Ne vs. Ti

[badger055]

What is Ne logic and why can't you stand it?

-terrible logic (1+1 = abstract potato)
-making connections that simply aren't there
-thinking that evidence for what they are saying is not important
-getting stuck in needless details (stuff like connotations or meanings of things)
-unable to get to the point or simplify
-unable to see what is important just wants to bounce on ideas
-needlessly over complicate
-unable to screen out false logic want to include everything
-doesn't give a damn about the objective truth just wants to argue
-can't objectively analyze something like Ti can
-no critical or independent thought just assumes connections (drives me mad)
-under values common sense and real world evidence that you can see with your eyes

It's sort of like I have the road map to the destination and it looks like a simple straight line and it would take 2 seconds to get there not a big deal. And I'm like hey Ne guy it's this way but the Ne guy is doing zig zags driving under water and through trees and off cliffs. I clash the most with ENTPs and I find INTPs to think more like ENTPs than ISTPs.

 

[Standuble]

That. And, to add, what others perceive as 'randomness' simply isn't so random from the perspective of the Ne-ego. From the Ne-ego standpoint, those connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena, ideas, and objects are just.. there. They're a part of reality. The connections between the dots exist just as naturally as the dots themselves do.

And then, to answer the OP's question, it's the Ji function that evaluates those connections (as [MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION] pretty much said).

I think this depends on the ratio of Ne to Si. Usually when I use Ne I believe the connections to be my own invention - only occurring due to internal idiosyncracy and not actually existing as part of reality. When a possible causal link between real world objects is determined which tends to happen after mass-abstraction takes place I again don't see the connection as "real" but purely the shared trait or the conclusion the connections had made.

For SophiaDeep, are you questioning your type or just enquiring how TiNe works in contrast with FiNe?

 

[Standuble]

-terrible logic (1+1 = abstract potato)
-making connections that simply aren't there
-thinking that evidence for what they are saying is not important
-getting stuck in needless details (stuff like connotations or meanings of things)
-unable to get to the point or simplify
-unable to see what is important just wants to bounce on ideas
-needlessly over complicate
-unable to screen out false logic want to include everything
-doesn't give a damn about the objective truth just wants to argue
-can't objectively analyze something like Ti can
-no critical or independent thought just assumes connections (drives me mad)
-under values common sense and real world evidence that you can see with your eyes

It's sort of like I have the road map to the destination and it looks like a simple straight line and it would take 2 seconds to get there not a big deal. And I'm like hey Ne guy it's this way but the Ne guy is doing zig zags driving under water and through trees and off cliffs. I clash the most with ENTPs and I find INTPs to think more like ENTPs than ISTPs.

Ne doesn't do logic. It's a perceiving function. How the Ne user comes across depends on the Ji function's success or failure at reining it in and streamlining it.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

-terrible logic (1+1 = abstract potato)
-making connections that simply aren't there
-thinking that evidence for what they are saying is not important
-getting stuck in needless details (stuff like connotations or meanings of things)
-unable to get to the point or simplify
-unable to see what is important just wants to bounce on ideas
-needlessly over complicate
-unable to screen out false logic want to include everything
-doesn't give a damn about the objective truth just wants to argue
-can't objectively analyze something like Ti can
-no critical or independent thought just assumes connections (drives me mad)
-under values common sense and real world evidence that you can see with your eyes

It's sort of like I have the road map to the destination and it looks like a simple straight line and it would take 2 seconds to get there not a big deal. And I'm like hey Ne guy it's this way but the Ne user is doing zig zags driving under water and through trees and off cliffs. I clash the most with ENTPs and I find INTPs to think more like ENTPs than ISTPs.

Logic, critical thinking, analysis, and independent thought are T (specifically in the realm of Ti) related meaning that those have nothing to do with the four interpreting functions Se, Si, Ne, Ni.

Ne users argue with you to test your belief in your own system and see how capable you are in defending your viewpoint in the ENTP's case.

The following is not always indicative of the ENFP but is of the ENTP:

Making connections that simply aren't there - Agree, but Ti filters out wrong connections if working properly

Thinking that evidence for what they are saying is not important - That's why Ti is there to moderate it, this is not indicative of any interpreting function

Getting stuck in endless details - Endless ideas maybe but not Endless details

Unable to get to the point or simplify - That's what Ti is for if it is functioning properly

Unable to see what is important just wants to bounce on ideas - Ne perceives the big picture in a model of future possibilities and different routes for tackling problems, Ne users bounce ideas to eliminate routes and find the most effective one.

Needlessly over complicate - Sometimes happens, but if Ti is functioning properly than it will eliminate complications that aren't efficient.

Unable to screen out false logic, want to include everything - Eh I'll give you that one, but if Ti is developed properly then it would disprove the false logic and keeps Ne focused

Doesn't give a damn about the objective truth just wants to argue - Agreed

Can't objectively analyze something like Ti can - That's obvious, Ne doesn't analyze, and neither does Ni, Se, or Si for that matter.

Under values common sense and real world evidence that you can see with your eyes - Agreed

You can't fucking weigh Se logic against Ne logic, because they don't exist. There is Ne-Ti logic and Ti-Se logic, but interpreting functions don't possess any logic, that is for the realm of Ti (and somewhat Te).

 

[badger055]

Ne doesn't do logic. It's a perceiving function.

I know. I'm talking about Ne users in general and the way they think. You guys are asking if Ne is like Ti so there you go.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

For SophiaDeep, are you questioning your type or just enquiring how TiNe works in contrast with FiNe?

I do kind of both actually

 

[INTP]

Okay, that means that Ne is completely random and process the world via unconscious way. So you as an Ne type connect things and objects randomly in your mind without being aware of their actual and real connection is physical world? Than you probably discover a new random way how things can coexist? But hmm...if connections are random, where is the real and actual creativity and mind activity in Ne users's thinking?

Unconscious doesent mean that its random.

 

[skylights]

Yes I can relate to that. Also what I thought Ne is, but the above description sounds a bit like super power Ne thing

Lol, yeah, Jung is like that. He gets at essences and universals. It's less esoteric when you apply it.

well said. it's also not as disjointed as people make it out to be. looking for universal truths rather than isolated connections.

Thank you, and . It's very coherent. It's baffling when someone refers to it as random. It is so clear to me, though it may take a while to voice using external language.

Ne users are prone to like "strange" music. The question is, why do they like it? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am truly wondering how you would answer that. From my explanation/perspective, they like strange music because it addresses the fullness of context.

I think both Pe functions are drawn to novelty, and Ne in particular is drawn to emerging patterns. "Addressing the fullness of context" is a good way to put it. It rings of existence that is present but has yet to be deeply touched on, and nothing is more exciting to Ne.

Si types are more likely to appreciate, simply, what they were raised on or what is popular, or at least spoken for by some group of people with some acceptable reputation.

I think Si types tend to appreciate the "character" of something more than other types and can explore that particular character in depth without losing interest, similar to the way Ni can delve into an "archetype" pattern. So there is less desire for a Si type to deviate from what is known, because there is such pleasure to be found in intimately engaging the known, while it takes a much longer period of time before the novel can be enjoyed to the same extent. If a familiar group speaks to something new, it is no longer as unknown; since Si operates on a Ne network, that novel thing immediately becomes more familiar by proxy.

Of course this is just me theorizing.

Ne users feel trapped by the very same notion. It strikes them as bland and limited. With such broadness of what can define music, why not experiment and get wild? Why not test our boundaries and see what crazy emotions music can make us feel? Let's see what we can incorporate into music and still have it be music. In this way, Ne tests the boundaries of context. It's random for the sake of random, but ultimately there are connections if it is still music. So I maybe see what you are saying, but I don't think it is either/or.

Oh, yes, surely Ne users can appreciate the random. But I don't think the Ne thought process itself is random, not in the conventional sense that we use the word to indicate chaos and lack of reasoning. It could be connected to randomness in the sense that Ne users open the data bank to include every possibility - so technically we have "random" at our fingertips if we desire it. But I don't think that we do... we inherently seek to piece things together, be that through Ti or Fi.

I was driving in the car listening to "Charmer" by Kings of Leon with some friends, none of whom were Ne dominant. They all hated it because, well, there is a screaming person in it. The first time I heard that song, however, I thought it was thrilling. Something delightfully weird yet something that still WORKS as music, and quite well. I saw the forest for the trees. My friends saw the "tree" of a person screaming weirdly in the song and wrote off the forest. That's Ne vs. other perception functions to me.

Btw I'm not saying an Si type (for example) can't like this song, but they are probably going to take a lot longer to. I had an ISFJ roommate who was famously slow to like anything that was just catching on, and then become obsessed with it once it had become popular and accepted for a while.

I see what you mean about fullness of context. I agree that Ne doms can be better at seeing the forest despite the trees. Though I compare myself to my IxTP dad and brother, who using Ti can appreciate the complexity and ingenuity and logic in the music while I struggle to get beyond my overall impression. That may on my part be a pitfall of NF - I have a hard time getting past emotional "atmosphere". I suspect NTPs in particular would be best at appreciating the quality of the musical elements within the overall. I have never heard the song before, and while I like the other elements, the screaming is distracting enough to me to have a hard time appreciating the song as a whole. To me it shatters the overall feeling of it otherwise.

Can't stand Ne logic. I pretty much think they are half retarded most of the time and stop talking to them.

-making connections that simply aren't there

This is funny because from the N perspective it's hard to understand how you don't consent to the existence of connections that to us seem inherently present, as much as ice is cold or grass is green. I get similar feedback from my ISTP brother sometimes when he doesn't get what I'm referring to and tells me that my communication at the moment is pointless, in particular if I'm having trouble trying to voice a nascent or particularly abstract idea. If it's not your personal preference that's cool. It does have its strengths at times, though. I wouldn't deny that Se is more useful on the whole but Ne has its moments too.

 

[INTP]

Logic, critical thinking, analysis, and independent thought are T (specifically in the realm of Ti) related meaning that those have nothing to do with the four interpreting functions Se, Si, Ne, Ni.

N or S doesent interpret anything, they just perceive. T is what interprets things by evaluating/defining "what a thing is"

Typology 101:

S perceives that something is
T tells what the thing is
F tells whether or not its acceptable by evaluating its worth
N perceives possibilities(where a thing came from and where its going, seeing behind the scenes etc) of a thing via unconscious processes

 

[Azure Flame]

I don't know if there's a thread for that already. I just wonder how much can Ne look like Ti? These 2 functions share their need for understanding and analysis. How different is the process of this analysis? Is Ne more superficial, while Ti goes more to the deep? What would other differences be?

Ti is subjective logic and internal systems
Ne is objective conceptual abstract perception of the environment

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Unconscious doesent mean that its random.

And what does it mean? You can't control your unconscious, so you can't control the connection it creates so to me it sounds like random...

 

[Riva]

They're totally different. Ne is a way of perceiving context. Ti is a way of treating things.

Ne is very broad in its view of context. It recognizes patterns across time, different ways things have been, could be, and will be, and it attempts to elicit the full range of images and permutations of what can be. Ne is often called "random" because its users try to mine the depths and farthest reaches of context, often coming up with the bizarre or esoteric.

Ti is methodical and focusing. Ti takes in information and processes it towards understanding and refinement. INTPs take the ideas of Ne and systematize, categorize, analyze, refine, focus, map, and test for the physics of these ideas. It's a totally impersonal and timeless way of dealing with information. ISTPs do the same thing with the physical world. They fuck around with it. They see how it works. They seek to understand the way the tactile world makes sense and synthesize ways of dealing with it.

This.

However i see here as i've seen any places that Ne sees things at it were. I disagree with it. Ne is more of what you have said in the same sentence.

Yes it does look into what were but it's more of ne based guesses than fact (se) analysed conclusions which i think is more ni.

 

[INTP]

And what does it mean? You can't control your unconscious, so you can't control the connection it creates so to me it sounds like random...

Is it random to see a triangle in that picture?

Im not saying with this that S types dont see the triangle, S types are also using intuition. The difference between N and S types(and this applies to T and N difference as well) is that N types are more fluent in this sort of unconscious processes and apply it(because they are more fluent/trained in) more often. Also N types put more trust in more far fetched ideas, since they feel more confident on their ability to predict stuff based on hunches about some idea that they have. S types on the other hand put more trust in more concrete sensory stuff and are often more fluent in noticing details. Its not to say that N types couldnt get good at sensory stuff, but S types have most likely some gene that makes them develop sensory regions in the brains easier or something. So they have learned that the "truth" is in the sensory perception, while N saw it in hunches, T saw it in logical reasons and F saw it in trusting on their emotional responses and sometimes(if the person has figured out a bit how to deal with life) being rational about those emotional responses.