Imagining the future

[Clegane]

I got a problem with Ni. I always think at how future events will develop, but I totally lack the famous "a-ha!" moments. I'm constantly thinking at all the possible consequences.

For example, let's say that I must meet a person for a formal meeting.

Before I meet the person I think at all the possible questions he will ask and what he will probably talk about. So I think at the answers I will give. I also try to prepare good topics to talk about.

I do this the whole time. In all the situations.
In MBTI tests, at questions like "I have visions of the future" or something like that, I always put 0 point on the answer because I can't really understand it. So I always get few-to-average scores on Ni, which seems like something mystical to me.

I want to ask you, is the above mentioned behaviour Ne, Ni, Se or Si?

 

[IndigoViolet11]

Personally as Ni dominant I see ahead, but the a-ha thing is not really like, without reason. It is a series that usually the Ni type cannot tell for an instant until they develop enough to know more how intuition works to trace back the steps of thinking or feeling that had occured, and that will in turn having the thought more solid - I think/feel this and this and this way therefore I think/feel this this and this, which then now became more like Si.

Ni is like, I saw this, then I can see it going this or that way, but all is in our head. In a sense, that can be quite similar to Si in the way that it can be understood as something procedural happening in our head taking outside info, and self digesting it into something that makes sense. However, it is more of an abstract pattern rather than a solid and concise step to step representation that an Si will do in his or her head. Ni goes abstract first. The one off big picture, and then the smaller ones, closer to the point where it mirrors Si. Si is the other way round. You get the dots, the points, many points, from an external environment, and then attempting to put links to them. Therefore they are points only until the points get linked, and then linked to a visible web. When it gets massive in the number of points where an abstraction can be formed with like, 10, 20, 100 points etc, then it approaches the abstraction that mirrors Ni.

If you think about the concrete questions after getting a feel about him, or you guessed what kind of person he would be, thinking about what he ask question by question, I think this is more like Si. An Ni will get the abstract perception on how the person's mind work instead, not so mainly about the question, but more of the thoughtform pattern of the person, and try to determine what kind of reaction fits the best.

"I have visions of the future" - an Ni will always and automatically think ahead in any action they do by having an extroverted cognitive function as a reciever. About the consequence of their action in terms of pattern. By looking at patterns they can guess what is next ahead of the current event - We just keep guessing ahead from whatever pattern we gathered externally. An Si looks more on the points that exist right now. It is hard to understand if Ni is not developed because of the data input does not include the future. But if they want to, they will have to lay down procedures on how things will turn out, say, due to an event that is for example, supported by statistic, and therefore looking at statistic, it is 90% likely it goes that way. This is Si style prediction, but the gathering of data happens only from the physical present, so it is understandable that an Si does not see things in the future, because future does not exist. Even the what ifs are still linked to the here and now present.

Hope this helps a bit more in understanding.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I got a problem with Ni. I always think at how future events will develop, but I totally lack the famous "a-ha!" moments. I'm constantly thinking at all the possible consequences.

For example, let's say that I must meet a person for a formal meeting.

Before I meet the person I think at all the possible questions he will ask and what he will probably talk about. So I think at the answers I will give. I also try to prepare good topics to talk about.

I do this the whole time. In all the situations.
In MBTI tests, at questions like "I have visions of the future" or something like that, I always put 0 point on the answer because I can't really understand it. So I always get few-to-average scores on Ni, which seems like something mystical to me.

I want to ask you, is the above mentioned behaviour Ne, Ni, Se or Si?

This will be Te biased answer but it will be on the point.


The bolded part is Ne, however Ni isn't satisfied with just general answers and specualtion. Ni wants to pinpoint exactly what questions will be asked and how all of this will look like. It is a gamble but precision can rip large rewards. Therefore Ni will try to find a way or a person that will be able to tell what is going on in that interview. Therefore Ni is purely dependant on Se for gathering data and if Se doesn't find anything relavant Ni is done for, since it lacks data and therefore it can't forsee anything. However Ni is the function what will allow you to bend over the rules and principles in order to gain the upper hand or real understanding. (like searching the source that might tell more about the interview) However these visions can be so clear that you don't have a real problem with trusting them, what allows you to take the initiative instead of getting lost in brainstorming. Also you know very well where are weaknesses of the vision, so you have to try research more that areas in order to check out the situation and therefore make the vision more stabile and resistant to problems.



However as Se gathers data Ni can build entire constructs/ideologies out of that confirmed data and if person has enough power and influence this vision can be "forced" on others. Therefore as most people don't have too developed Ni they are likely to play along if there is a reasoning behind the vision. Therefore a person simply had a vision but through determination it made it a reality. What in a way means that the person has foreseen the future. What isn't strictly true, this person simply saw the potential, made a good plan to exploit it fully and it was good at predicting problems.



Ni on itself can exist without judgement and it takes various trends that go from the past to presant and then continue to the future. Therefore if you know the trends and you know the system well you can easily make reasonable models of exaclty what will happen. However for this you have to take very large perspective ... like global or even cosmic picture, since everything is interconnceted and in order to get parameters of foresight right you have to understand everything at least to some degree, the more you know the more likely is that you will be correct about the future. This does not only include understanding of various elements but even more knowing how they are scattered around the system. Since Ni is more about strategy/organisation than understanding or brainstorming.



To be honest interview is bad example to think about this since humans on individual level are the most chaotic variable in almost any system. Therefore for Ni in the end it all comes down to knowledge, data gathering and then projecting them into the future while looking where trends meet, so that you can freely take the initiative. Since you have stuff figured out in your head and because you think in advance and therefore eliminate problems long before they meterialize.

 

[the state i am in]

from what i've seen, Ne types are the best at holding space to anticipate more futures, and that usually gives them a responsiveness that is pretty good.

in other words, they are able to really explore from the perspective of an imagined future better than the rest, so there's this sense of already being there which helps them recognize the how it could happen before others.

i definitely don't see the future. not in an outcome specific way. i would say, in many respects, i am worse than average with respect to doing so. with that said, in some things, when committing to seeing something very DEEPLY, i see what won't change clearly, and have enough density in a variety of models to get a sense of where things are going, how they are intersecting, and what changes seem like they have a lot of gravity and enough tensegrity to hold together. this sense of what has already been really happening, in a deeper sense. there's some generative, predictive power in that, but i'd take so many people over myself if it came down to like sports betting on an outcome. mine is more of a tectonic thing, or a complex ecological change, a way a space as a whole has been qualitatively shifting.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

To demystify it, what you're talking about can be like predicting near term futures in the imagination kind of "modelling" reality. Since you sound like a more logical person you would probably be more comfortable understanding it in some sort of logical chain similar to mathematics so here is a place you can begin to explore:

Teaching machines to predict the future | MIT News