Ni or Ne ?

[John_Mann]

I think:

- "Ne" acts like a magnet being attracted by ideas one after the other, the more connections, the bigger / faster the momentum.
Ideas are static so they don't move, it's the magnet (the subject) that comes to them (the object).


- "Ni" acts like a super strong magnet attracting entire systems / world views to it.
The magnet (the subject) doesn't move, it's the systems / world views (the object) that come directly to it ! The stronger the Ni, the deeper / bigger the (metaphysical) truths / catch.

Ne perceives ideas... Ni perceives entire systems of ideas...


Anyway, that's the way i "felt" / experienced both...

Good analogy.

 

[John_Mann]

It's fun how Ne's use a lot of parentheses in their writings. Because there's always a lot of good ideas running in parallel in our minds (and we cannot just throw them away).

 

[own8ge]

It's fun how Ne's use a lot of parentheses in their writings. Because there's always a lot of good ideas running in parallel in our minds (and we cannot just throw them away).

I experience this with Ne too. It is overwhelming for me. Thus I filter that stream of ideas to only let through those that apply or would apply with the or a similar big picture I had in my head. (I'm an INFJ)

Ni is overwhelming too. I always get to see in which different ways something could be objectified. Leaving me in an endless clarification state. A state, that Ne doms tend to find annoying.

 

[John_Mann]

Well, well speaking more about intuition, I always wondered if N it's a kind of composite function. We can say Se it's the composite of the five senses, and Si is Se plus memory. Could intuition be a composite perception too?

 

[own8ge]

Well, well speaking more about intuition, I always wondered if N it's a kind of composite function. We can say Se it's the composite of the five senses, and Si is Se plus memory. Could intuition be a composite perception too?

Yes. Though, Si is not Se plus memory. lol.
Se is the concrete objective perception, thus the 5 senses. Yes.
Si is the concrete perception of that what is subjective, thus it is associated with the concept of the known and thus memory, yes.

Si and Se are both perception which is bound by that what is literal.
S = Literal perception
Si = Internal, Se = External

Ni and Ne are both perception which is completely interpretive. It is detached from what is known and only focuses on how it is being perceived. N is thus bound by interpretation.

 

[John_Mann]

Yes. Though, Si is not Se plus memory. lol.
Se is the concrete objective perception, thus the 5 senses. Yes.
Si is the concrete perception of that what is subjective, thus it is associated with the concept of the known and thus memory, yes.

Si and Se are both perception which is bound by that what is literal.
S = Literal perception
Si = Internal, Se = External

Ni and Ne are both perception which is completely interpretive. It is detached from what is known and only focuses on how it is being perceived. N is thus bound by interpretation.

Tell me why did you feel the need to reply my post without adding nothing to it? Are you kidding me?

 

[own8ge]

Tell me why did you feel the need to reply my post without adding nothing to it? Are you kidding me?

That's how we INFJs are. We interpret what you need, and then make additions to that what we think you need. I don't know exactly what you need, so I could merely tell you that what I think you need. Reformulate what you need better, and I can grant a better answer.

 

[John_Mann]

That's how we INFJs are. We interpret what you need, and then make additions to that what we think you need. I don't know exactly what you need, so I could merely tell you that what I think you need. Reformulate what you need better, and I can grant a better answer.

Could N be a composite function just like S?

Se have 5 components; Si (heuristically) have 6.

How much components N could have? And what would be like?

 

[Brontosaurie]

I think:

- "Ne" acts like a magnet being attracted by ideas one after the other, the more connections, the bigger / faster the momentum of the magnet...
Ideas are static so they don't move, it's the magnet (the subject) that is dynamic and comes to them (the object).


- "Ni" acts like a super strong magnet attracting entire systems / world views to it.
The magnet (the subject) doesn't move, it's the systems / world views (the object) that come directly to it ! The stronger the Ni, the deeper / bigger the (metaphysical) truths / catch.


Ne perceives / connects ideas, one after the other (even if the whole process can become very fast)...

Ni is like an eagle eye, it perceives entire systems of ideas in one go... I found it overpowering at times, like my breath was sorta taken away by what i found ! At times, afterwards, i even often totally forgot what i perceived during some of the strongest "Ni trances" (epihanies).


Anyway, that's the way i "felt" / experienced both... Anyone felt similarities ?

why are ideas static whereas systems/worldviews are not? how does your observation amount to anything beyond a metaphor for Ni superiority?

 

[DIALECTIC]

Si and Se are both perception which is bound by that what is literal.

Ni and Ne are both perception which is completely interpretive. It is detached from what is known and only focuses on how it is being perceived. N is thus bound by interpretation.

Do you mean that Si and Se are like: "what is" i.e. the absolute to any observer, while Ni and Ne are "perspectives" i.e what is relative to the actual observer ?


Because, a while back i was thinking of the Earth... And i put it in perspective with all types of duality: life and death, heads or tails etc.

- Absolutely, (say for someone outside the "Earth system" i.e. in space), there is both day and night at the same time, or rather there is no night, just constant "day"; it is what what it is (then again, day doesn't really exist as such as it depends on the Sun, i.e the "mediator" of the Earth).

- But, relatively, there is either day or night, it only depends on the "perspective" (for someone on the "Earth system"). The perspective being created by the rotation / cycle of the earth...


Could it be the same for life and death ? I.e. life or death only being relative perspectives of the observer / experiencer but both existing also absolutely at the same time for someone / something outside the "life and death system".

Because that's the same thing when you play heads or tails. One defines the other. It's all a matter of perspective. And just like the rotation / cycle of the earth, the "rotation" / game of the coin determines the actual perspective i.e. either heads or tails !

Any thoughts ?

 

[DIALECTIC]

why are ideas static whereas systems/worldviews are not? how does your observation amount to anything beyond a metaphor for Ni superiority?

With Ne, i go to the ideas and then i connect them one after the other and ultimately i create a world view / system of ideas which can take a very long time to build !

With Ni, it is whole world views / entire systems of ideas that come to me nearly instantly... Own8ge, i think, said Ni transcends time, that's why. It takes no time. That's why Ni users can (fore)see what no one else can see (yet).

The perfect example is Nietzsche, how advanced was his thinking ? When he was alive, pretty much no one could understand what he wrote !

That's "Ni" at its finest. Hegel, Heraclitus, Newton, Tesla are other fine examples ! They all foresaw the most likely probabilities / the future (Ni) not just a bunch of possibilities (Ne).

Friedrich Nietzsche - "Some men are born posthumously."

 

[own8ge]

Do you mean that Si and Se are like: "what is" i.e. the absolute to any observer, while Ni and Ne are "perspectives" i.e what is relative to the actual observer ?


Because, a while back i was thinking of the Earth... And i put it in perspective with all types of duality: life and death, heads or tails etc.

- Absolutely, (say for someone outside the "Earth system" i.e. in space), there is both day and night at the same time, or rather there is no night, just constant "day", it's what it is (then again, day doesn't really exist as such as it depends on the Sun, i.e the "mediator" of the Earth).

- But, relatively, there is either day or night, it only depends on the "perspective" (for someone on the "Earth system"). The perspective being created by the rotation / cycle of the earth...


Could it be the same for life and death ? I.e. life or death only being relative perspectives of the observer / experiencer but both existing also absolutely at the same time.

Because that's the same thing when you play heads or tails. One defines the other. It's all a matter of perspective. And just like the rotation / cycle of the earth, the "rotation" of the coin determines the actual perspective ie either heads or tails !

Any thoughts ?

Yes. That is N. Specially Ni is that what concerns: "It is all a matter of perspective and interpretation" It is also like this post: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=16231

 

[Brontosaurie]

With Ne, i go to the ideas and then i connect them one after the other and ultimately i create a world view / system of ideas which can take a very long time !

With Ni, it is whole world views / entire systems of ideas that come to me nearly instantly... Own8ge i think said Ni transcends time, that's why. It takes no time.

what advantages does Ne have? typology is pretty reliant on balance. otherwise it wouldn't be typology but rather a set of scores like big 5.

 

[own8ge]

Could N be a composite function just like S?

Se have 5 components; Si (heuristically) have 6.

How much components N could have? And what would be like?

How would Si have 6 components and Se 5 components? It doesn't make sense really.
Se is merely and nothing more than perceiving the external world in a concrete fashion.
Si is merely and nothing more than perceiving the internal in a concrete fashion.

Se is connected with the judgment Ji, always. Thus Se to Se conclusions are made by Ji, subjective discernment.
Si is connected with the judgment Je, always. Thus Si to Si conclusions are made by Je, objective discernment.

How could you objectively make a Si to Si conclusion? Well... By concluding that what is concrete, thus Memory. But Si =/= Memory related conclusiveness. Si + Je results in memory. Same counts for Se, Se =/= the 5 senses.

This is Si logic/reasoning.
The jews were shaven and put in the same clothes so they would lose their identity. The same counts for the Army and slaves. Thus, school uniforms are worn in schools where the students have no identity and thus are slaves.

This is Se logic/reasoning.
I don't understand you. He does not understand you. You make no sense. So you are stupid.

---
This is Ni logic/reasoning.
You say that I'm stupid whilst you do not understand me. You are a hypocrite as I could for the same sake transcend your capable understanding. You couldn't know that thus your conclusiveness of me being stupid makes no sense, you are an ignorant and hypocritical fool.

This is Ne logic/reasoning.
Shut up. (Whilst thinking: That doesn't matter and is it is thus foolish to think about it.)​

 

[own8ge]

what advantages does Ne have? typology is pretty reliant on balance. otherwise it wouldn't be typology but rather a set of scores like big 5.

Ne is ingenious. It perceives how something could be perceived, objectively. In the right hands, Ne is very powerful. Ne = cool.

 

[John_Mann]

How would Si have 6 components and Se 5 components? It doesn't make sense really.
Se is merely and nothing more than perceiving the external world in a concrete fashion.
Si is merely and nothing more than perceiving the internal in a concrete fashion.

Se is connected with the judgment Ji, always. Thus Se to Se conclusions are made by Ji, subjective discernment.
Si is connected with the judgment Je, always. Thus Si to Si conclusions are made by Je, objective discernment.

How could you objectively make a Si to Si conclusion? Well... By concluding that what is concrete, thus Memory. But Si =/= Memory related conclusiveness. Si + Je results in memory. Same counts for Se, Se =/= the 5 senses.

This is Si logic/reasoning.
The jews were shaven and put in the same clothes so they would lose their identity. The same counts for the Army and slaves. Thus, school uniforms are worn in schools where the students have no identity and thus are slaves.

This is Se logic/reasoning.
I don't understand you. He does not understand you. You make no sense. So you are stupid.

---
This is Ni logic/reasoning.
You say that I'm stupid whilst you do not understand me. You are a hypocrite as I could for the same sake transcend your capable understanding. You couldn't know that thus your conclusiveness of me being stupid makes no sense, you are an ignorant and hypocritical fool.

This is Ne logic/reasoning.
Shut up. (Whilst thinking: That doesn't matter and is it is thus foolish to think about it.)​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x56O4G8VsiA

 

[DIALECTIC]

what advantages does Ne have?

Ne connects all the dots one after the other, which is time consuming but very exciting because you're not sure when it is going to stop (personally i never want it to stop when it happens !) and where it's going to lead you (you don't know what you're going to get in the end and how big it is going to be).


Ni sees them all the dots at the same time. It's an epiphany.


Do you imagine what the world would be like if we would all be intuitives with either Ne or Ni !? Balance is: we represent a minority of (lucky) people compared to sensors.

 

[own8ge]

Do you imagine what the world would be like if we would all be intuitives with either Ne or Ni !? Balance is: we represent a minority of (lucky) people compared to sensors.

50 % = N
50 % = S
Some Ns are just to used to concrete thinking as concrete thinking gets rewarded more often in this society. I know a lot of Ns whom avoid expressing their intuition. Doesn't make then Sensors though. The result of an N thought can be observed concretely, this is what they do. And this is why people mistaken N for being a minority.

Besides in my class for instance, 70 percent are Ns.

And Sensors are as equally cool as us Intuitives. It's all a matter of perspective which is more cool. I for instance, fucking love male ISFPs, they are ingenious (IMO).

 

[WALKYRIA]

"Ni" acts like a super strong magnet attracting entire systems / world views to it.
The magnet (the subject) doesn't move, it's the systems / world views (the object) that come directly to it ! The stronger the Ni, the deeper / bigger the (metaphysical) truths / cat

Why does it seems like Ni is superior to Ne? I mean Ne users are slow and Ni users are fast... I think it's not fair at all. Ni seems magical.
I don't even understand what's Ni exactly , it doesnt seems logical and accurate to me....
Also, besides MBTI theories/psychology noone knows what's intuition right ? concretely.
Coud Ne and Ni be just faster versions of Se and Si ? Or could it be that N is S with a better linkage to the Uncouscious?

 

[DIALECTIC]

Ni seems magical.
I don't even understand what's Ni exactly , it doesnt seems logical and accurate to me....

Yes i think Ni is indeed quite magical, hence when its charm somehow stops, then normal reality / thinking seems dull / slow compared to the "Ni trance".

- Ne transcends space.
- Ni transcends both space AND time.

Ni just has to be experienced to be fully understood (and then again, it's so hard to put something so abstract into words). Maybe you did experience it already and you didn't realize ?
To be honest i think a strong "Ne trance" (i.e: when ideas keep flowing / being interconnected) "feels" very similar to Ni... That's why at times i have problems to make the difference between the 2 !

Ni doesn't seem logical and accurate according to what ?
All i know is whenever i got into a "Ni trance", i made huge progress in my personal evolution finding out stuff etc. Then afterwards, when its magic stopped, i just felt "dumb" for ages...

It's like Quantum computation VS classical computation: the whole idea of Quantum coherence / computation (multiple possibilities all existing at once) is soooo abstract it doesn't seem logical at all, until there is decoherence that is, and one single possibility is choosen...
Then and only then, the result obtained is logical and accurate from the perspective of concrete Darwinian / classical computation !

 

[own8ge]

Why does it seems like Ni is superior to Ne? I mean Ne users are slow and Ni users are fast... I think it's not fair at all. Ni seems magical.
I don't even understand what's Ni exactly , it doesnt seems logical and accurate to me....
Also, besides MBTI theories/psychology noone knows what's intuition right ? concretely.
Coud Ne and Ni be just faster versions of Se and Si ? Or could it be that N is S with a better linkage to the Uncouscious?

Ni has it's advantages, but so does Ne. The conclusions Ni draws, are also drawn by Ne but then Ne draws 100 more conclusions. The difference is that Ni gos into the very depth of 1 conclusion Ne would make. Ni doesn't select this Ne conclusion from those other 100 conclusions, instead, Ni bases itself on what is possible, draws a thesis and keeps on drawing conclusions based on what would be most logical. If this, then also this, and this, and this must be too. In this way, Ni makes a wireframe, a structure of thought. A structure that he can look at. And whilst looking at that structure, he can then make 1 conclusion out of it that would explain All the connections in the structure. The result... An astounding theory based on so little information. Ne however, would have drawn similar conclusions, but even more! The difference is that Ne doesn't see the depth, nor does Ne understand the depth. Ne is extrovert. Ni is introvert. That is the big difference. Ni = intuitive introvert perception, whilst Ne is its extrovert. Ni may seem superior as we write it, but that is because our understanding of Ni is greater than Ne, besides we are clarifying Ni-Ne from a Ni perspective. I myself e.g. am an INFJ. (Ni dom). But no, Ni is NOT superior.

N and S are two WHOLE different things. None is better than the other. They are equal. They are both necessary too. N thoughts are S based, and S thoughts are N based.

S their development of thought (Thought-Flow) is progressed by concrete conclusions, whilst N is interpretive.

To see and judge the concrete, is as much effort as to judge and see the interpretive.

HOWEVER. N = S indeed. But so are all other dichotomies. 1 dichotomy states 1 element. 1 coin. But that coin, has 2 sides, and 1 can be conscious at the same time. This states, that it are the exact same process of thought, but is working in a different way.

N and S are both Perception. Whatever you perceive, you can only perceive 1 thing at the time. Internal, or external. This is what defines if you are using N or S. Your preference defines your personality type. But none is better than the other, those are opinions. They both are as equally rewarding.

 

[DIALECTIC]

Ni doesn't select this Ne conclusion from those other 100 conclusions, instead, Ni bases itself on what is possible, draws a thesis and keeps on drawing conclusions based on what would be most logical.

May i add that Ni draws the most probable thesis, then from it draws its antithesis, and finally draws a synthesis between them, all at once... So basically Ni reaches synthesis while Ne (+Ti) still busy making an elaborate guess / probablistic choice (abduction) out of 100 different scenarios / thesis ?!

 

[Architect]

Ni has it's advantages, but so does Ne. The conclusions Ni draws, are also drawn by Ne but then Ne draws 100 more conclusions. The difference is that Ni gos into the very depth of 1 conclusion Ne would make.

Here's the best way I can summarize the difference, from a real-world experience, namely my INFJ Ni dominant and my Ne secondary.

Ne is like a lifeguard at a busy beach. Up high on a lifeguard station, separated, but sees everything and is not involved with any one in particular.

Ni is down on the beach walking among the sunbathers. Going here, going there, searching, up close and personal.

They've both seeing the same thing and exploring possibilities, but Ne sees the forest and misses the trees (details), while Ni sees the trees and misses some of the forest (big picture).

This should make sense as the difference between an introverted function and an extraverted.

 

[DIALECTIC]

Ne is like a lifeguard at a busy beach. Up high on a lifeguard station, separated, but sees everything and is not involved with any one in particular.
Ni is down on the beach walking among the sunbathers. Going here, going there, searching, up close and personal.

I think it's the total opposite...!

They've both seeing the same thing and exploring possibilities, but Ne sees the forest and misses the trees (details), while Ni sees the trees and misses some of the forest (big picture).

The way i personally experienced it, Ni sees both the trees (details / form / digital) and the forest (overview / contents / analog) at the same time... Hence why it seems magic.

Or maybe i never experienced Ni in the first place but rather spells of schizophrenia !?

 

[Architect]

I think it's the total opposite...!

That's fine, however as I said that is not what it is in the real world.

The way i personally experienced it, Ni sees both the trees (details / form / digital) and the forest (overview / contents / analog) at the same time... Hence why it seems magic.

A matter of degrees, as I tried to indicate Ni does see the big picture, but never as well as Ne does, and vice-versa. They can't, there's not enough "scope" or psychic energy to see all the details and the entire big picture at once, there has to be a focus.

A similar dynamic plays out with Si and Se, where the introverted Si sees more of the detailed past, and Se sees more of the global now.

Does that make sense? Introverted functions go narrow and deep, while extraverted go shallow and expansive.

 

[DIALECTIC]

Ni does see the big picture, but never as well as Ne does, and vice-versa. They can't, there's not enough "scope" or psychic energy to see all the details and the entire big picture at once, there has to be a focus.

What about in schizophrenia / bipolar then maybe ?
Maybe what i actually experienced was Ni + schizoprenia / bipolar then hence the magical feel about it ?

A similar dynamic plays out with Si and Se, where the introverted Si sees more of the detailed past, and Se sees more of the global now.

Could you then say that Ni sees more of the detailed / definite / determinate future (i.e. the most probablistic future) and Ne seems all existing possibilities of yet an indeterminate future ?

To me Ni sounds/sounded very very similar (if not the exact same thing) to what Spinoza calls "Scientia Intuitiva" aka "The Third Kind of Knowledge" of essence of things (as opposed to imagination - First Kind and Reason - Second Kind).


To knowledge of the first kind we have said that all those ideas belong which are inadequate and confused, and, therefore, this knowledge alone is the cause of falsity. Moreover, to knowledge of the second and third kind we have said that those ideas belong which are adequate, and therefore this knowledge is necessarily true.
It is the knowledge of the second and third, and not that of the first kind, which teaches us to distinguish the true from the false. For he who knows how to distinguish between the true and the false must have an adequate idea of the true and the false, that is to say, he must know the true and the false by the second or third kind of knowledge.



What would the third kind be? Here Lawrence abounds. In abstract terms it would be a mystical union. All kinds of religions have developed mystiques of the sun. This is a step further. Van Gogh has the impression that there is a beyond that he cannot manage to render. What is this yet further that he will not manage to render insofar as he is a painter? Is this what the metaphors of the sun in the mystics are? But these are no longer metaphors if one comprehends it like that, they can say literally that God is the sun. They can say literally that "I am God." Why? Not at all because there is an identification. It‚s that at the level of the third kind one arrives at this mode of intrinsic distinction.

 

[John_Mann]

On the internet I have found two interesting pictures about Ne and Ni, it's a great visual aid:

 

[Architect]

What about in schizophrenia / bipolar then maybe ?
Maybe what i actually experienced was Ni + schizoprenia / bipolar then hence the magical feel about it ?

I don't know.

Could you then say that Ni sees more of the detailed / definite / determinate future (i.e. the most probablistic future) and Ne seems all existing possibilities of yet an indeterminate future ?

Hmm, yes that's not bad.

 

[Architect]

On the internet I have found two interesting pictures about Ne and Ni, it's a great visual aid:

Yes that's good too. Again this illustrates the difference between extraverted and introverted functions.

 

[John_Mann]

Strong intuitives have a peculiar look too. Their eyes seems "stoned", it's a glazed look like someone are looking not to a particular object but to the void. Darwin it's the greatest example of that intuitive look:

 

[DIALECTIC]

However, Ni being subjective, the "arrow" should originate from the object, going towards the subject ?

 

[DIALECTIC]

Strong intuitives have a peculiar look too. Their eyes seems "stoned",

I can relate. A friend of mine is INTJ and it's exactly how he looks. He hardly ever smiles. For this reaso i rather write to him instead of talking directly to him...

 

[John_Mann]

However, Ni being subjective, the "arrow" should originate from the object, going towards the subject ?

Nops. The arrow originate from within (introverted function) and give a need to action upon the object. That's the reason Ni's are J's.

 

[BigApplePi]

@WALKYRIA. These are great Q's cuz they get at the essence of what's going on. Later: Looks like others followed your post before I sent this one out as I was interrupted.

Why does it seems like Ni is superior to Ne?

It isn't. It's just in the eye of the beholder. If I'm after the real world, I'll go for Ne. If I'm after imagination, I'll go for Ni.

I mean Ne users are slow and Ni users are fast... I think it's not fair at all. Ni seems magical.

Ne users are slow, that's because Ne isn't confined. Ni comes from one -person- place making at least the source close. Ni appears magical only because one human being doesn't know another. It isn't magical once you catch on.

I don't even understand what's Ni exactly , it doesnt seems logical and accurate to me....

Ni isn't logical or accurate because people aren't logical or accurate. At least Ne has a real hook to attach to.

Also, besides MBTI theories/psychology noone knows what's intuition right ? concretely.

Intuition is about generalizations. Generalizations are sloppy so you lose concreteness.

Coud Ne and Ni be just faster versions of Se and Si ? Or could it be that N is S with a better linkage to the Uncouscious?

Hmm. I'd guess S is faster for specifics and N is faster for generalities so neither wins. The unconscious radiates or implodes(?) ... it covers so much ground that N does better covering but S does better with nailing a point. <-- needs rephrasing.

 

[John_Mann]

Why does it seems like Ni is superior to Ne? I mean Ne users are slow and Ni users are fast... I think it's not fair at all. Ni seems magical.
I don't even understand what's Ni exactly , it doesnt seems logical and accurate to me....
Also, besides MBTI theories/psychology noone knows what's intuition right ? concretely.
Coud Ne and Ni be just faster versions of Se and Si ? Or could it be that N is S with a better linkage to the Uncouscious?

A practical daily example of Ne is when you need to make an analogy. You extrapolates a situation by comparing it to another well known situation. In an analogy you abstracts both situations and use just a loose relation between them. Usually the analogies have no direct relation to the primal events. Everyone can make an analogy, but natural extroverted intuitives are the best in that matter.

In Ni case, when you ask to a child to pick just one toy from a toy store, the child will use the Ni to choose a toy that sums up all the traits of its favorite toys.

When you're asked to sum up your person in just one word, you're using Ni.

 

[John_Mann]

Coud Ne and Ni be just faster versions of Se and Si ?

Probably not. They works in very different ways. It's not just a matter of speed.

Or could it be that N is S with a better linkage to the Uncouscious?

That's right in a way.

I think:

Si=Se+memory; Ni=Se+unconscious mind; Ne=Si+unconscious mind.

 

[BigApplePi]

That's the reason Ni's are J's.

Good observation. Ni's are always J's. Note that when Ni is a tertiary or lowest function, you have a P. Those types are not called Ni's.

 

[John_Mann]

An interesting fact is the computers/machines have already surpassed (by far) us in the Se and Si.

But the Ni and Ne it's not a thing the computers will achieve very soon. In fact, I think it's impossible to achieve N with the actual technology.

Intuition only can be achieved by a quantum computer IMO. The Ne needs a quantum wave function to work. It's puzzling how the human brain can achieve that. Perhaps there's some quantum process happening in the synapses. So, maybe a molecular computer can achieve N before a quantum one.

 

[Architect]

An interesting fact is the computers/machines have already surpassed (by far) us in the Se and Si.

But the Ni and Ne it's not a thing the computers will achieve very soon. In fact, I think it's impossible to achieve N with the actual technology.

Watson - the computer that beat the best Jeopardy! human players on the planet, correctly found the question for the following answer.

A long, tiresome speech delivered by a frothy pie topping.

What is the question?

Spoiler

What is a meringue harangue?

Think of the subtlety and intuition of that question and answer - did you get it?

Intuition only can be achieved by a quantum computer IMO. The Ne needs a quantum wave function to work. It's puzzling how the human brain can achieve that. Perhaps there's some quantum process happening in the synapses.

Oh my, let's invoke the mysterious quantum in order to explain intelligence. This is a form of "brain fundamentalism", which is that because we have trouble understanding how the brain works we have to invoke QM to make it so.

No, QM computers aren't needed for intuition. Taking your last point first, yes the brain uses QM, so does everything else in the world! Including silicon computers. We are far into the quantum well here with transistor size around 20nm, these effects have to be engineered so that the chips work.

So, maybe a molecular computer can achieve N before a quantum one.

What?

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you. The brain appears to be an ordinary HHMM consisting of a few hundred thousand (IIRC) pattern recognizers. Evolution is smart but not that smart, once it finds something that works it tries pushing it to the limit. Our brains are simply the Triceratops of cognition.

 

[The Introvert]

Does that make sense? Introverted functions go narrow and deep, while extraverted go shallow and expansive.

This is what you should have said the first time. This is the most accurate description of the two. When I was reading your earlier posts you made it sound like Ni lost sight of the big picture completely - this is definitely not true.

From personal experience, I can tell you that Ni is very big-picture oriented. There's always that final answer it's moving towards; the path it takes to get there, however, is often based on sparse objective data. Ni takes what it knows and sprints to the finish line, creating the most parsimonious answer. This may include becoming very familiar with pinpoint details and ideas that may seem otherwise unimportant (which is why Ni often times provides insights that Ne misses).

Unfortunately, this means that Ni can also create a huge mess if it comes to the wrong conclusion (which can happen). I think Duxwing coined the term: "Ni-ghtmares", and I think it's a particularly suiting word. If one realizes that something they felt was concrete and objective turned out to be simply an illusion of Ni, it's almost as if their entire world comes crumbling down. Similarly, (and more related to Dux's word) Ni can create conclusions that are negative in nature; this can cause one to 'freak the fuck out' if they don't realize it's simply a monster of their Ni (which is really hard to do sometimes).

As for Ne, I'm not personally very familiar with it. I understand how it works and what it does, but I can't give a very accurate description of the nitty gritty. Architect seems to have done a pretty good job at that.

 

[Reluctantly]

Ne being objective and Ni being subjective... Would it be "Ni" then when say for example i read a portion of Nietzsche's Ecce Homo and i instantly / intuitively recognize myself / my own worldview also in what i read in a way that could have been written for me...

What Jung meant by objective/subjective was to help distinguish what he meant by extroverted and introverted.

Ni, Ti, Fi, and Si are all introverted, namely subjective.
Ne, Te, Fe, and Se are all extroverted, namely objective.

The problem then with these words, subjective and objective, is that they often are used to denote what is real and what is not. However, Jung recognized that the subjective and objective are intertwined and saw subjectivity as fundamentally real, just as objectivity. So this wouldn't be what he meant and thus no one would ever then truly be subjective or objective. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems represent this, as do many logical paradoxes, such as the Liar's Paradox - because without knowing that what you start with is absolutely true, you can't know if anything else is absolutely true and everything would be uncertain in terms of truth.

So rather, an introverted function is so because it deals in the more subjective realm of reality, which involves the self, but doesn't have to involve just the self. For example, if I were to describe another person, it involves subjectivity, because how I have come to understand them takes certain things about them for granted as true, a process that then inadvertently relates back to how I understand myself. The main point being though, an introverted function creates an understanding that involves a focus on taking certain things for granted as true, whereas an extroverted function takes a more conservative approach and is more focused on taking as little for granted as true as possible.

And consequently an extroverted function is so because it deals in the more objective realm of reality, which doesn't involve the self. For example, an extroverted person will see how the outside world is behaving and understand that as best as they can; but in order to do this, they have to focus more on what is directly happening and less on what they think or believe is happening.

I hope this helps? Can you answer your own question after reading this (if you read it, lol)?

 

[John_Mann]

Watson - the computer that beat the best Jeopardy! human players on the planet, correctly found the question for the following answer.



What is the question?

Spoiler

What is a meringue harangue?

Think of the subtlety and intuition of that question and answer - did you get it?



Oh my, let's invoke the mysterious quantum in order to explain intelligence. This is a form of "brain fundamentalism", which is that because we have trouble understanding how the brain works we have to invoke QM to make it so.

No, QM computers aren't needed for intuition. Taking your last point first, yes the brain uses QM, so does everything else in the world! Including silicon computers. We are far into the quantum well here with transistor size around 20nm, these effects have to be engineered so that the chips work.



What?

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you. The brain appears to be an ordinary HHMM consisting of a few hundred thousand (IIRC) pattern recognizers. Evolution is smart but not that smart, once it finds something that works it tries pushing it to the limit. Our brains are simply the Triceratops of cognition.

In this subject I just have loose ideas, I'm not any kind of expert in that. But I always thought the potential limit of silicon IC's is a lot under the human brain in terms of what we call consciousness.

I still did not digest the IBM Watson thing and it's implications, I think it's just another Kasparov x Deep Blue.

Do you think we don't need a paradigm shift to reach an AI like the human mind?

Can we reach the human mind using silicon tech? It's a matter of software after all?

Could you develop this a bit more please?

 

[WALKYRIA]

I am a med student, and medecine is all about memory, the content is pretty easy to understand... the difficult part is to learn a LOT about ALOT in a VERY limited amount of time... Well, now u understand my struggle as an INTP. INTP can learn a lot, but only if it's consinstent in our mind..if it makes sense. Otherwise, we are very slow to learn anything out of the blue, blame it on the perptual need of logic(no bullshit sensor) from Ti.

On the other side, I have NFJ and NTJ friends who just absorb like a mofo. Ni for sure helps to absorb textbooks and textbooks... They just don't need to understand everything, they sorta know it and there is no logical(Ti) barrier to knowledge absorption.

NFJs(at least the few I know) are geniuses in terms of absorbing infos wether the info makes sense or not; their understanding splits in all the directions without internal consistency or logic ! NTP excell in analyzing a content but not in absorbing it(poor memory that we have !).

All this to say that yes, sad for Ne but Ni users can have insight about something very very fast (in details as well as in a bigpicturesque way). Fast learners in general, while Ne users are ridiculously slow(see Einstein). The positive thing about Ne is that we see things Ni users are not able to see and we can connect ideas from many contexts/reference frames altogether and come up with a creative solution to a given problem ; thus we are much much more creative than Ni.

 

[BigApplePi]

When I was a math student I didn't have a problem because intuition was not allowed. One HAD to be consistent so speed was not an issue. Everyone was to do all the steps. Memorizers were doomed. On my other subjects I had a trouble: slowness. I wanted to understand and hated memorization. I solved this problem by cramming for tests as the time limit pressure overrode the need to understand. I relied on short-term memory the best I could.

In grad school a took a course in number theory. This is a very beautiful branch of mathematics with strange odd results. I wanted to appreciate the beauty but there was no time. I was distracted by other things in my life so I refused to memorize. I was forced to drop out of the course as I was not doing my homework.

 

[Hadoblado]

Would I be right in thinking that Ni is more likely to marry a person to their idea, whereas Ne is more likely to make someone want to jump ship?

 

[own8ge]

Would I be right in thinking that Ni is more likely to marry a person to their idea, whereas Ne is more likely to make someone want to jump ship?

Nah, not at all. Nice try though.
If Ne would be a ship, then Ni is like a sinking ship.

 

[Architect]

In this subject I just have loose ideas, I'm not any kind of expert in that. But I always thought the potential limit of silicon IC's is a lot under the human brain in terms of what we call consciousness.

It is, but we're seeing the beginning of when it won't be.

I still did not digest the IBM Watson thing and it's implications, I think it's just another Kasparov x Deep Blue.

Nope, in Watson we're beginning to see a glimmer of intelligence, if not consciousness.

Do you think we don't need a paradigm shift to reach an AI like the human mind?

I think we have most of the tools we need today

Can we reach the human mind using silicon tech? It's a matter of software after all?

Software, hardware, what's the difference? Consider the FPGA, it's just software writ in silicon.

Could you develop this a bit more please?

Read "How to Create a Mind" by Ray Kurzweil.

 

[WALKYRIA]

I know It might seem irrelevant, but we could add the dominance of hemisphere in...


Ni (*N*J) have the chance to use both brains in the same proportions(balanced people)..thus able to see a problem from all sides . Which is why they are expected to excell in school.

Ne are far more right brained.( *NP*)

The sensors are clearly left brained.

 

[DIALECTIC]

Ni (*N*J) have the chance to use both brains in the same proportions(balanced people)..thus able to see a problem from all sides . Which is why they are expected to excell in school.

Yes, that would make sense; Ni users seem to be able to see both content (RB) and form (LB) pretty much at the same time.

The Right Brain perceives context, the Left Brain takes things out of context (abstraction).

I am reading THE MASTER (RB) AND HIS EMISSARY (LB) at the moment and the author says information comes from the Right Brain but must go back to it so that it can be REcontextualized once it's been DEcontextualized by the Left Brain...

So we have: right brain (perception) to left brain (conception) which is the interpretation part, and THEN from the left brain information must go back to the right brain (creation), which is the transformation part from abstract to concrete...

It is very reminescent of Hegel's dialectic (thesis > antithesis > synthesis):
AFFIRMATION (Right Brain processing) > NEGATION (Left brain processing) > NEGATION OF THE NEGATION (return to Right Brain processing).

LEAN DAUDET: “to reach doubt about doubt is the beginning of certitude”.


The problem is most of the time, information gets stuck in Left Brain processing... Hence why most people are so selfish and self-centered as they don't return to right brain processing to put things back into A LARGER context !

Ne are far more right brained.( *NP*)

Us, Ne users see content / possibilities first, then (much) later form / necessity... That's where our ADD comes from (RB)...


Maybe then that's why when Ni users + Ne users work together and believe in the same ideal miracles happen, because information goes through all the 3 brain processes as above...!

 

[Paladin-X]

The sensors are clearly left brained.

I would argue that Se is right-brained. :P

Lenore Thomson also argued that Se/Ne/Fi/Ti were right brain functions and Si/Ni/Fe/Te were left brain functions.

http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type2.html