Ne/Ni Conflicts

[InvisibleJim]

Yes; you have to be very explicit with us regarding what you see and more importantly why.

We are very good at spelling out the axioms and paradigms we are follow. If you ignore our Te ramblings you might find that you aren't following the same paradigms or axioms at all.

I can find NFJs quite repulsive because our paradigms and axioms are usually opposed: I disdain the other as a matter of choice. By contrast I feel that NFPs can - on occasion - allow me to view their paradigms and axioms when they are comfortable and delightfully we can find good agreement on the ones to follow in future. Of course this doesn't mean they will listen to mine in return, there is nothing worse than finding the context has been shifted back to theirs after you have earlier both agreed upon a common frame of reference and without any consultation pronounces that your context is not their context and that is wrong. I tend to view this as extremely distasteful and it causes a crisis of confidence regarding my trust in that person; usually they do not survive it as someone who is worth listening to.

 

[Amargith]

Huh...I'd imagine that that happens because during the 'compromise'-talks, you don't interject enough what you would like. I tend to put on the table how I want things and yes..if INTJs get what I mean, they often go with me *all* the way. I find myself asking 4 times:' are you sure you're ok with this?' And they tend to be 'neutral'. Or, want to see me happy and go along with my way of being. It is in *that* moment that I'm waiting for you to tell your side so we can intertwine the two. However, if you don't, then of course I'm going to go with what's most comfortable for me. Dunno if this is true for other nfps as well though.. you'll have to ask them

As for the Te-parameters. I admit I sometimes have trouble following them, but most of the time they just happen within your head and you won't share. Or I have to get them by prodding you with a stick. Unfortunately I also have the habit of asking the wrong questions (Fi-questions, instead of Te ) making you guys all go: 'I *don't* know!'

I guess that's probably also what happens during the compromising in fact. I ask you what you want, instead of how you see things. Perhaps thats where the miscommuncation happens?
And frustration ensues

 

[InvisibleJim]

As for the Te-parameters. I admit I sometimes have trouble following them, but most of the time they just happen within your head and you won't share. Or I have to get them by prodding you with a stick. Unfortunately I also have the habit of asking the wrong questions (Fi-questions, instead of Te ) making you guys all go: 'I *don't* know!'

I guess that's probably also what happens during the compromising in fact. I ask you what you want, instead of how you see things. Perhaps thats where the miscommuncation happens?
And frustration ensues

You are correct; as you know well enough, if I want someone I will ask for it explicitly and indeed give a thorough reason. Generally if I disdain something I will state explicitly so and with a thorough reason.

I'm very happy to share Te, it isn't a quiet thing for us. If you ask us for our range of opinions we have many once they are properly and fully formed. But to expect an Fi answer is pretty unlikely unless I'm in my rather dedicated to engaging with the problems through belief ISFP Fi-Se mode.

Also, you are still confusing Fi for instantaneous emotion and indeed emotion with an extroverted attitude. Therefore I have chosen your context to assist you in understanding my viewpoint.

 

[Amargith]

I'm not confusing anything, but fine, i'll attempt to be more precise in my usage of it. It's an old habit though, so it might die hard.

For me, I can usually estimate why you see things the way you do. When agreeing on things though, the main question is...'do you want this?' And somehow it isn't for you guys. I haven't figured out yet what question *is* the crux for you.

Either way, we should stop derailing and go back to Ne/Ni

 

[Craft]

Ni, Ne, communication...holy...emotion blast..

I have been riveting myself around this problem. The problem sourced out of me being fucking confused and not understanding whatever my teachers were "poetically"(yeah right) explaining---most of them being Ni-doms(i'm assuming).

Oh god. Shift in meaning there, shift in meaning here, there and here, there and here...(Wait, which definition are we using? Huh...? What you say? All of them? What?? ARGGHHH!!!). ---> Internal Consistency(TiSi) isn't exactly compatible with perspective shifting.

Oh look, we see something here! (No you fucking don't!!! It's just your unnecessary imagination! What?..NO! The author wasn't thinking of that when he was writing this! Look! He says exactly what he means!!) ----> Apparently, "Deeper" means "Insanity."

...(I have a question...wait..what??...that doesn't fucking relate to my question!!!) ----> I often asks questions that I find easily shows relationships among ideas. They just don't see it. I have to make a speech every-time I ask a question.

Anyways, my problem is mostly the TiNeSi - NiTeSe clash. INFJ's are easier to communicate with due to Ti, but Ni-heavy INTJ's are just argh...

 

[uumlau]

I actually never claimed that Ne doesn't make 'mazes'. But it feels more like running ahead of you and you getting lost, vs Ni sticking close by but using trap doors that they conveniently forget to share the info on. I have just as much trouble following ENTPs, maybe even more, even though we share Ne. But they make my head spin, and vice versa. In fact, even with fellow ENFPs, when you both go Ne-ing, unless you were in sync to begin with, it's a lost cause, coz they go exploring the world on the right and you go exploring the world on the left and hop around the next world without informing the other. Communication is key.

With Ni-users it's even more frustrating to me coz I can *feel* they're close by but there's like a trap door or a glass wall inbetween. I can see what they mean but I don't know how to sync up...and the longer I take, the more chances I have of getting trapped in this maze while they find their way and I'm stuck. There needs to be a sync-up in the beginning and it needs to be maintained..kinda like a rope connecting us. The thing is that the sync up is easier to get with fellow Ne-users, especially ENFPs as they share the same preferred perspective on the world, so it's easier to go, ok this is point 0, the starting point. With Ni-users I can feel like we have that ground then suddenly they go off and I'm like..I'm not sure we have the same starting point here!!!

Yes. In the cross Ni/Ne communication, Ni describes a place, Ne assumes that it is "here", then Ni suddenly doesn't seem to be there to Ne, Ni is in a different "here": same place, same time, slightly different world.

The starting points are the same, but the unspoken assumptions aren't quite communicated correctly, so we end up in slightly different worlds: they look mostly the same, but because of the different assumptions, we don't see each other.

FWIW, I was using "possible worlds" as an analogy, not as some sort of implication that Ne cannot conceive of other (possible or even impossible) worlds. It's that the Ni "other worlds" are all "near" a particular point upon which we are focusing. Kind of like Schrodinger's Cat, where the cat is alive, and dead, and something inbetween, not insisting that the cat definitely is in one state or the other.

 

[mmhmm]

mc escher! i love impossible geometry.
makes my eyes go whirly whirl.

 

[Kalach]

Ideas. Mostly bogus ones, which are fun but not necessarily used. That's where the judging functions come in: they take on the "good" ones and stop the impossible ones from being executed (not always if Ne is your dominant which results in those unfinished projects).

Ideas that are constrained by anything, pre-judgment?

The environment prompts idea creation. But when we say "the environment", we're talking about such aspects of the environment as the person habitually, or perhaps just currently, pays attention to, as mentioned. So, being an Ne person, one is already primed to begin seeing events, things and people in certain ways. Or is one?

I'm trying to get at where objectivity fits in the story of particularly extroverted intuition. I know I don't have to be objective until I go public with my ideas, and though paying at least some attention to environmental conditions does help, I also know the only thing stopping me connecting any concept with any other concept at all is interest. Trivial connection aren't interesting. Truly absurd connections aren't (always) interesting either. Meaningful connections are.

But I suppose every stripe of N user would say that too, that it's meaningful connections that are interesting. However it does seem people are now saying Ni connections in particular can seem bizarre to other N people. And one metaphor that seems to be re-occurring is maplessness. What kind of map? How to share?

Basically, how does objectivity figure in extroverted intuition? It's there by definition. It must have a characteristic impact, mustn't it? What does it do to and for the intuitions?


(Or has someone answered this quite clearly already and I haven't spotted it because I'm looking for something subjective?)

 

[uumlau]

Ni, Ne, communication...holy...emotion blast..

I have been riveting myself around this problem. The problem sourced out of me being fucking confused and not understanding whatever my teachers were "poetically"(yeah right) explaining---most of them being Ni-doms(i'm assuming).

Oh god. Shift in meaning there, shift in meaning here, there and here, there and here...(Wait, which definition are we using? Huh...? What you say? All of them? What?? ARGGHHH!!!). ---> Internal Consistency(TiSi) isn't exactly compatible with perspective shifting.

Oh look, we see something here! (No you fucking don't!!! It's just your unnecessary imagination! What?..NO! The author wasn't thinking of that when he was writing this! Look! He says exactly what he means!!) ----> Apparently, "Deeper" means "Insanity."

...(I have a question...wait..what??...that doesn't fucking relate to my question!!!) ----> I often asks questions that I find easily shows relationships among ideas. They just don't see it. I have to make a speech every-time I ask a question.

Anyways, my problem is mostly the TiNeSi - NiTeSe clash. INFJ's are easier to communicate with due to Ti, but Ni-heavy INTJ's are just argh...

Yep, in poetry, the trick is that the meaning gets overlapped, just as in the Schrodinger's Cat analogy. Poetry is "more" meaningful when it says something in a particular way such that it really does mean A and B and C, whether by pun or homonym or synonym or other word play. All the meanings are "true," or close enough to "truth," like words that almost but don't quite rhyme.

I wonder if you're seeing other meanings and related ideas that contradict the "clearly intended" multiple meanings of the word-plays?

 

[Athenian200]

That was one of my avatars in the past. Is that meant to illustrate Ni?

If so, good job. It's a perfect representation of people all coming to the same place starting from different perspectives, and all seeing the same things, but in a different way. The perspective you start from decides which parts make sense to you, and which ones seem "off." And there is always someone working from the opposite perspective, unable to make sense of what you see as functional or good, and able to make good use of what you see as strange or pointless.

I can find NFJs quite repulsive because our paradigms and axioms are usually opposed: I disdain the other as a matter of choice.

I would say that our axioms are indeed opposed. Fi/Te vs. Ti/Fe. That's why an INFJs best friend is usually an xNTP, while an INTJs best friend is usually an xNFP.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that our paradigms are usually opposed, though... usually I find that we use the same paradigm in opposite ways, reflecting our opposite needs. That may actually be MORE disconcerting than having opposing paradigms, though.

 

[Kalach]

I wonder... I seem to be associating "objective" with "orderly". Perhaps because of associating objectivity with extroverted thinking. But still... could Ne be characterised as orderly?

For the purpose of that question I'm assuming that "orderly" and the more usual characterisation of Ne as "random" and "unruly" can be different. The perceptions themselves can be surprising and entertainingly unexpected, but the origin of the perceptions need not be. Or does this give objectivity undue weight?

 

[uumlau]

I wonder... I seem to be associating "objective" with "orderly". Perhaps because of associating objectivity with extroverted thinking. But still... could Ne be characterised as orderly?

For the purpose of that question I'm assuming that "orderly" and the more usual characterisation of Ne as "random" and "unruly" can be different. The perceptions themselves can be surprising and entertainingly unexpected, but the origin of the perceptions need not be. Or does this give objectivity undue weight?

Ne is objective insofar as it is not subjective. It is outside the self (sort of). The patterns it sees have a subjective, internal source, insofar as one has a predisposition to see certain kinds of patterns, but their existence is "out there" in the "real world." An easy analogy is waves in water and waves in air and waves in solids and light waves. Even though the underlying reality and physics of each kind of wave is often very different, the resulting patterns of sinusoidal oscillations all have the same kinds of behavior and can be used to provide further insight. E.g., just as talking creates a sound wave in air, that can be converted into a wave in water or a wave in a solid or an oscillating current in a wire or an oscillating amplitude or frequency of electromagnetism.

In this metaphorical view, Ni would be "blind" to the similarities between wave patterns, insisting that they are all really quite different with different rules for evolving over time, or simply cease to exist as some necessary ingredient for wave propagation disappears (air too thin, no tension in a string, no gravity holding water "down"). To Ni, these are all different things, and Ne bringing up "but electromagnetic waves are waves, too" just has Ni responding, "uh huh, yeah, but that doesn't mean anything." Then Ne invents a radio, and Ni says, "D'oh!"

This is just all analogy and metaphor: Ni doesn't make someone blind to the similarities between the patterns, or ignorant as to the possibilities of radio or telephone, but rather there is a tendency to regard certain kinds of patterns as lacking "real meaning." Ni is wary of things that seem "superficially similar" but really aren't the same at all, instead looking at things that seem superficially different and seeing all sorts of underlying "meaningful" similarities.

 

[Poki]

Yes. In the cross Ni/Ne communication, Ni describes a place, Ne assumes that it is "here", then Ni suddenly doesn't seem to be there to Ne, Ni is in a different "here": same place, same time, slightly different world.

The starting points are the same, but the unspoken assumptions aren't quite communicated correctly, so we end up in slightly different worlds: they look mostly the same, but because of the different assumptions, we don't see each other.

FWIW, I was using "possible worlds" as an analogy, not as some sort of implication that Ne cannot conceive of other (possible or even impossible) worlds. It's that the Ni "other worlds" are all "near" a particular point upon which we are focusing. Kind of like Schrodinger's Cat, where the cat is alive, and dead, and something inbetween, not insisting that the cat definitely is in one state or the other.

What yo uwrote sounds like an assumption on both parts, not only Ne. I blame this on Dom Ni lack of Se and actually checking along the way that Ne is still with them.

As an ISTP and tertiary Ni with a very strong Se I can pop in and out of these mazes keeping an eye out with Se, never really diving deep into Ni and staying down for long. When Ni leads it "assumes" that Ne is following, but Dom Ni lacks the external perception to actually validate that they are following the same path....in reality, INTJs actually fight this seperation and get frustrated and think they are right based on an Fi judgement of the situation, but is blind to this judgement because they dont see it as a Fi judgement or opinion, but whats correct because they believe it is the right thing. They get frustrated when someone isnt following them in this maze, I mean after all they know this maze better then anyone...but fail to realize that this maze is an internal maze they created and all they are doing is following there own inner world.

edit: The best way to lead is from behind as you cant keep an eye on whats behind you without losing whats in front of you.

And one of the things that frustrate my wife is when Ne walks off into another world without saying anything. Imagine an ENFP at walmart, good luck keeping track. My INTJ dad finds a chair and sits. "They lost me, they can find me". You can also equate this to Si inner world and getting distracted. The Ne part is that Si bounces from place to place instead of actually sitting in a single place for very long.


I may have Te/Fi use confused above. Fi expresses outward where as Te expresses inward possibly and I dont see Te, but see Fi. I dont know.

 

[Kalach]

Ne is objective insofar as it is not subjective. It is outside the self (sort of). The patterns it sees have a subjective, internal source, insofar as one has a predisposition to see certain kinds of patterns, but their existence is "out there" in the "real world." An easy analogy is waves in water and waves in air and waves in solids and light waves. Even though the underlying reality and physics of each kind of wave is often very different, the resulting patterns of sinusoidal oscillations all have the same kinds of behavior and can be used to provide further insight. E.g., just as talking creates a sound wave in air, that can be converted into a wave in water or a wave in a solid or an oscillating current in a wire or an oscillating amplitude or frequency of electromagnetism.

In this metaphorical view, Ni would be "blind" to the similarities between wave patterns, insisting that they are all really quite different with different rules for evolving over time, or simply cease to exist as some necessary ingredient for wave propagation disappears (air too thin, no tension in a string, no gravity holding water "down"). To Ni, these are all different things, and Ne bringing up "but electromagnetic waves are waves, too" just has Ni responding, "uh huh, yeah, but that doesn't mean anything." Then Ne invents a radio, and Ni says, "D'oh!"

This is just all analogy and metaphor: Ni doesn't make someone blind to the similarities between the patterns, or ignorant as to the possibilities of radio or telephone, but rather there is a tendency to regard certain kinds of patterns as lacking "real meaning." Ni is wary of things that seem "superficially similar" but really aren't the same at all, instead looking at things that seem superficially different and seeing all sorts of underlying "meaningful" similarities.

I feel the presence of the dark side.

Or, it doesn't matter where Ne operates from for so long as it is e it will use the outer world as a... No, not "measure", it's still not a judgment function, so it doesn't measure. But it relies on outside... um...-- "stimulus" is such a nondescript word here. There is something outside the person that stays with the intuition, indeed which the person requires that the intuition stay with. Is there not? And this is objectivity. It's the bridge along which the connections are made. Or... does anyone else hear a ringing soun--

 

[Poki]

I feel the presence of the dark side.

Or, it doesn't matter where Ne operates from for so long as it is e it will use the outer world as a... No, not "measure", it's still not a judgment function, so it doesn't measure. But it relies on outside... um...-- "stimulus" is such a nondescript word here. There is something outside the person that stays with the intuition, indeed which the person requires that the intuition stay with. Is there not? And this is objectivity. It's the bridge along which the connections are made. Or... does anyone else hear a ringing soun--

I hear crickets in my head.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Ne anima confusion detected.

 

[Poki]

Ne anima confusion detected.

So, how do you determine if Ne is actually confused or just playing confused? Gotta love Ne

 

[skylights]

I feel the presence of the dark side.

Or, it doesn't matter where Ne operates from for so long as it is e it will use the outer world as a... No, not "measure", it's still not a judgment function, so it doesn't measure. But it relies on outside... um...-- "stimulus" is such a nondescript word here. There is something outside the person that stays with the intuition, indeed which the person requires that the intuition stay with. Is there not? And this is objectivity. It's the bridge along which the connections are made. Or... does anyone else hear a ringing soun--

the outer world is our ocean. i like uumlau's usage of "waves" because i very much see what i perceive as Ne usage as looking through an ocean full of concepts: different particles and colors and shapes and objects and tones and nuances and sounds and ways and all of that. the objective part is that those things are tangible - all are possible. all have the potential to exist, thus all exist in the Ne-scape - that's the objective part, as i understand it. everything exists. all connections between things, therefore, also exist. all paths can theoretically be followed. the subjective part is which patterns and paths present themselves most readily - and also the fact that these things only really exist in our minds.

So, how do you determine if Ne is actually confused or just playing confused? Gotta love Ne

perhaps there is no difference seriously though i don't think Ne is ever confused. only judgment functions get confused. Ne just sees. maybe it doesn't see everything, but it probably doesn't know that. only Fi or Ti would be able to look at other info coming in from Si, Ni, or Se and say "something is missing here".

What happened, skylights?

just a Ni user being able to forsee where i can't, and treating me like i'm an idiot because i don't have the same facility with understanding likelihood. i feel like, if only because introverted functions are so hard to explain, Ni users share their understandings less. and i guess because i'm a general skeptic i don't tend to trust what they say unless there's a good T reason for it. happens more with NFJs because NTJs tend to just be like "because Te 1, 2, 3."

incidentally -- any recommendations on how to support an NFJ when they're really worried about something? i feel like my usual Fi strategies are less effective here

 

[sculpting]

By contrast I feel that NFPs can - on occasion - allow me to view their paradigms and axioms when they are comfortable and delightfully we can find good agreement on the ones to follow in future. Of course this doesn't mean they will listen to mine in return, there is nothing worse than finding the context has been shifted back to theirs after you have earlier both agreed upon a common frame of reference and without any consultation pronounces that your context is not their context and that is wrong. I tend to view this as extremely distasteful and it causes a crisis of confidence regarding my trust in that person; usually they do not survive it as someone who is worth listening to.

Are you sure you didnt shift context? (especially on an Fi topic....) Often you guys are spinning through contexts very quickly. It's fun....but it doesnt generate results for me if I try and think in that way. Once I have understood a subject well enough to define a single context, to release it is to destroy everything built. This seems weird to you guys I suppose, but the context is built out of repeated observations-layers and layers and layers of them. Unless you can identify a flaw in the way the observations were conducted or give me a brand new compelling way to view the situation, then I can roam into your context, but I have to maintain my foundation. The real fun is to link across topics....I suppose that is layers of contexts all linked together via Ne paths. That's super Ne and is where the most beautiful thoughts are found.

But I find if i try and do this with anybody but another Ne dom, the connections cannot be seen. The pattern is so blatant, so obvious. You guys may "observe" my commentary on the surface pattern once I explain it, but then after that you discard it as trivial...like you can't see the depth behind it, how very encompassing it is....I suspect an Ne dom does the same thing to an Ni dom's ideas....we dont see the depth, only the surface conclusion.

*prys brain away from forum and back into reality where I can actually contribute things of value*

 

[Virtual ghost]

Are you sure you didnt shift context? (especially on an Fi topic....) Often you guys are spinning through contexts very quickly. It's fun....but it doesnt generate results for me if I try and think in that way. Once I have understood a subject well enough to define a single context, to release it is to destroy everything built. This seems weird to you guys I suppose, but the context is built out of repeated observations-layers and layers and layers of them. Unless you can identify a flaw in the way the observations were conducted or give me a brand new compelling way to view the situation, then I can roam into your context, but I have to maintain my foundation. The real fun is to link across topics....I suppose that is layers of contexts all linked together via Ne paths. That's super Ne and is where the most beautiful thoughts are found.

But I find if i try and do this with anybody but another Ne dom, the connections cannot be seen. The pattern is so blatant, so obvious. You guys may "observe" my commentary on the surface pattern once I explain it, but then after that you discard it as trivial...like you can't see the depth behind it, how very encompassing it is....I suspect an Ne dom does the same thing to an Ni dom's ideas....we dont see the depth, only the surface conclusion.

*prys brain away from forum and back into reality where I can actually contribute things of value*

Ok. But what is the point of brainstorming if you don't shift contexts ?