Ne and Ni

[Poki]

I think you are mistaking senses with materials. Materials (dinosaur bones) exist. How you relate to them is through your senses/intuition. The mere fact that these materials exist is not Si or Se.

How you remember and relate to the bones is the point. You can either note the texture, smell and shape. You may notice its potential. You may imagine its history or its future. You may note that it looks similar to the things you have in your own body. Se, Si, Ne or Ni are ways to relate to the world, not the world itself.

What if I dont see a "dinosaur bone"? I see an object and how it interacts with the world. I bring in and note this interaction, not the objects. Thats what I notice. I honestly dont care about the texture, the smell, or what the object is even called. That has nothing to do with how it interacts with the world. I could honestly care less about the details of the world or anything in it unless it relates to how things interact.

That is why I can take my Ni, and do what I have recently started calling, "flip it and reverse it" and apply it to different situations without even trying. Because I dont remember the detail, but the essence of the interaction itself.

 

[jenocyde]

What if I dont see a "dinosaur bone"? I see an object and how it interacts with the world. I bring in and note this interaction, not the objects. Thats what I notice. I honestly dont care about the texture, the smell, etc. That has nothing to do with how it interacts with the world. I could honestly care less about the details of the world or anything in it unless it relates to how things interact.

That is why I can take my Ni, and do what I have recently started calling, "flip it and reverse it" and apply it to different situations without even trying. Because I dont remember the detail, but the essence of the interaction itself.

That's exactly what I mean. I gave 4 different examples on how you can relate to this object through different functions and there are many more. You may recognize it as a bone, or you may perceive it as a potential baseball bat. But my point is that the mere fact that this object exists is not the definition of Si.

How you perceive the object is a mixture of your dominant and auxiliary functions, by preference. But you are in no means limited to just that way of perceiving. We all have all the functions at our disposal, with practice.

 

[onemoretime]

That's exactly what I mean. I gave 4 different examples on how you can relate to this object through different functions and there are many more. You may recognize it as a bone, or you may perceive it as a potential baseball bat. But my point is that the mere fact that this object exists is not the definition of Si.

How you perceive the object is a mixture of your dominant and auxiliary functions, by preference. But you are in no means limited to just that way of perceiving. We all have all the functions at our disposal, with practice.

Along with this, these thoughts don't just arise out of nowhere. NeTi is very expedient and task-oriented. We don't just go throughout life thinking "oh, look at that bone, I could use that as a baseball bat" without reason. However, whenever people want to play baseball, or need to whack the crap out of something, that's when we start scanning the environment, thinking "what could we use to accomplish this task?"

 

[Poki]

That's exactly what I mean. I gave 4 different examples on how you can relate to this object through different functions and there are many more. You may recognize it as a bone, or you may perceive it as a potential baseball bat. But my point is that the mere fact that this object exists is not the definition of Si.

How you perceive the object is a mixture of your dominant and auxiliary functions, by preference. But you are in no means limited to just that way of perceiving. We all have all the functions at our disposal, with practice.

Ok, now if Se is about seeing the interaction and bringin it into Ni, then Ne is about seeing the object itself and bringing it into Si. This is why Si types think that Se is just about noticing the color or texture, because it is there internal perception of what Si turned external is.

 

[jenocyde]

Along with this, these thoughts don't just arise out of nowhere. NeTi is very expedient and task-oriented. We don't just go throughout life thinking "oh, look at that bone, I could use that as a baseball bat" without reason. However, whenever people want to play baseball, or need to whack the crap out of something, that's when we start scanning the environment, thinking "what could we use to accomplish this task?"

Yes, that's exactly right. Dom+aux really shapes the way you orient with the world. I don't know how ENFPs use Ne, but mine is very much like you described. Very practical and innovative when a solution or brainstorming is needed.

 

[jenocyde]

Ok, now if Se is about seeing the interaction and bringin it into Ni, then Ne is about seeing the object itself and bringing it into Si. This is why Si types think that Se is just about noticing the color or texture, because it is there internal perception of what Si turned external is.

Who ever said that Se is about bringing anything into Ni? I really don't understand your train of thought. What is the basis of your theory?

 

[VagrantFarce]

Well, you know I disagree conceptually (I don't think information collecting (perceiving) functions are so deterministic)

How are those descriptions deterministic?

 

[onemoretime]

How are those descriptions deterministic?

Three of the four say something to the effect of "you have to" or "you need to".

That's the province of the Judging functions. In fact, that's exactly why they're called "judging".

 

[VagrantFarce]

Three of the four say something to the effect of "you have to" or "you need to".

That's the province of the Judging functions. In fact, that's exactly why they're called "judging".

That's really just a result of treating them as opposing states of mind, rather than toolsets to be utilised by other functions. And the only province of judging functions is decision making, so I'm not really sure how they're treading on other functions' toes.

 

[Poki]

Who ever said that Se is about bringing anything into Ni? I really don't understand your train of thought. What is the basis of your theory?

Because thats what I care about. The way things interact. The way Se interacts with Ni and how they both interact with Ti. That is what I notice. Look at what I do, look at how I argue, look at my responses and you will see that. But to do that you must look at how I interact and not the detail of what I say or do.

 

[onemoretime]

That's really just a result of treating them as opposing states of mind, rather than toolsets to be utilised by other functions. And the only province of judging functions is decision making, so I'm not really sure how they're treading on other functions' toes.

Why consider them something so vague as a "state of mind", when the conceptualization of them as a means of handling sensory information is much more concrete, parsimonious, and potentially testable? (I was thinking of a few ways of possibly proving that hypothesis, through the use of personality tests and sensory comparison tests, seeing if they correlate in any way)

Why wouldn't Ti/Te/Fi/Fe be much more indicative of a person's state of mind?

 

[VagrantFarce]

Why consider them something so vague as a "state of mind", when the conceptualization of them as a means of handling sensory information is much more concrete, parsimonious, and potentially testable? (I was thinking of a few ways of possibly proving that hypothesis, through the use of personality tests and sensory comparison tests, seeing if they correlate in any way)

Why wouldn't Ti/Te/Fi/Fe be much more indicative of a person's state of mind?

I think they're all indicative of a state of mind; I think each type is defined by the four functions interoperating and bouncing off each other, and we're just "shifting" between them where and how circumstance and function order dictates. I like exploring how the functions dictate our behaviour, what we perceive and how we make decisions. That's what I mean by "state of mind". perhaps it's just me reading this website far too much, but it's a fascinating way of looking at the system, and far more interesting than treating the functions as just tools in a toolbox.

And none of this is the least bit scientific, so I'm not interested in what is "testable" or "concrete".

 

[Halla74]

First of all, it's impossible to define a perceiving function outside of the context of its associated judging function. Perceiving functions are the "memory" of the cognitive system, so to speak: it is how and where bits of sensory information are "held" to be processed by the judging function. Perceiving functions take in, support, then store the sensory data within the harder memory functions.

Perception = RAM (System Memory)
Judging Function = CPU/OS/Application Logic

Sensing is the lossless version of this process (like a FLAC audio file). It takes input data in, handles it and stores it holistically. The benefit of this is that recollections are much more accurate and full of detail. Details are rarely overlooked or forgotten, and consistency/coherency maintained because of the completeness of the dataset. The downside is that these "big pictures" that are taken in require a lot of storage space within the long-term memory banks. As such, because of the constant need to place new information within these banks, the big matrices of information that the judging function deems unnecessary constantly must be disposed of (forgotten).

320 Kbit/second MP3 = Full Denisty WAV File

Intuition, on the other hand, is the lossy version of this process (like an MP3). It takes the input data in, handles it and stores it as a set of component parts. The benefit of this is that the data can be handled and stored much more efficiently, since rather than many sets of "big pictures" that need to be Judged, you have these individual bits of data, and the judging process only needs to clean up the redundant parts. The downside is that it recollects and interprets through constant fitting of those stored data points together, and this process can lead to some severe distortion.

192 Kbit/second MP3 = Reduced File Size, yet Hardly Noticebale Degradation of Audio Quality to the Human Ear

AND...

128 Kbit/second MP3 = Significantly Reduced File Size, but Noticeable Degradation of Audio Quality Unless DSP Processing Applied on Good Hi-Fi or Car System...

As such, there really isn't any extraverted or introverted perceiving. It all has to do with what your judging function handles the perceptive data. If you have introverted judging, then the perceiving function appears "extraverted", because the internal judging function needs a constant flow of external data to keep from starving itself. When starved of this data, the judging function will attempt to compensate by using whatever sensory data is within, that is, previously processed by the judging data. For example:

I like the above, because honestly, Ne and Ni are pretty difficult for me to contemplate on, considering (1) I'm an ESTP, and (2) I've not read into function definitions with great detail as of yet...

So, the Judging function is the powerhouse that bridges the gap between N and S... Nice. I like it!

Ne dom/aux: the "Si" tert/inf is the internal recollection of the initial N/Ji processing, brought together once again through the Ji function. Bigger assembled chunks of data are tied together through Fi/Ti, and this leads to much less effective results, since the sets of data are too broad to connect as well as the smaller ones brought in through Ne.

Se dom/aux: the "Ni" tert/inf is the internal dissection of the initial S/Ji processing, divided into its various parts through the Ji function. Since the big sets of sensory data are too large and unwieldy to handle for more than a short period of time by the Ji function (the "gut instinct" aspect), it then focuses in on smaller portions of the set, trying to come to either Fi or Ti-based conclusions about them ("If Coach would have put me in in '83, everything would have been different"). The problem is that the only dissembled data is within that one sphere, and that these conclusions do not factor in other, more distantly related variables.

If you have extraverted judging, then your perceptive function will appear introverted. This is simply because the external judging function needs an internal basis from which to operate. "Si" just bases this on big sets of data, and "Ni" bases this on small sets of data. When dealing with incompatible data, the Je will have no internal basis for comparison, and will thus have to compensate externally. So:

Brilliant.

Since all humans have both of these functions to some capcity, depending on their type, there is alot of variation in the amount of S/N we use to fill in the gaps of what we do not know. Right?

ATTEMPTED REDUCTIONIST SIMPLIFICATIONS:
Strong S -> I've got the facts, and will make my guess from there...BUT the less facts/actual experience I have, the less comfortable with guessing I am...

Strong N -> I've got limited facts, but I'm OK with figuring out every which way to Sunday this situation can go based on what I know if I am given time to do so, BUT without time to do so I'm less comfortable with guessing...

Si dom/aux: More than anything, Si immediately allows for Je to notice inconsistency, because it holds those big chunks of data (combined auditory, visual, gustatory, olfactory, tactile and emotional sensations) and lets Je compare them holistically to one another, and thus understanding immediately what's different between the two sets. If a situation is entirely unprecedented, and there is no means of comparison, the Je will do whatever it can to bring that situation back to something it can work with internally, also known as tert/inf "Ne".

AND...

Ni dom/aux: Ni splits data up. It keeps splitting them up until Je starts putting them back together. When Je puts them back together, unusual and previously unnoticed patterns develop, which seem de novo since they are externally consistent (either on Te or Fe terms), but there was no means of knowing this before the data was broken apart and reassembled subconsciously. When the data is understood too discretely to further analyze, Je will then act on the outside world in an attempt to come up with more information that can be further processed, that is, tert/inf "Se".

Both damn good and tangible explainations of Ne and Ni.

Honestly, this is the first post that I have read that has explained the inter-relation of functions in a tangible manner.

The early examples of Ne vs. Ni were both easy to grasp, but I them both to be somewhat representative of "paranoia."

My wife is an INFJ, and my big brother is an INTJ, and neither have ever seemed paranoid to me. Both are more like "Bobcats." They sit there taking in the scenery and are putting it all together in ways that I am oblivious to, because I'm the one waving my arms around trying to interact with the people, things, and ideas flying around the room in real time and exerting my will on them. Then when I get stuck, and the room becomes silent one of them will pipe up "But if you did A and C, instead of A and B, then everything works out for both of you. Right?" And everything marches along nicely from there.

Further proof that we all need to develop our inferior functions, and that we all are better off working together, than in isolation.

-Halla umpyouup:

 

[onemoretime]

I think they're all indicative of a state of mind; I think each type is defined by the four functions interoperating and bouncing off each other, and we're just "shifting" between them where and how circumstance and function order dictates. I like exploring how the functions dictate our behaviour, what we perceive and how we make decisions. That's what I mean by "state of mind". perhaps it's just me reading this website far too much, but it's a fascinating way of looking at the system, and far more interesting than treating the functions as just tools in a toolbox.

And none of this is the least bit scientific, so I'm not interested in what is "testable" or "concrete".

See, that's the problematic disconnect for me - if we talk about something "dictating" behavior, then we're making a fundamentally scientific claim: that these represent something material that's going on which has a causative effect on how humans interact with their world. What could be more interesting than figuring out how people actually tick? If we genuinely understood what was going on up there, instead of coming up with mystico-theoretical conceptualizations that only vaguely correspond with the material reality of how humans process the stimuli that compose our life, wouldn't we then have the opportunity to help people in profound, groundbreaking ways?

Mere tools in a toolbox are what humanity used to change the world. It isn't scientific so far, that's true... but that doesn't mean it isn't a place to start from, either.

 

[jenocyde]

Because thats what I care about. The way things interact. The way Se interacts with Ni and how they both interact with Ti. That is what I notice. Look at what I do, look at how I argue, look at my responses and you will see that. But to do that you must look at how I interact and not the detail of what I say or do.

No, because that's not what I care about.

 

[VagrantFarce]

See, that's the problematic disconnect for me - if we talk about something "dictating" behavior, then we're making a fundamentally scientific claim: that these represent something material that's going on which has a causative effect on how humans interact with their world. What could be more interesting than figuring out how people actually tick? If we genuinely understood what was going on up there, instead of coming up with mystico-theoretical conceptualizations that only vaguely correspond with the material reality of how humans process the stimuli that compose our life, wouldn't we then have the opportunity to help people in profound, groundbreaking ways?

There's nothing mystical about what I'm talking about, just anecdotal. People think differently, and these functions are a wonderful way of illustrating and exploring what people focus on and how they rationalize things. These traits can be observed in others, we just tend to dismiss how other people perceive and rationalize because it differs from how we perceive and rationalize. So in a sense, I am actually exploring how people "tick", but in an anecdotal rather than empirical sense.

If someone can validate these ideas in a controlled science lab, great! But I recognise these behavioural traits not only in myself but in others as well, and that's really all the justification I need to explore them and consider them valid.

 

[Poki]

See, that's the problematic disconnect for me - if we talk about something "dictating" behavior, then we're making a fundamentally scientific claim: that these represent something material that's going on which has a causative effect on how humans interact with their world. What could be more interesting than figuring out how people actually tick? If we genuinely understood what was going on up there, instead of coming up with mystico-theoretical conceptualizations that only vaguely correspond with the material reality of how humans process the stimuli that compose our life, wouldn't we then have the opportunity to help people in profound, groundbreaking ways?

Mere tools in a toolbox are what humanity used to change the world. It isn't scientific so far, that's true... but that doesn't mean it isn't a place to start from, either.

If you dont see this as a way to change the future then you dont see it as a causitive effect, but something that is just parallel to reality.

 

[Poki]

No, because that's not what I care about.

So if your not in MBTI to understand interactions then what are you here to understand? Life is nothing more then interactions. Objects interacting with objects and people interacting with people. There are no objects here, just people.

 

[onemoretime]

If you dont see this as a way to change the future then you dont see it as a causitive effect, but something that is just parallel to reality.

Then it's just better to talk about fictional archetypes, then.

 

[onemoretime]

So if your not in MBTI to understand interactions then what are you here to understand? Life is nothing more then interactions. Objects interacting with objects and people interacting with people. There are no objects here, just people.

People are objects. Just a particularly interesting type of object, that's all