• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/incident-of-2018-08-13.27381/

Ni or Ne ?

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today, 14:47
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
375
Location
Brazil
Ni abstracts Se and make a strong focus from present to short term future. Present + Short term future.

Ne abstracts Si and make several possibilities (scenarios) from (far or recent) past to long term future. Past + Long term future.
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today, 20:47
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,814
Location
th
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:

Oh c'mon, then I am definitely some sort of intuitive. The amount of of times people have commented that I look stoned or high is just incredible. They said it so many times I started to believe that their happened to be a mutation in me that resulted in excess 'stoner' look inducing hormone (serotonin?).


I have never understood Ne or Ni to a real extent. I never had a clue what Ni could be. But after a little though, I can actually reach to a conclusion through some form of reasoning.

I think the defining difference between an introverted function and an extroverted function is that extroverted functions are observable.

It sounds like common sense but to me it wasn't at all initially.

If one functions with Se, his stimulus is observable. If one functions with Si, he is referring to a past of his own, which is not observable.

This is with every other function. (Fi vs Fe, Te vs Ti, YADAi vs YADAe)

Ne is basically grabbing on to little details and making a pattern or some form of abstract which gives us a broad understanding of 'what the fuck is going on here'.
Someone who utilizes Ne can explain himself, he can tell you what cues were there and how he got there and you'd agree, you'd think 'doh no wonder'.

I think Ni would grab refer to something that is invisible to any other individual than the person who is utilizing Ni.

I stay with a typed ENTJ (I'd say ENXJ) and I have noticed that she always speaks of this intuition, a sense that something is going on but she isn't able to come up with any sort of compelling evidence 99% of the time. However, she does strikes up with a high accuracy. She sometimes blurt out who's calling and even when it's not obvious she gets it right. I think that is Ni functioning.

Where an Ne user would have to put their intuition through a thinking process or feeling process, Ni users can just reach to conclusions at the expense of the inability to show working or explain it. I think that is why a lot of Ni users often appear mystical.

That's my take at it. That being said if this is the case, I have no sense of Ni at all. I need to draw a pattern before conclusions are made which makes me second guess everything all the time.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today, 14:47
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
375
Location
Brazil
Well, I'm not saying a sensor cannot have "stoned" eyes. It's not about the phenotype of eyes, but the look. And is a statistical approach not an absolute one.

It's said the introverted functions works with images (primordial images) and the extroverted functions works with objects.

The I functions abstracts (Si "subjectify" the objects, a kind of light abstraction) the objects and make a kind of unfathomable images of them. The E functions can abstract the objects but always keep a kind of literalness of them. The internal images can only be fully expressed through art (Fi) and logic (Ti). Fe and Te have the advantage of express his internal through pragmatism.

It's only by chance the Fi and Ti (speaking as pure functions) can produce something practical. Math it's not created with the purpose to be functional or real, even though the engineers can apply some math abstractions in real life problems. Likewise we can apply the images of Pollock in upholstery or use a Beethoven symphony in a cell ring.

Si have an implicit slight abstraction (memory) compared to Se. And the Ne have a slight "concreteness" compared to Ni. That's the reason Ni is faster than Ne.
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today, 20:47
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,814
Location
th
Well, I'm not saying a sensor cannot have "stoned" eyes. It's not about the phenotype of eyes, but the look. And is a statistical approach not an absolute one.

It's said the introverted functions works with images (primordial images) and the extroverted functions works with objects.

The I functions abstracts (Si "subjectify" the objects, a kind of light abstraction) the objects and make a kind of unfathomable images of them. The E functions can abstract the objects but always keep a kind of literalness of them. The internal images can only be fully expressed through art (Fi) and logic (Ti). Fe and Te have the advantage of express his internal through pragmatism.

It's only by chance the Fi and Ti (speaking as pure functions) can produce something practical. Math it's not created with the purpose to be functional or real, even though the engineers can apply some math abstractions in real life problems. Likewise we can apply the images of Pollock in upholstery or use a Beethoven symphony in a cell ring.

Si have an implicit slight abstraction (memory) compared to Se. And the Ne have a slight "concreteness" compared to Ni. That's the reason Ni is faster than Ne.
If people say I look stoned then I must be having the stoner look. What else could the stoner look be.

Whether Math is observable or abstract is still questionable. Besides, who the fuck gives a shit about all the species we have on this planet? What's the real use? Lots of things we study don't actually have much use, they just happen to be useful. Why else would everyone in college complain about studying abstract and useless material that would never need in the future? It's all useless and we just stumble on to uses.
 

John_Mann

Active Member
Local time
Today, 14:47
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
375
Location
Brazil
But I still don't understand why are you complaining about a "stoned" eye?

I did not said every intuitive must have a stones eye and/or look. Neither that no sensor can have a stoned eye/look.

I said intuitives GENERALLY have a stoned/void/blank eye/look/stare.

About the useful vs useless in abstract stuff, it's not everything useless and we don't just stumble on concrete useful stuff by random luck.

The entire world intentionally struggles to achieve usefulness.

And it's not true every abstract thought is not aimed to useful applications.
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today, 20:47
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,814
Location
th
But I still don't understand why are you complaining about a "stoned" eye?

I did not said every intuitive must have a stones eye and/or look. Neither that no sensor can have a stoned eye/look.

I said intuitives GENERALLY have a stoned/void/blank eye/look/stare.

About the useful vs useless in abstract stuff, it's not everything useless and we don't just stumble on concrete useful stuff by random luck.

The entire world intentionally struggles to achieve usefulness.

And it's not true every abstract thought is not aimed to useful applications.
Mostly because I still doubt my secondary preferences and I just hook on to whatever I think can help me decide. So when I decided I was a very intuitive ISTP a piece of information suggesting I am INTP is being presented. Obviously, I'd jump and bite.

How does one make a discovery with intent to make that particular discovery?

IMPOSSIBRU.

Almost everyone stumbles into a useful discovery. It's really just pure luck. Even scientists admit it. They always set out on discovering something else and discover something else.

Every college graduate hopes to survive on their own or so I hope.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 14:47
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,645
I have never understood Ne or Ni to a real extent.
Ni is subjective pattern-matching, observing patterns in one's own subjective experiences. In particular, subjectivity focusses on the differences between you and other people.

"I'm in high school. I've never had a girlfriend. The guys on the football team all have attractive girlfriends. What's the difference between me and the football team? I'm lousy at sports and great at science. The guys on the football team, do lousy in science, and are good at sports. Ergo, girls have no interest in dating smart people, and only seem to be interested in muscle-bound morons. If I want to date, I'll have to become a muscle-bound moron."

Ne is objective pattern-matching, observing patterns in objective observations of reality. In particular, objectivity focusses on the similarities in things and in people.

"I'm in high school. I've never had a girlfriend. The guys on the football team all have attractive girlfriends. They also get drunk a lot. My older brother also goes to bars a lot, and he's always got a girlfriend. What do the guys who have girlfriends, all have in common? They all drink alcohol. Maybe girls like guys who drink? If I start drinking, maybe I'll get myself a girlfriend."
 

pjoa09

dopaminergic
Local time
Today, 20:47
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,814
Location
th
Ni is subjective pattern-matching, observing patterns in one's own subjective experiences. In particular, subjectivity focusses on the differences between you and other people.

"I'm in high school. I've never had a girlfriend. The guys on the football team all have attractive girlfriends. What's the difference between me and the football team? I'm lousy at sports and great at science. The guys on the football team, do lousy in science, and are good at sports. Ergo, girls have no interest in dating smart people, and only seem to be interested in muscle-bound morons. If I want to date, I'll have to become a muscle-bound moron."

Ne is objective pattern-matching, observing patterns in objective observations of reality. In particular, objectivity focusses on the similarities in things and in people.

"I'm in high school. I've never had a girlfriend. The guys on the football team all have attractive girlfriends. They also get drunk a lot. My older brother also goes to bars a lot, and he's always got a girlfriend. What do the guys who have girlfriends, all have in common? They all drink alcohol. Maybe girls like guys who drink? If I start drinking, maybe I'll get myself a girlfriend."
Obviously Ni hit the nail on the head. Truth is that people are only sexually attracted to people who have the best genes to survive in the wild and that includes the ability to produce a muscular and large physique.

But Ni would have to have objective references for a subjective observation such as grades, knowledge physique, or strength of a couple of jocks and a couple of nerds.

So essentially aren't they the same in that definition?
 

ENTP lurker

Usually useless
Local time
Today, 14:47
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
228
Location
Pluto, solar system
From what I heard about Ni users it is like when you get very confined climpse of Se like ball rolling you know symbolism behind it like where it goes what it has done how it relates to everything. From an INFJ it is not impossible to hear some metaphorical spiritual experience what wind does to a tree.

Ne while extraverted it goes inside to extract potential of an object idea etc. Research is one typical way to put it in action.
 

Spirit

ISTP Preference
Local time
Today, 07:47
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
508
Ne moves from one idea to many ideas.

Ni moves from many ideas to one idea.
 
Local time
Today, 09:47
Joined
Apr 11, 2014
Messages
1,077
I really enjoyed reading the metaphors on this thread.

I liken the cognitive functions to object-based programming. Intuitives working their perception closer to high-level language, and sensors working closer to the assembly / machine language.

Without any work on the perception, things are disorganized, sometimes repetitive, somewhat daunting. That's where intuitives start to abstract, and conceptualize. Organizing patterns into objects, and inheritance of those objects. Soon, what was of a 1900 line soup gets cleaned up into a nice brief table of contents, meta-grouped in three or four categories. Now, access to this data is quick and efficient.

But having just a conceptual idea does very little, as life does not come with a default compiler. That's where sensors come in. When dealing with gathering data or perception, the sensors start compiling things more into low-level assembly, often working right with the bits and bytes of things.

Bringing the analogy closer to understanding, I devise that the rationalizing functions work very similarly. Only now, we aren't working with gathering data, but utilizing, changing, transforming, and inventing which will eventually lead to an output.

Thinkers I'd say are much like the sensors but only in rationalizing data. When doing the transformations and processing, thinkers will work closer to the nuanced details of assembly. This would bring a more cognizant understanding of exactly how the information is being rationalized, and utilized.

The feelers are more like the intuitives. When it comes to judging and rationalizing, the meta abstractions collapse and conceptualize the ways to judge for easy and quick access. At the most highest level of abstraction, the table of contents may look somewhat similar to:

do good();
dont bad();

This would outline the difficulties when both types interact. For instance, sensors seem to go haphazard with getting info with no idea or plan on what they are doing. We would see them take the most unnecessary steps and redundant efforts, for something that would take us a mere 2 seconds to get the info for. However, we frustrate them as well, with our very bizarre 'up-in-the-clouds' concepts which have little to none actual 'data', or relevancy for when it comes time to actually perform a real-life situation. They'd really dare us to see our ideas in action.

As well with feelers, they seem to come up with output which they have no actual cognizance of the foundation in which it rests on. To us, their reasons why something is wrong, or good, or something to be enthusiastic for doesn't match the actual logic and laws which we base on reasoning. It's stressful for them to get deeper into the definitions of their high-level functions, as it strays farther away from sentience, and closer to something more mechanical, raw, and lifeless. Which that last sentence pretty well describes their frustration for thinkers.

~

There is one more dimension not covered, which is the vector of introversion and extroversion. It's probably debatable the way I describe it. I tend to see it as the difference of you, I and other as one whole unit, or each a separate individual as their own separate unit. What is the degree of connection between what you define as 'your self' and what is not yourself? Is that boundary bold and strong, or blurred and gradual?

At least that is okay for the dominant, leading function. In a general sense, I see extroversion as extrinsic and less personal, while introversion the opposite. With introversion, it's not only dealing with the 'personal' of just you, but also considering the other in which what makes them 'different'. Extroverted functions likes to play with similarities more, where everything shares similar properties and configuration. <- Which I suppose could also be conceptualized in a computer software context.
 
Local time
Today, 07:47
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,633
Location
subjective
TMills27

Thanks for writing that description.
it gave me some new definitions to work with.

Thinking
E: how can things be manipulated in the same way (metals tools apply to all tasks)
I: how can things be manipulated in different ways (my personal mental tools apply to different tasks)

Sensing
E: experience everything in the same way (as is)
I: how is this experience similar / different to previous experiences

Feeling
E: How is this good or bad assessed by everyone(the general value of everyone)
I: How is this good or bad for me and others (what do people disagree on or value separate from others)

Intuition
E: recognition of similar themes / relations that bring together ideas which form categorization.
I: recognition of ontological distinctiveness / a metaphysical axiom


INTP:

Ti: how can things be manipulated in different ways (my personal mental tools apply to different tasks)
Ne: recognition of similar themes / relations that bring together ideas which form categorization.
Si: how is this experience similar / different to previous experiences
Fe: How is this good or bad assessed by everyone (the general value of everyone)
 
Top Bottom