Ne and seeing hidden potentials in self and others

[tempral]

How does the Ne help to see hidden potentials in self and others? How does this process work?

[Expat]

Ne is about seeing "hidden potentials" in anything, a perception that "this" reality isn't the "only" reality. So if you see a drunken hobo on the street, if you use just Se you tend to see a drunken hobo and evaluate if he's any threat and any kind of obstacle. If you use just Ne, you won't see him as a hobo but rather, say, as a possible movie star if he'd only wash his clothes, forget the booze etc.

[FDG]

Ne is about seeing "hidden potentials" in anything, a perception that "this" reality isn't the "only" reality. So if you see a drunken hobo on the street, if you use just Se you tend to see a drunken hobo and evaluate if he's any threat and any kind of obstacle. If you use just Ne, you won't see him as a hobo but rather, say, as a possible movie star if he'd only wash his clothes, forget the booze etc.

Ok let's add, that Ne would see him as a potential movie star only if, for example, the hobo was reciting something and the talent was recognizable - I mean, there must be a physical clue for Ne to "start"

[Mea]

Ne is about seeing "hidden potentials" in anything, a perception that "this" reality isn't the "only" reality. So if you see a drunken hobo on the street, if you use just Se you tend to see a drunken hobo and evaluate if he's any threat and any kind of obstacle. If you use just Ne, you won't see him as a hobo but rather, say, as a possible movie star if he'd only wash his clothes, forget the booze etc.

Ok let's add, that Ne would see him as a potential movie star only if, for example, the hobo was reciting something and the talent was recognizable - I mean, there must be a physical clue for Ne to "start"

Eh. Not necessarily imo.
I think Ne would think "he could be... ", "if he would just... ", "doesn't mean he's this way now he's... ", bla bla.

[implied]

agree w/ mea that there need not be a physical cue to evaluate possibilities.

[FDG]

Ne is about seeing "hidden potentials" in anything, a perception that "this" reality isn't the "only" reality. So if you see a drunken hobo on the street, if you use just Se you tend to see a drunken hobo and evaluate if he's any threat and any kind of obstacle. If you use just Ne, you won't see him as a hobo but rather, say, as a possible movie star if he'd only wash his clothes, forget the booze etc.

Ok let's add, that Ne would see him as a potential movie star only if, for example, the hobo was reciting something and the talent was recognizable - I mean, there must be a physical clue for Ne to "start"

Eh. Not necessarily imo.
I think Ne would think "he could be... ", "if he would just... ", "doesn't mean he's this way now he's... ", bla bla.

And how can you guess he might become an actor if you haven't at least heard him talking for example? Just asking really, to understand better

[Mea]

Ne is about seeing "hidden potentials" in anything, a perception that "this" reality isn't the "only" reality. So if you see a drunken hobo on the street, if you use just Se you tend to see a drunken hobo and evaluate if he's any threat and any kind of obstacle. If you use just Ne, you won't see him as a hobo but rather, say, as a possible movie star if he'd only wash his clothes, forget the booze etc.

Ok let's add, that Ne would see him as a potential movie star only if, for example, the hobo was reciting something and the talent was recognizable - I mean, there must be a physical clue for Ne to "start"

Eh. Not necessarily imo.
I think Ne would think "he could be... ", "if he would just... ", "doesn't mean he's this way now he's... ", bla bla.

And how can you guess he might become an actor if you haven't at least heard him talking for example? Just asking really, to understand better

Err. I dunno.
Hmm. Say if my friends and I were to see that drunken hobo or whatever and point it out, and say something like "what a loser, look at that drunken hobo".
I'd probably think "No, he might not be like that all the time. he might be a rich business man who just lost money on some business venture or something. Or maybe he's a really talented artist, but he just hasn't made it big yet."
Or that actor example. Why not? You haven't even seen him act. He's just drunk. lol.
I mean, it's not always what you see is it?

[Expat]

Yeah, is a perception -- it's a window to a different world. Sure, the more there is a physical "clue" to that different world, the more realistic the chances of that potential being fulfilled are, but then you are also using "less" .

[anndelise]

I think the hobo being a possible movie star is a bit extreme, and in Expat's example, one would have to notice the dirtiness of his clothing, etc in order to suggest that "if he cleaned his clothes", etc. So in that sense, FDG had a point.

First things, would an Ne even label that person as being a hobo?.....they could be any number of things of which "hobo" is just one possibility.
Secondly, at least in the case of NeFi (unsure about the others), there would more likely be a wondering of the numerous ways this person could have reached such a state, what kinds of things might this person be experiencing in this state (the pros, the cons, the what ifs, the I wonders)... and maybe even what options this person may or may not have available for climbing out of this state.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Eheh. Let's compare. My mind would immediatly think:

How could he make his condition better?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Eheh. Let's compare. My mind would immediatly think:

How could he make his condition better?

I'd wonder if he wanted to or not. And if he did want to the steps he'd need to take.

Yeah, right after that I thought too that I should think if he wanted or not

[UDP]

Ne is used in so many different ways. Ne dominants, Ne creatives, and everyone has Ne somewhere in their functional ordering. Ne expresses itself most in the ego block, but the way an ENFp uses Ne is much different from how an INTj uses Ne, which is why it is a relationship of supervision.

In regard to the hobo, I would make critical insights based on his internal structure to see how likely his ability at success would be down the road -- if the real "stuff" was there, if he had real potential -- or rather, if he had the potential for potential, just based on his workings. To put it in laymens terms, it is like seeing an object known as an animal on the superficial level, and then we are asked if this animal is likely to outrun a human athlete - does it have a chance? Analysis of the animal would reveal many possibilities, we will use two: (A) - the animal is a frog; (B) the animal is a cheetah. Obviously in case A, the animal will not outrun a human athlete, where as in case B the animal has a greater chance of outrunning a human athlete. The structure and inherent potential of each animal is different.

In human terms, there is desire, outside situations, habits, willingness to learn and change, and many other factors that would determine whether the hobo is in camp A or camp B.

Human potential is a much more alive factor than anything else you can analyze however, because there are things that are not foreseeable. What if the hobo finds a copy of some incredibly inspiring literature, or a TV show if he cannot read? He may drop his talents and go into religion, or he may be inspired, even though he previously gave up on himself, to take up his talents and make the most of them. Any number of things can happen at any moment honestly. It is generally just a collection of derivatives form rational observations, but it is not easy to completely understand everything about a given person or situation, and even more difficult considering the constant flux and change of all things.

So in this way, is not designed to be extremely specific. Depending on its related functions, particularly if in the ego block, Ne is assited and comprehended through different means, each of which is just one more perspective on Ne.



In this way I think it is extremely important to note what other functions are assisting or related to Ne. As in the beginning: " the way an ENFp uses Ne is much different from how an INTj uses Ne,"

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think types would remember reali-life examples or their own daydreams where such a man had risen out of the gutter and become a film star - they may have perceived the potential in the man before they even knew he existed. Though a judging dominant type like UDP may wish to validate this perception when they see the man ( dominants would do that to a lesser degree).

[redbaron]

How does the Ne help to see hidden potentials in self and others? How does this process work?

Well for me, I'm constantly playing devil's advocate with everything (which drives my husband crazy, he thinks I'm picking fights) because I can see the possibilities, the flip sides of every coin. Even things that aren't likely but possible. It feels like my brain is constantly scanning for alternate reasons why something could be the way that it is, or possibilities for another choice or outcome. It's like a knee-jerk reaction.

Ne, applied to myself is awful. Because I see potential everywhere, I cannot act on anything. There are too many choices, too much that could happen. If one choice is made then by definition you are denying other possibilities. It's a wonder I ever got married.

[Logos]

How does the Ne help to see hidden potentials in self and others? How does this process work?

Well for me, I'm constantly playing devil's advocate with everything (which drives my husband crazy, he thinks I'm picking fights) because I can see the possibilities, the flip sides of every coin. Even things that aren't likely but possible. It feels like my brain is constantly scanning for alternate reasons why something could be the way that it is, or possibilities for another choice or outcome. It's like a knee-jerk reaction.

Ne, applied to myself is awful. Because I see potential everywhere, I cannot act on anything. There are too many choices, too much that could happen. If one choice is made then by definition you are denying other possibilities. It's a wonder I ever got married.

So you are an INFp who uses alot of ?

How does the Ne help to see hidden potentials in self and others? How does this process work?

In part, is about what could be in objects, people, and events. In contrast, is about the real properties of objects, people, and events. It is like origami or balloon animals; it is just a piece of paper or balloon, but the shaper can see it and seemingly fold and twist it into a number of different things. Or it is like the kid who plays with an empty refrigerator box and sees it as a fortress, a cave, a spaceship, a house, a boat, a volcano, etc.

With and people, it is a similar process. is a function that is also about the quality or essence of a thing, which is why is also associated as the function of generalization and simplification. It is about knowing someone and being able to recognize that they have a certain quality that they could easily transfer for other uses of association. "This person is really good at X, and they could always choose be 1, 2, or 3, which all requires the use of X."

[Gilly]

One of my more recent Ne potential experiences:

I was at a party at my roommate's fraternity and a fight broke out between one of his brothers and some alumn. My roommate and I eventually got the two guys to seperate, but the alumn was wasted and kept trying to make his way over to the brother to try to start shit again. I was trying to strategically place myself between the two guys, but the alumn was definitely heavier than I was, so he managed to get by me eventually, and I wasn't up for really starting shit with him myself at the time. Looking around, I saw my friend Ben, a 6'5", 250+ lb football player, standing about 5 feet away. I signaled to him and pointed at the alumn, and mouthed "Get in between them!" He looked at me sorta bewildered for a second, so I repeated, and he got the gist. He put himself between the two guys, and just conveniently got in the guy's way in the midst of the crowd. The alumb ended up getting confused and frustrated, and wandered away.

Hooray for Ne w/ Si values

[tcaudilllg]

I've begun thinking more and more that corresponds to archetypal apprehension.

In particular, my own visions appear to be populated by archetypal, momentary characters. I can imagine a crowd of people at a political rally, but what I tend to see, if not a memory of an actual rally, is something akin to a movie clip of archetypal actors playing the part of the rally.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I've begun thinking more and more that corresponds to archetypal apprehension.

In particular, my own visions appear to be populated by archetypal, momentary characters. I can imagine a crowd of people at a political rally, but what I tend to see, if not a memory of an actual rally, is something akin to a movie clip of archetypal actors playing the part of the rally.

How can help you understand an archetype if generates possibilties? on its own doesn't give meaning, and it can't generate 'new' archetypes, because archetypes are supposed to be shared by all humans. I don't understand...

[tcaudilllg]

I've begun thinking more and more that corresponds to archetypal apprehension.

In particular, my own visions appear to be populated by archetypal, momentary characters. I can imagine a crowd of people at a political rally, but what I tend to see, if not a memory of an actual rally, is something akin to a movie clip of archetypal actors playing the part of the rally.

How can help you understand an archetype if generates possibilties? on its own doesn't give meaning, and it can't generate 'new' archetypes, because archetypes are supposed to be shared by all humans. I don't understand...

You can't generate new archetypes... but you can generate new complexes thereof. When I meant archetypes, I was not referring to the "atom of apprehension" described by Jung, but rather "molecules" and "compounds" thereof. Complexes created by many archetypes that cohere. Imagine, using the rules of archetypal coherence (whatever they are) to generate ideas. Remember possibilities must be modeled via neurons for them to be apprehended by ourselves. And Jung describes archetypes as "inherent in the brain structure."

[Not A Communist Shill]

I thought complexes were created from the external world to your unconscious, represented by any number of eternal archetypes that we share...if you are suppose to be unaware of them, apart from what other people have told you, e.g. a psychiatrist, how are you suppose to consciously develop them?