top