Ne/Ni Conflicts

[Kalach]

^ start like this:

PPT Si looks like a testicle.

 

[onemoretime]

I have come to the conclusion that the secret of intution is that very Jungian concept of archetypes. Ne seeks to fit some aspect of the external world within an archetypal framework, either innate or previously created. Ni seeks to take information, and through that information's relationship with internalized archetypes, come to conclusions about hidden or undiscovered qualities commensurate with that information.

 

[skylights]

^ start like this:

PPT Si looks like a testicle.

Se 2 - PPT Se looks like warts.

Ni 1 - PPT functions look like biological things in the genital area

Ni universal - PPT functions and the genital area are connected

Ne interruption - kalach has a dirty mind

 

[Kalach]

Se 2 - PPT Se looks like warts.

Ni 1 - PPT functions look like biological things in the genital area

Indeed. A pink Se thong and a blue Ni penis. I PROTEST! SURE, Ni HAS BIG BALLS, BUT A MICRO PENIS?! Please. Ne can do better than "win" by "diminishing" the opposition's "case". Pffft.

 

[skylights]

to be fair, Ne was only pointing out the obvious. if one's penis is introverted, i'm afraid it's necessarily going to be micro.

so where do you go from here? i've gotten the hypothetical "PPT functions and the genital area are connected" conclusion, but it seems like the fun ends after that... do i just keep substituting related objects into the relationship construct until something brilliant arises...?

 

[Kalach]

Sorry, man. Guild rules require that if ENFP Si conservatism blocks INTJ Se gormlessness, the entire discussion must end in pouts and foot stamping.

 

[onemoretime]

What does PPT mean?

 

[Athenian200]

What does PPT mean?

I think it means Powerpoint.

 

[Kalach]

By the bye, if I attempt a Penis-Penis-Testicle joke, is that an example of the Ni modus operandi, the much vaunted context shifting all the kids are talking about?

Pink Penis Testicle?

Psychological Projection Theory (testicle variant).




Pffft, context shifting is for amateurs.

 

[onemoretime]

Ah, ok.

The Si looks like a testicle. The testicle is the male reproductive organ. The need fulfilled by the Si function is security and permanence of the individual's psyche. The need fulfilled by the testicle is the reproduction and permanence of the individual's DNA. Si can only use the sensory data the individual previously acquired within the psyche to fulfill this end of security and permanence. The testicle can only use the DNA previously acquired from the individual's parents to fulfill this end of reproduction and permanence of DNA. As such, a testicle is a fitting metaphor for the Si function. The question remains, however, whether it is the optimal metaphor for the Si function.

 

[Kalach]

Man, talk about maintaining a context. It looks like a testicle! I'm just saying it looks like a testicle. In particular, a cartoon testicle. It was a fairly literal claim. Or so I thought.

 

[INTP]

disclaimer: the rambling on this post is just my impression about the subject and i got no idea what some books say about this

dunno but about that "Ne goes for breadth, Ni goes for depth" thing. i agree with this on kinda, but INTP for example(as Ne user) will go to depth too, but he goes in depth with thinking, so even tho he perceives broader range, he will go in depth of single things too, usually more than someone using Ni. like going from a broad range on things into depth of things. but INTJ(as Ni user) would go from broad range of facts from Te(it might not be so broad in some cases, but the point is that its not a single thing that he passes his judgment on) that he combines with Ni to go for depth. maybe Ni going for depth is bit misleading and different from Ti depth. TiNe aims for perfect knowledge of everything in the object, like seeing a cube as transparent object that you can see through and view everything in it at once. while NiTe tries to measure the cube and view the cube as an object that is the combination of its measurements. when you take a TiNe look at the object, there might be something inside of it that you wont notice based only on the measurements.

one thing i should mention about N, its not just about big picture of everything and it can be aimed towards single object. when you compare N vs S when aimed into a single object, S will see the details in it, just like when looking at a big picture and not seeing the big picture so clearly, but seeing single objects(details) in it, objects become details in big picture, but when aimed into an single object, it changes from being a detail in a big picture to a mass of details that make the object. N on the other hand doesent notice the single objects(detail in the big picture) so clearly when looking at a big picture and when it does go viewing a single object, the object becomes a new big picture and he might not notice detail in that object.

INTJ uses Se, so he notices the details bit better in the external world than INTP, i think this might make quite big difference on their T functions also. since INTJ has Te and Se, he wont be so interested on the external objects possibilities, but sees external world more as it seems to be and when things are internalized from the external world those Se Te facts will go in the realm of Ni Fi. How this NiFi realm works is highly unconscious, even tho the realm works in unconscious the results from this realm will come to conscious. This results INTJ to be bad at explaining how he came to conclusion about something and will see the deduction process as something simple, like of course it is like this and his conscious reasoning is based on the external facts, and not so much deduction about why these facts are this together.

INTP on the other hand uses Ne, so he notices the big picture in the external world better than INTJ, but is unable to explain the external world well without explaining why something is what it is. because for INTP the external world is viewed through unconscious and when things are internalized from this unconscious realm, they come on a realm of detailed deduction, due to Ti Si. Ne could pretty much be viewed as unconscious seeing of Se and telling the conscious what he sees in a vague explanations about the whole thing thats going on and leaving the details off. when INTP views a detail in the big picture, he will internalize the detail with Si, so he will have more conscious view on the details than INTJ and is able to use deduction based on it better, but INTJ will have more details to consider for the big picture.

also these two types finalize thoughts in very different way. INTJ will naturally start from facts and finalize the thought by combining the facts using unconscious. now what comes from the unconscious to conscious is more symbolic and not so clear image that it could be explained well, but the facts that INTJ perceives are correct in it. but one thing INTJ sometimes doesent notice is that even tho the facts in something is right, it doesent mean that his answer would be total sum of everything in it, but because the facts fit, INTJ thinks that he has the right answer, when in reality he might only be right about the facts in the big picture, but not about the big picture. for INTJ the thoughts go in in a structured form, but the internal view about it is missing this structure -> structure turns into an unstructured combination of different structures. for INTP the external reality is unstructured and this unstructured external world is structured when its taken in in logical and detailed form. the unstructured big picture tuns into set of details that are structured, the details are formed by Ti answering the question "what is it that is there?" with detailed description. because of this finalized thought has so detailed description its very hard for INTP to explain so that it would make sense about the big picture to others. it turns like an information overload when expressed, to others things that INTP tells will seem irrelevant simply because they dont see the big picture first, so they dont understand how some detail that INTP talks about 5 minutes fits in it, and sometimes even the INTP might forget it and wander to talking about things that are only relevant to the detail itself, not for the general big picture so much. when this happens it will take the listener off even more since now it sounds that he is talking about something completely different. this post is a great example of that . but is the listener is able to take in information long enough he might not only understand the big picture, but will have more clear vision of it than if it would be explained briefly and effectively by some other type. but one thing INTP can do about this problem with some types and in some situations is using metaphors and non factual/subjective(as in not saying that wall is 5 meters wide, but by saying for example that its pretty wide wall) big picture explanations. INTJ is lacking this ability quite much because they are in so much hurry to form a judgment whether the other person is right or wrong about what hes talking about, this will lead to huge communication problems and problems on understanding each others between INTP and INTJ. Now when INTJ is the one who is explaining things he will explain the facts and assumes that the other person combines these facts into a big picture and leaving the reasoning about the connection between the facts off. personally when my INTJ friend is explaining something to me i generally understand him pretty well, but since his explanation(and finished thought) is missing the reasoning about the connection between the facts, so i view his "finished thought" unfinished and lacking. for me since im missing the facts about the external world, i tend to assume that people will see the facts if i tell about the correlation between structures and details about the structures of the finished thought. my INTJ generally doesent get the facts this way, because he needs the facts to see the big picture. its like i explain something that obvious to him if he would see the facts about what im explaining to him. but to me these descriptions about the details and correlation between the details are the facts that matter, to him its the measurements etc that is all that matter.

also one thing when INTP(or at least me) is explaining things is that he will tell the thing from many points of views so that the other person would see the correlation between the details in each point of view that he explains. also at least personally when im explaining the correlations between the details i tend change the point of view so that im saying some details of it again. like if i would explain a ball that has some images in it to someone, i would explain it from 6 angles(point of views to the ball), so that the whole ball gets covered, but when you explain a ball from 6 angles, you are forced to say some things about the ball many times, this explaining the same thing multiple times can be annoying to some people, i do this because i want other people to understand the ball fully. if i wouldnt explain some of the details multiple times, the other person wouldnt have an understanding about what picture is next to some other that can only be viewed from different angle. this is how i explain the correlations between the details in other things also. usually when i start to explain something to my INTJ friend, he will only listen the first point of view(if even that fully) and say that he doesent understand me and start talking about his view, now to me this is really annoying, because how the heck could he understand what im saying if he doesent listen to everything i have to say, then i easily lose my train of thought and might not be able to continue what i was saying and this leads me to start explaining new point of view to it, he will naturally stop me again before i can explain all the point of views by telling that im talking about irrelevant things(ofc they seem irrelevant to him, if he doesent listen everything i have to say..) and starting to talk himself and explaining something to me that i already know.

imo you cant talk about Ni/Ne conflicts without talking other functions into consideration also. the conflicts between INFJ and INTP would most likely be quite different from the conflicts of INTJ and INTP, due to INFJ and INTP sharing Ti and Fe

cba to write more about this, hopefully someone is able to grasp an understanding about the big picture of this subject from this rambling.

 

[onemoretime]

Man, talk about maintaining a context. It looks like a testicle! I'm just saying it looks like a testicle. In particular, a cartoon testicle. It was a fairly literal claim. Or so I thought.

Looked like a rotten egg to me. Would you like me to go on about what rotten eggs remind me of, and then what that reminds me of, and then what that reminds me of, and then forget what I was talking about in the first place? I can do that, you know.

 

[Kalach]

Looked like a rotten egg to me. Would you like me to go on about what rotten eggs remind me of, and then what that reminds me of, and then what that reminds me of, and then forget what I was talking about in the first place? I can do that, you know.

If you did, would that be shifting contexts?

 

[onemoretime]

If you did, would that be shifting contexts?

If something I said had multiple meanings, and I decided to make a pun of sorts out of it, then yes, it would be shifting contexts. Just depends on what "fits" at the time.

 

[Kalach]

Hmmm....

but you said Si words, "reminds me of." (and introverted perception is supposed to be shifty context-land).

And now you're talking meanings. (Which is supposed to be mere POV-land.)



We're gonna need a bigger testicle.


See, now that apparently is "shifting contexts", keeping the word, moving it to Jaws-land, and using the quote to blur the line between something serious, such as expanding theoretical resources, and something less serious, such as large testicles. Which does also remind me, I wanted to know why the Si testicle is so big.

 

[INTP]

If something I said had multiple meanings, and I decided to make a pun of sorts out of it, then yes, it would be shifting contexts. Just depends on what "fits" at the time.

Hmmm....

but you said Si words, "reminds me of." (and introverted perception is supposed to be shifty context-land).

And now you're talking meanings. (Which is supposed to be mere POV-land.)



We're gonna need a bigger testicle.


See, now that apparently is "shifting contexts", keeping the word, moving it to Jaws-land, and using the quote to blur the line between something serious, such as expanding theoretical resources, and something less serious, such as large testicles. Which does also remind me, I wanted to know why the Si testicle is so big.

i think you two should read my post and continue after that.

 

[Kalach]

I should probably (*sigh*, here we go) come clean.

I think shifting contexts is what other people see Ni do. *We* don't shift contexts. We import content. And other people get all pissy about contexts.

 

[Kalach]

i think you two should read my post and continue after that.

I read your post. I wanted to know why "describing from another point of view" was different from shifting context.

 

[INTP]

I read your post. I wanted to know why "describing from another point of view" was different from shifting context.

i dont really understand what you mean by shifting context. what do you mean with it?

i havent been following what has been going on in this topic