Extraverted Intuition

[Elro]

How would you describe Ne? (In your own words.)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If I'm in a library of many books, I can't read all of them. But I have read some of them. I know that books next to books I have already read will be similar in content, so I don't need to read all of the books.

It's quite easy for me to take pages out a book I have already read and to replace those pages with other pages, or to just write some new pages myself. Each book gives me a general idea or an image, and I can play around with that to get new ideas or images, which might basically be the same (i.e. tailored slightly to whatever problem I have) or almost completely different.

If I'm in a new situation that is alien to me, I consider past solutions to problems with slight similarities to the problem currently facing me. I choose the best solution based on my limited understanding, but with alterations where relevant.

[Mariano Rajoy]

In my words, I see extroverted intuition as a third person awareness of the connections between things.

The simple example I like is of Isaac Newton seeing the connection between the apple falling to the ground and the moon rotating around the earth. Both phenomenon are explained by gravity.

His question is 'why does the apple fall and the moon rotate?', which is a third person (extroverted) orientation.

Contrast this with an introverted, first person intuitive orientation which would not necessarily seek relationships between things, but instead predict what the thing will do next, or even intuit the rate at which the apple falls. Perhaps Ni would ask, 'when or how does the apple fall, and are there instances when it does not fall?'

Essentially, I see extroversion and introversion as third person and first person. Intuition is seeing the connections and relationships of or between things.

.02

[Creepy-bg]

It's quite easy for me to take pages out a book I have already read and to replace those pages with other pages, or to just write some new pages myself.

your local library must love you.

[Not A Communist Shill]

your local library must love you.

My motto is: "There's me and then there's everybody else"

[tereg]

I just wrote this the other day, and I think this is pretty much how I see .

Not only are there connections between objects in my head, but there exist objects that I think can connect, I'm pretty sure that I can connect, but the connection does not exist yet.

...

It really is like a spider web, but not as symmetric, and the nodes are of different shapes and sizes.

I can't see the whole web at the same time. Only the object I'm on and relatively nearby objects. To get to an object that is far away, I have to traverse through several objects to see it.

When I can't make a connection, I put it aside but it doesn't leave my mind. It's almost like a mental to do list of which each piece is associated with an object on the web.

The web is intricate and ornate. I get lost in it sometimes.

This has been mentioned, but I agree -- it's about being able to see the connections between two (or more) objects or ideas. It's a melding of those objects and ideas and seeing the connections between them.

Examples: When I see someone's face and their face reminds me of someone.

When a topic is discussed and there was a point that was made in some article that I read in the past (maybe a few days ago, maybe a month ago... the amount of time is arbitrary) and I know generally how to access that point.

When I hear a song, and something about the song reminds me of a similar song or artist, be it in style or melody, and I remember where it was that I heard it.


These things come naturally to me, and I feel like I'm constantly in this kind of connectedness zone. Things I sense, see, touch, smell, taste on a daily basis reminds me of things that are very similar. And I'm constantly drawing comparisons to things that I perceive (which uses other functions to assist that process, like and )

[anndelise]

I have often described Ne as a flash of lightening. The ones that have branches off of branches off of branches. And the end points of all those branches would be what hits my mind near simultaneously.



It can be staggering overwhelming at times.

But just as you can see in the picture, some of those branches are stronger than others..this helps signify that the end point (sudden thought/image/feeling) is likely to be brighter than those with thinner, less hardy branches. The stronger the point/branch, it seems, the more potentiality it has to be. I think that this may have something to do with the connections in the brain. Some of the books I've read have talked about how some mental pathways that are traveled regularly have stronger connections, while those less traveled grow weaker and/or break (you forget).

Regardless of exactness, this is how it's always felt to me. As well as Fi being what I use to help me sort through them. (I honestly don't understand how Ti can sort through it, but theory says that there are NeTi, and some people identify with NeTi, so, *shrugs* )

An example of it in more practical terms would be if I'm reading a sentence.
"(a) blah blah (b) blah (d) blah blah blah (f)."

My mind more often reads it as something more like:
"(a, g, h, j) blah blah (r, b) blah (f, d, e) blah blah blah (f?huh???)."
In order to sort through that, I have to pay attention to what might have been going on inside the person who made the statement, and if I don't know them well enough, I may have to resort to questions along the lines of
"are you saying '(g) blah blah (b) blah (e) blah blah blah (f)?'
Or is it '(a) blah blah (r) blah (d) blah blah blah (f?huh???)?"

Anyways, the point of that example was to show how the lightening branch points show up in studies and conversations. At least in writing I can reread it a few times to figure out the meaning. In real time, I become quiet and nervous and unsure unless we're talking about people's relationships with others/things. With those subjects, I'm able to figure out the points involved at a much faster rate, and can thus actually, maybe, carry on a conversation about it, lol.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[machintruc]

I have often described Ne as a flash of lightening. The ones that have branches off of branches off of branches. And the end points of all those branches would be what hits my mind near simultaneously.

That reminds me how LSI's think and do.

[tereg]

One thing. Ti and Fi are connecting things, not Ne. So NeFi and NeTi might both describe Ne as the connections they're making, but the connections are made through Ti and Fi, not through Ne. It's the branching out splitting and possibilities that is Ne, imo, not the connections made between things.

I liked ann's description. It captures it well, imo.

And I'm constantly drawing comparisons to things that I perceive (which uses other functions to assist that process, like and )

I think Si helps with the the connecting as well.

After I made my post, I was trying to picture how connections are made using , and I know it can be done, but I'm having a difficult time seeing how that would look or work.

[xyz]

I have often described Ne as a flash of lightening. The ones that have branches off of branches off of branches. And the end points of all those branches would be what hits my mind near simultaneously.



It can be staggering overwhelming at times.

But just as you can see in the picture, some of those branches are stronger than others..this helps signify that the end point (sudden thought/image/feeling) is likely to be brighter than those with thinner, less hardy branches. The stronger the point/branch, it seems, the more potentiality it has to be. I think that this may have something to do with the connections in the brain. Some of the books I've read have talked about how some mental pathways that are traveled regularly have stronger connections, while those less traveled grow weaker and/or break (you forget).

Regardless of exactness, this is how it's always felt to me. As well as Fi being what I use to help me sort through them. (I honestly don't understand how Ti can sort through it, but theory says that there are NeTi, and some people identify with NeTi, so, *shrugs* )

An example of it in more practical terms would be if I'm reading a sentence.
"(a) blah blah (b) blah (d) blah blah blah (f)."

My mind more often reads it as something more like:
"(a, g, h, j) blah blah (r, b) blah (f, d, e) blah blah blah (f?huh???)."
In order to sort through that, I have to pay attention to what might have been going on inside the person who made the statement, and if I don't know them well enough, I may have to resort to questions along the lines of
"are you saying '(g) blah blah (b) blah (e) blah blah blah (f)?'
Or is it '(a) blah blah (r) blah (d) blah blah blah (f?huh???)?"

Anyways, the point of that example was to show how the lightening branch points show up in studies and conversations. At least in writing I can reread it a few times to figure out the meaning. In real time, I become quiet and nervous and unsure unless we're talking about people's relationships with others/things. With those subjects, I'm able to figure out the points involved at a much faster rate, and can thus actually, maybe, carry on a conversation about it, lol.

Woah, that's nuts.

[anndelise]

One thing. Ti and Fi are connecting things, not Ne. So NeFi and NeTi might both describe Ne as the connections they're making, but the connections are made through Ti and Fi, not through Ne. It's the branching out splitting and possibilities that is Ne, imo, not the connections made between things.

agreed
just wanted to add to what you said though.
It is a bit difficult to separate Ne from either Ti/Fi and even Si or maybe even Ni. The thing I tried to express more though, is that while yes, it feels like being zapped by a bunch of lightening strikes at once, the Ne aspect are all those points or dots or snapshots that popped up. And that the Ti and Fi, i believe, make the connections between them or between them and what triggered the strike in the first place. Hence why it can also feel like a web with the points being a swarm of flies that suddenly trap themselves (maybe? lol, horrible image). So it often becomes difficult separating it all out Ne or Ti/Fi vs Ne with Ti/Fi when trying to describe it.

edited to add, and yeah, also separating how Si and Ni may or may not play a role as well. for example, Ni is strong and unconscious, but then Si is the compliment to Ne, so..*shrugs*

[anndelise]

IEE are nuts.

Hey!! whoever said we weren't??
but hang out with us long enough and it'll rub off on ya muhahahaha

[tereg]

IEE are nuts.

*fist pump*

[Mariano Rajoy]

After I made my post, I was trying to picture how connections are made using , and I know it can be done, but I'm having a difficult time seeing how that would look or work.

In the case of NeTi, the organization of information becomes important. A list, for example, would organize everything in order for new connections and insights to be made.

In the example of Newton making the connection between the apple falling and the moon orbiting, Ti would set the two phenomenon together (in a logical order) and Ne would make the connection between the two. The connection only being possible because of the structuring beforehand that allowed for the Ne connection to present itself.

I can't find it now, but I remember an NeTi profile that mentioned how the NeTi liked to order or highlight new information. hmm...

[tereg]

In the case of NeTi, the organization of information becomes important. A list, for example, would organize everything in order for new connections and insights to be made.

In the example of Newton making the connection between the apple falling and the moon orbiting, Ti would set the two phenomenon together (in a logical order) and Ne would make the connection between the two. The connection only being possible because of the structuring beforehand that allowed for the Ne connection to present itself.

Ok, give me a sec... I'm going to talk (type?) out loud as I work through this.

Ok. In Newton's example, I'm still... hmm, missing something. And it's not the individual concepts themselves that are confusing me, it's how Newton made the connection logically that is throwing me off.

And I'm trying to think of this in a different way other than putting myself in Newton's position and observing and extrapolating the connection. Because if I put myself in that spot, and I observe an apple falling, I'm still not seeing (at the moment anyway) the connection between the apple and an orbiting mass, other than working out the math on paper and working through the law of gravity on a mass near the earth's surface and an object with a velocity that is orbiting the earth.-- I'm wondering if this is what you're referring to when you're talking about the pre-established structure.

I mean, I can say that the centripetal force of gravity accelerates a mass towards the center of the earth. No problem. And I understand that it's the same force that is being applied to the moon that possesses a velocity that is orbiting the earth.


There's still... *sigh*... there's still something missing. It's like, I'd have to think that Newton's intuition the moment that he realized that a connection can be made between the apple falling and the orbiting bodies that he had a hunch or some semblance of an idea about something, and then he worked out the mathematics (the foundational structure) to prove his intuition. Some sort of observable trait.

What was that something? Was it some sort of progression like "The apple falls straight down if there's no tangential velocity. It arcs when I throw the apple. If I shoot it out of a really powerful cannon the arc is more prolonged, and it starts to circle the earth but falls back down. If I blast it out even farther, it will leave the influence of the earth's gravity and float off. Somewhere in between the mass can stay in orbit for a long time."

Wait, is that it?

I dunno, something still feels a bit off.

[Brilliand]

After I made my post, I was trying to picture how connections are made using , and I know it can be done, but I'm having a difficult time seeing how that would look or work.

What's the square root of a muskrat?

I don't know yet. Maybe I'll figure it out someday!

[Not A Communist Shill]

What's the square root of a muskrat?

One muskrat.

The squareroot of two muskrats would be a bloody mess plus one upset muskrat.

[Brilliand]

One muskrat.

The squareroot of two muskrats would be a bloody mess plus one upset muskrat.

You forget to take the square root of the units as well. The square root of an acre is not one acre - it's about 64 meters.

[Not A Communist Shill]

You forget to take the square root of the units as well. The square root of an acre is not one acre - it's about 64 meters.

Ah, but an acre is a two-dimensional unit. Muskrats are three-dimensional, but are typically recorded in one-dimensional units.

[Elro]

The observation of
Causation at rest

The property of property monism

The one, which begot two which begot three which begot many

Come again?

[Brilliand]

Ah, but an acre is a two-dimensional unit.

Not in any pure sense. It's two-dimensional, compared with a meter. But it has an altogether different relationship with the kilogram and the identity (unitless real numbers). If you took the square root of four meters, you would have to remember that you were working in square roots of meters, until you could get it back to normal with another operation (either squaring it or multiplying by the square root of a meter).

[Elro]

What do you need me to explain?

The whole thing, in slightly less ambiguous terms

[Not A Communist Shill]

Not in any pure sense. It's two-dimensional, compared with a meter. But it has an altogether different relationship with the kilogram and the identity (unitless real numbers). If you took the square root of four meters, you would have to remember that you were working in square roots of meters, until you could get it back to normal with another operation (either squaring it or multiplying by the square root of a meter).

An acre always refers to an area of land, and equals about 4047 metres squared. If you square the metre figure, you get 64 metres to the power of 1.

Muskrats are nearly always recorded to the power of 1.

[Brilliand]

The observation of Causation at rest

I think this simply says that cause and effect does not necessarily need to be time-related. Observing cause and effect, without bringing time into the equation, is

The property of property monism

Weird concept, this. It sounds very , though. All properties are merely aspects of one ultimate reality? I'd rather say reality is just a pile of properties.

The one, which begot two which begot three which begot many

One thing bringing to mind many, as anndelise stated. Often these concepts will be systemized ( in hkkmr's case), making them permanent.

Have I gotten them right?

An acre always refers to an area of land, and equals about 4047 metres squared. If you square the metre figure, you get 64 metres to the power of 1.

Muskrats are nearly always recorded to the power of 1.

Muskrats are recorded in units of "muskrats." Therefore the square root of four muskrats is 2 "square root of muskrat"s. Presumably the concept of a muskrat can be systemized so as to provide a meaningful value for its square root - I have not accomplished this yet though.

[Brilliand]

I have been extremely unambiguous, rather I've been extremely concise.

You seem to have just taken a blob of thought out of your head and splattered it on the forum, without any thought to those around you. Translate your ideas into the common tongue!

Or you could just critique my translation.

[Logos]

I think Si helps with the the connecting as well.

After I made my post, I was trying to picture how connections are made using , and I know it can be done, but I'm having a difficult time seeing how that would look or work.

How about the logical connections of ideas and concepts and their modular formation?

[anndelise]

I think Si helps with the the connecting as well.

After I made my post, I was trying to picture how connections are made using , and I know it can be done, but I'm having a difficult time seeing how that would look or work.

How about the logical connections of ideas and concepts and their modular formation?

I'll admit, over the past year and half it's become a bit easier to grasp TiNe. But NeTi ...i can't even imagine it.

Like, if I were to attempt to imagine NeTi as the Ne points that hit my mind all of a sudden, and then try to find logical connections between them, that's like...so...energy inefficient (to me, obviously). Like, when dealing with people, there's no time to sit there and go through them all like that because the person's already moved on and triggering more lightening zaps.

I try to imagine doing that while working with say..words, and again, I can't get it. I've purchased a number of books to help me learn critical thinking and logic and arguments. And everytime I try to sit down with them, I feel like a wall has shut down in my brain, coming between me and my goal. Can't go over the wall, can't go around it, can't go under it, and can't go through it. Sometimes I even try taking a frigging sledgehammer to it. So I'm left to guess my way around. Just toss stuff in there, use the edit button and rearrange things until I reach a point where I can read what I wrote and there are far fewer lightening points striking. This is the closest I can get to "logical connections of ideas and concepts and their modular formation". I have no way of checking my work except by seeing what others say. And since coming to this forum I've learned to have certain people preview what I've written so they can point out any major flaws.

The concept that someone could even find logical connections between the lightning points is almost awe-inspiring to think of, nauseous to actually imagine doing, and makes me wonder why the hell someone would even want to do that in the first place. (though I guess if I take into consideration the process/results and/or maybe even the constructivist/emotivist dichotomies, then it might make sense. ENTps are said to be process+constructivist; ENFps are said to be results+emotivist. So I guess, if my goal was process+constructivist, then it's not so sickening to contemplate.)

Hmmm, that kind of makes sense to me. But I wish I knew more about those dichotomies and how well they actually fit people/types. *looks around for some entps to interrogate*

edited to add: strike out that last statement, i haven't a clue what kinds of questions to ask them yet, and after reading hkkmr's description of Ne, i probably wouldn't understand their answers, either.

[Brilliand]

You would rather say reality is a "pile of properties"? Unconnected? Without relation? Or perhaps related by attraction, perhaps connected by polarity...

*blink* A pile of properties... connected, sure... I don't have everything connected in my head, but I hope that every property is connected to every other such that they can be combined in any permutation.

My point is that "monism" is a little too close, as though they're not only related but the same thing.

It is not about systemization, it is about transformation. The system is a experiment, the transformation is not.

...Transformation? That makes me think of a higher-order function in mathematics. But that isn't what you mean, is it?

Sometimes I speak to explain a understanding to others, other times I speak to gather a understanding of another. Which is which?

I have taken no blob of thought from my head, nor have I been inconsiderate of those around me, but rather, I have been extremely considerate and I've written a dagger to the essence of the matter, but you perhaps observe only the hilt or the flat of the blade. But I pierce with the point and cut with the edge.

Fair enough.

[tereg]

I think Si helps with the the connecting as well.

After I made my post, I was trying to picture how connections are made using , and I know it can be done, but I'm having a difficult time seeing how that would look or work.

How about the logical connections of ideas and concepts and their modular formation?

See, I see what you've written and it's... I'm drawing a blank. I see a strict definition of . I mean I understand on a very... hmm bird's eye view of the subject. Like, the conceptualization of it is kind of there, but in order for my mind to make some sort of substance of it, I have to work through examples.

Like (and I'm just rhetorically asking this at the moment, just to illustrate what I'm saying) what do these modular formations look like? What is the process of logically connecting the ideas or concepts?

Which then moves me to try to think of examples of this concept in action. My mind has a difficult time seeing a definition that is either a bit of a mystery to me, or maybe I understand it in some high level way but I couldn't explain to you or demonstrate my understanding of it (i.e. Me proving to you that I understood what you just said).

I'll admit, over the past year and half it's become a bit easier to grasp TiNe. But NeTi ...i can't even imagine it.

Like, if I were to attempt to imagine NeTi as the Ne points that hit my mind all of a sudden, and then try to find logical connections between them, that's like...so...energy inefficient (to me, obviously). Like, when dealing with people, there's no time to sit there and go through them all like that because the person's already moved on and triggering more lightening zaps.

I try to imagine doing that while working with say..words, and again, I can't get it. I've purchased a number of books to help me learn critical thinking and logic and arguments. And everytime I try to sit down with them, I feel like a wall has shut down in my brain, coming between me and my goal. Can't go over the wall, can't go around it, can't go under it, and can't go through it. Sometimes I even try taking a frigging sledgehammer to it. So I'm left to guess my way around. Just toss stuff in there, use the edit button and rearrange things until I reach a point where I can read what I wrote and there are far fewer lightening points striking. This is the closest I can get to "logical connections of ideas and concepts and their modular formation". I have no way of checking my work except by seeing what others say. And since coming to this forum I've learned to have certain people preview what I've written so they can point out any major flaws.

The concept that someone could even find logical connections between the lightning points is almost awe-inspiring to think of, nauseous to actually imagine doing, and makes me wonder why the hell someone would even want to do that in the first place. (though I guess if I take into consideration the process/results and/or maybe even the constructivist/emotivist dichotomies, then it might make sense. ENTps are said to be process+constructivist; ENFps are said to be results+emotivist. So I guess, if my goal was process+constructivist, then it's not so sickening to contemplate.)

Hmmm, that kind of makes sense to me. But I wish I knew more about those dichotomies and how well they actually fit people/types. *looks around for some entps to interrogate*

edited to add: strike out that last statement, i haven't a clue what kinds of questions to ask them yet, and after reading hkkmr's description of Ne, i probably wouldn't understand their answers, either.

And just continuing on my point, ^ this is exactly what is happening to me as well. When I try to work through examples in my head, it's a bit of an enigma to me, and so intriguing to see others do it. It takes so much energy for me to connect things in that way. I have to slowly trudge through it-- take a piece, look at it, understand it, ok, next piece, look at it, how does it relate to the first piece, re-read the first piece, re-read the second piece, ok we good?, ok, next...

A very method of compensating for it (and very inefficient I might add).

And for me, I have also been interested in improving my critical thinking, logical ways of thinking about things. Who was it, I was talking to niffweed about this. Even though I really struggle with it, I still keep trying. It is frustrating at times; I often find myself brain locked and still trying to process these concepts, and missing a lot of other concepts that are being spoken on while I'm still processing. But it's not so frustrating that it repulses me. It's still a bit embarassing when concepts just completely fly over my head. And it's this constant stream of missed concepts. Oh wait, I caught a phrase that I understand that really doesn't have anything to do with what I'm trying to process. Yay.



Anyways, the point is, is that examples (in this specific case, examples of how to connecting ideas and concepts in logical ways) help me to gain substantive understanding on the essence of the matter. It's a bit of a delayed reaction for me.

Wait for it... wait for it.... "Ahh, a ha! Ok"

But sometime, I'm not so fortunate, and I'm still left with a cloud of jumbled concepts that isn't satisfactorily connected in my mind -- yyyeah, I kinda see how that works but... I couldn't regurgitate it back to you really without hitting a wall. Give me some time to work through it some more.



I feel like I'm beating the same drum and just recycling the same ideas that have already been expressed, but with different words.

[Lotus]

How can you ask someone with Ne to explain Ne?
There's so many ways to describe it!




EDIT: And then there's my avatar...

[Not A Communist Shill]

Ideas and concepts would be like a node on a web - ideas and concepts obviously differ from each other, and the strands of the web are the gaps inbetween those nodes.

So you could have the idea of a red car and the idea of a blue car, and thus come out with the idea of a purple car.

Modules obviously have strict definitions, but you can always replace individual elements with something else, in order to create a new module with a new strict definition.

[tereg]

Yes. And even then, you'd always be worried that you left something important out...

*awkward laughter*



(because it's true)

[Lotus]

Yes. And even then, you'd always be worried that you left something important out...

Exactly.

[Elro]

...
hkkmr, I know where you live. (Anyway, the general region. )

[Lotus]

Some things are best left unsaid, for saying them makes truth into lie.. a fruit into a flower

haha
The first time I read this I thought it said,
"Some things are best left unsaid, for saying them makes you a LIE"

Wow, maybe I need glasses...

[Lotus]

haha
The first time I read this I thought it said,
"Some things are best left unsaid, for saying them makes you a LIE"

Wow, maybe I need glasses...

And then the "a fruit into a flower" confused me... haha.

I'm like, "how does ILE = fruit and LIE = flower? Hmmm... Oh Hkkmr! You are so silly!"

But then I reread it...

[Lotus]

You will always be a small piece of the puzzle. But just when you're feeling despondant and small, it will remind you that you're bigger and have more impact than you think.

I think this is why my avatar is relevant, Elro.
It totally captures that, imo.

(AND NOT JUST BECAUSE THERE is A PUZZLE PIECE IN IT!)

[Elro]

I live somewhere between a ocean and a mountain.
Both of which I cannot see for the trees and buildings beside me.
I stand on the ground and noone but me stands there.
But we can all look at the same sky.

I sit in my dorm room, eating Cheez-its and putting off homework.
I'm in for the night so I will not be burning off the calories.
As I lean back in my chair and stare at the computer screen I can't help thinking:
"I can't think of a fourth sentence."