Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Ni vs Ne?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    83
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Ni vs. Ne?

    I recently had an argument with a friend (an IEI) about whether or not 1+1 always equals 2. My argument was basically for 1+1 to not equal 2, you would need to change the definition of either 1, +, =, or 2 to get a different answer. He basically said that there is always room for doubt and nothing is absolutely true all the time. He then accused me of having too much faith in the system that I have been "forced" into and that I need to expand my mind, but I countered that I didn't need faith because if someone wanted to prove that 1+1=2, they wouldn't have a very hard time, unlike someone who was trying to prove that 1+1 could equal anything else. I'm sure you can assume that we were not in our right minds at the time, but I'm still irritated by what he was trying to force upon me. I kinda had flashbacks of 1984, like he was trying to convince me that 2+2=5.

    Anyway, I'm using this as what I would consider an example of an argument against because I'm having trouble differentiating between the two. Feel free to add anything and/or provide your own examples.
    INTj

  2. #2
    Stormy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Herts, UK
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ni vs. Ne?

    Quote Originally Posted by ataronchronon
    ...if someone wanted to prove that 1+1=2, they wouldn't have a very hard time, unlike someone who was trying to prove that 1+1 could equal anything else.
    Depends on your definition of 'to prove'.
    -
    [Stormy] [LII]

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it's vs .

    It's more + with PoLR vs + .
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4
    Stormy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Herts, UK
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "The arithmetic perhaps is the only discipline where INTps cannot use their powers of ambiguity. 2 + 2 = 4 will always remain true, although it is not inconceivable to assume that at some point an INTp was contemplating a different result. On the other hand, the very foundation of arithmetic was built upon few self evident axioms, and it is the self evident part of course that is very much INTp debatable."
    - INTp Uncovered
    [Stormy] [LII]

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In a sense a feeling function can be seen as one that gives thoughts of living in a world of doubt where nothing is certain. INFp has feeling as a creative function, so there are also likely to take liberties using Fe and to stick with what they discover through it's use (as using it again is strainful).

    Doubting premisses is ordinarily a characteristic of function axes that have an introverted function that is also external (Ti/Fe and Si/Ne). Of the two functions the introverted external one is the one that navigates the 'world of uncertainty' from a subjective viewpoint and manages to find certainties within it despite the chaos.

    Another thing to notice: accepting Ti and creative Fe are both empowering functions. I interpret this as meaning they seek extremes and test how radical ideas they can come up with... Empowering Ti and empowering Fe need not necessarily agree, as neither of them wants to give up it's supposed position of being in command.

    I have always been convinced that feeling functions play a much greater role in philosophy and intellectual matters than is commonly understood.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sigh... I always find it hard to read anything an INTj has written.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    83
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Sigh... I always find it hard to read anything an INTj has written.
    Side notes, which I use frequently, are a bitch. Aren't they? That's how I really talk though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I don't think it's vs .

    It's more + with PoLR vs + .
    Hmm, I can definitely see where comes into play. I ignored the urge to simply state that he was not being practical, but that would not have proved him wrong.

    You wouldn't say has a part in this at all?
    INTj

  8. #8
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana
    Lack of Te. You could have handed him one object - asked him if he was holding one object - then handed him a second object while asking if it was one object as well, then ask him to tell you how many objects he was now holding in his hand. If he continued to argue, suggest he be sent back to kindergarten.
    HAHA

    Anyway, I would personally never make that kind of argument. But maybe Ne and Ti together would? I don't know - it does seem more Te vs. Ti to me.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  9. #9
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd say Te vs. Ti.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ni vs. Ne?

    Quote Originally Posted by ataronchronon
    I recently had an argument with a friend (an IEI) about whether or not 1+1 always equals 2. My argument was basically for 1+1 to not equal 2, you would need to change the definition of either 1, +, =, or 2 to get a different answer.
    You are perfectly right about that. But most often when I have made your point here it has been in discussions with INTjs or other types from the group of philosophers that I have called "Relativists" or "Subjectivists". They all seem to think from a different perspective than I am -- a non-Te perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by ataronchronon
    He basically said that there is always room for doubt and nothing is absolutely true all the time.
    And many of those relativists tend to believe that it is possible to be uncritical skeptics like your IEI friend. In my opinion and other Te-philosophers opinion that is a mistake. Such a skepticism is not critical towards itself; it is dogmatic. And we should instead try to be critical skeptics -- that is the only rationally justified kind of skepticism.

    Even if it would turn out that we all have been deluded and that 2+2 does not equal 4, there is no room for doubt. None of us can truly doubt that 2+2=4, because our "doubt" doesn't make any sense. We could as well doubt that we know the meanings of the words we use to express that "doubt". We cannot choose to doubt anything we want at will. We have to have a reason to doubt. Otherwise it is nothing but a play with words.

    But to focus on words (language) rather than the referents to the words (the world) is what differentiates the Relativists from the group of philosophers that I (and others) have called "Objectivists". Typical representatives of the Objectvist attitude to these problems are Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper, who both might have been ENTjs. At least Popper has an extremely clear Te perspective, but in my opinion so does Russell, even though some socionists believe that he was an ENTp.

  11. #11
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sounds like your friend is an idiot who took too many 100 level philosophy courses in college.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  12. #12
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He was right; 1+1 can be equal also to 1+1, or 3-1

    However if generalized you always get 1+1=(n+2)-n so if you cancel the n's, you get 2
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Or, you're rounding those 1s down. So 1.4 + 1.4 = 2 is wrong, as you would round it up.

    Therefore, 1+1 = 3.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  14. #14
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Perhaps if it was like the natural Limit of 1 + the Limit of 1, but even with limits, it is generally accepted that the Limit of 1 means that it acts like 1 for all general practical purposes.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    1 is defined as 1, not 1.4, therefore it's still irrelevant.

    You could go and redefine the value of 1 as 1.4, but then it's still irrelevant because you're not even talking about the same concept.
    You don't need to redefine it, you've just rounded it. Not hard to grasp, really.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  16. #16
    eunice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    TIM
    Ne-INFj
    Posts
    2,955
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Ni vs. Ne?

    Quote Originally Posted by ataronchronon
    I recently had an argument with a friend (an IEI) about whether or not 1+1 always equals 2. My argument was basically for 1+1 to not equal 2, you would need to change the definition of either 1, +, =, or 2 to get a different answer. He basically said that there is always room for doubt and nothing is absolutely true all the time. He then accused me of having too much faith in the system that I have been "forced" into and that I need to expand my mind, but I countered that I didn't need faith because if someone wanted to prove that 1+1=2, they wouldn't have a very hard time, unlike someone who was trying to prove that 1+1 could equal anything else. I'm sure you can assume that we were not in our right minds at the time, but I'm still irritated by what he was trying to force upon me. I kinda had flashbacks of 1984, like he was trying to convince me that 2+2=5.

    Anyway, I'm using this as what I would consider an example of an argument against because I'm having trouble differentiating between the two. Feel free to add anything and/or provide your own examples.
    You mean your friend argued over a trivial matter like this?

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    1 is defined as 1, not 1.4, therefore it's still irrelevant.

    You could go and redefine the value of 1 as 1.4, but then it's still irrelevant because you're not even talking about the same concept.
    You don't need to redefine it, you've just rounded it. Not hard to grasp, really.
    Approximations are also irrelevant.
    I'm finding it hard to find a reason why you would say that.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, but you could write that down and it would be correct, in that instance. That's the only way you can get around it, is to miss out information.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  19. #19
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I thought the point was like Gilly said, a Philosophy 101 type thing. Like, numbers don't mean anything in and of themselves - their meaning is completely reliant on us, and therefore arbitrary. That seems like a Ti argument to me.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
    I thought the point was like Gilly said, a Philosophy 101 type thing. Like, numbers don't mean anything in and of themselves - their meaning is completely reliant on us, and therefore arbitrary. That seems like a Ti argument to me.
    Of course. That's why different languages use different, and sometimes the same words to mean different things.

    The word "four" and the numeral "4" will have no meaning to tribesmen in Africa if they've never been taught what they mean, but they still have a knowledge of the value that we call four.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  21. #21
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Me and my friend once had a debate about that..It was never settled, actually...

    Basically the argument of the opposing side (against me) is that 1 can be called one or it can be called *insert whatever here* and that numerals don't matter because their like human invention or something...

    My argument was that even if 1 wasn't called 1 it would still represent 1.. Say you had this II ... now you add this II.. Together it's II II ...which is IIII.. and no matter what, when II and II is put together, it will be IIII...

    He never understood, and instead of trying to prove me wrong, just descended deeper into his angstfest,,, I felt smart >_>

  23. #23
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,624
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Even if you were to debate that the 1 was ment to be ordinal, ordinal addition is not computable since the sets are always disjointed.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  24. #24
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,605
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kioshi
    "+" is also used to denote single group operations that have a commutative property and "*" to denote single group operations that do not have a commutative property. "1" or "e" is used to denote the identity for "*". "0" is used to denote the identity for "+". Beyond this I can use any symbol to represent any element in my set. There is no convention that says "1+1" must equal "2".
    You have an issue with decimal notation?

  25. #25
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is all completely meaningless. Kioshi, the fact that numbers are "symbols" has nothing to do with the question at hand. The fact that that an inherent value is IMPLIED is pretty fucking obvious, and there's no other way of getting around it. Stop trying to look smart.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    This is all completely meaningless. Kioshi, the fact that numbers are "symbols" has nothing to do with the question at hand. The fact that that an inherent value is IMPLIED is pretty fucking obvious, and there's no other way of getting around it. Stop trying to look smart.
    THANK YOU

  27. #27
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, well, at least you understand that you're a complete quack.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  28. #28
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Even Bertrand Russell couldn't prove 1+1=2. So why do we try it?

    It's an axiom and that's what it always stays.

    But that's not a problem, it has proven it's use until now.

  29. #29
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,605
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kioshi
    I notice the lack of decimal notation in naming the elements of the socion. Why do you suppose this is? Do you think they had an issue with decimal notation?
    Group theory is more "convenient" for talking about the socion than about 1+1=2. You're abstracting out essential properties. Ever heard of the Peano postulates?

  30. #30
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,605
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This thread is kind of funny, in a sick, twisted way.

  31. #31
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    God, more like depressing...
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  32. #32
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    edit.

  33. #33
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Addition is an arithmetical operation.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  34. #34
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wasn't aware that we were referring to any other kind.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  35. #35
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, in arithmetic addition, 1+1=2, no matter what, given the assumed arithmetic definitions and numerical values of all of those symbols.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  36. #36
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually I thought of a way in which 1 + 1 != 2, but it requires a departure from integers. 1 Thing A + 1 Thing B = 1 Super Combined Thing AB!
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  37. #37
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So 1+1=1?

    Dude.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  38. #38
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elro
    So 1+1=1?

    Dude.
    That is generally how it is when making love too. :wink:
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  39. #39
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Quote Originally Posted by Elro
    So 1+1=1?

    Dude.
    That is generally how it is when making love too. :wink:


    Tell us more!
    Sure, and I'll even do it in song:
    I sit looking 'round
    I look at my face in the the mirror
    I know I'm worth nothing without you
    In life one and one don't make two
    One and one make one
    And I'm looking for that free ride to me
    I'm looking for you

    I'd gladly lose me to find you
    I'd gladly give up all I got
    To catch you I'm gonna run and never stop

    I'd pay any price just to win you
    Surrender my good life for bad
    To find you I'm gonna drown an unsung man

    I'd call that a bargain
    The best I ever had
    The best I ever had
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  40. #40
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1+1=2 is an axiom.

    You can't prove it, because there's nothing of total certainty on which it is build upon.

    Axioms are taken for granted. If one will be proven wrong, everything else collapses.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •