Ni vs Ne

[anndelise]

This past week I had two interesting conversations. Well, ok, only one was a conversation, the other was an argument. The conversation was earlier in the week. It was a bit of information sharing and question asking regarding Ni and Ne differences. The argument was later in the week and served as an example of difficulties between Ni and Ne. (I think I held up well, considering it was four Ni’s to my one Ne.)

From the two experiences, I am finally about to internalize one of the fundamental differences between Ni and Ne.

Ni says: There is 99.9999% chance of X, therefor X.

Ne says: Even if there is 99.9999% chance of X, there is still 0.0001% chance of Y, or Z, or...., therefor X, or Y, or Z, or.....
(Here I should be saying “not X”, but it seems too black or white, when it could be brown, blue, purple, grey, etc...)

Now, in daily life, the assurity of X is far less than the number given above. Hence:

Ni says: There is 51% chance of X, therefor X.
or 40% chance X, 31% chance Y, 29% chance Z, therefor X.
(Though I think/hope that at this low of a chance, Ni can at least acknowledge Y and Z might happen.)

Ne says: There is 51% chance of X, therefor there is 49% chance of anything other than X.
or 40% chance X, 31% chance Y, 29% chance Z, therefor X or Y or Z or maybe something else. Who says it is limited to X, Y, Z? Can there be another alternative? No matter how slight???

Before I internalize this lesson, I am checking to see if there is maybe some other explanation. Anyone?

[ILENTp]

edit

[anndelise]

I dont' believe that the concept does.

However, the format I put it in might lead one to think so.

As an NeFi, the Te format like above is the best I can hope to do in explaining my observations.

[FDG]

Anndelise, ILEntp is right.

Odds=Te.

[Creepy-Unregestereed Lurker]

Isn't what she is saying is that Ni is seeing from the past that usually one thing happened (X) and so that is what will happen now. But Ne is seeing, while X did happen in the past often, other things could possibly happen as well (X, Y, Z).'
I don't think this is completely wrong about Ne and Ni, but maybe I'm completely wrong about how I interpreted it...

[anndelise]

Isn't what she is saying is that Ni is seeing from the past that usually one thing happened (X) and so that is what will happen now. But Ne is seeing, while X did happen in the past often, other things could possibly happen as well (X, Y, Z).'
I don't think this is completely wrong about Ne and Ni, but maybe I'm completely wrong about how I interpreted it...

Lurker, you are correct. It seems that the Ni's can't get past the symbol "%".

[anndelise]

Anndelise, ILEntp is right.

Odds=Te.

Would you show me where any of the socionics info states that "Odds=Te"?

Also, taking away the symbol "%", and viewing what I wrote as a metaphor for perceived patterns, does it make more sense?

Also, you were one of the members of the first conversation regarding Ni and Ne. (I think it was you..I might have gotten you mixed up with another ENTJ in the chat.) We were discussing how Ni's are somehow able to determine which path a pattern will take...and thus how to avoid it or affect the pattern/path...while an Ne can see the pattern but waits to see which path it might take..cuz it could always take a different path from previous observations. This is what I am referring to.

[anndelise]

ok, then, Ashton...the paragraph would apply to you.

We were discussing how Ni's are somehow able to determine which path a pattern will take...and thus how to avoid it or affect the pattern/path...while an Ne can see the pattern but waits to see which path it might take..cuz it could always take a different path from previous observations. This is what I am referring to.

[Creepy-Unregistered Lurker]

In that case, since we seem to be on the same page, I've had small arguments with my INTp friend about that (I'm an INFj). She tends to judge what will happen in the future or the outcome of something by what has happened in the past, while I see every scenario as one with a new possible outcome. Is this the kind of arguement you were taking about in your first post?

[anndelise]

Yes, Lurker. It's been a constant flavor to difficulties between me and my INFP friend.

It's like..an Ne asks "how can you know which one it will be"
and an Ni answers "how can you not?"

[Creepy-Unregistered Lurker]

"how can you not?"

I swear to god, she actually has said this to me on more than one occasion. It's quite frustrating. (Plus the whole relation of benefit can't exactly make things better...)
It would be very interesting to hear this from the Ni side of things, though. Also, is there any way to possibly minimize these differences, do you think?

[anndelise]

Lurker, as of yet, I haven't figured out how to "translate" between the two. As the Ni responses from here have shown me. However, now that I have identified this as one of the issues, I hope to be able to make more observations on that. I'm not gonna hold my breath though.

[Creepy-Unregistered Lurker]

I know what you mean. So far, the only real resolution we've had in those arguements is if we one of us completely ignores the mistakes we think the other one is making... Knowing Socionics helps a little, though, because at least you can see why you don't understand where other people are coming from.

[anndelise]

Lurker, now that I know what to look for, in this department, I hope to not get as emotional during these types of arguements.

I doubt I could avoid it...though i could point out that this is what it's about. That's all I hope for, for now.

Thank You Lurker

[Creepy-Unregistered Lurker]

Heh, now that I've pinpointed what it is that is the problem, I hope to avoid them too... Especially the getting emotional over them part. Yuck..
This posting thing didn't go too bad, perhaps I'll do it again sometime.

[Cone]

I would definitely watch attributing intellectual patterns to specific functions. These Ni people could have very well been ganging up on you like that for the sheer sake of argument.

[anndelise]

Hmmm, so Ni's can do it, but noone else can?

(honest question!!!)

[Cone]

Er, I'm not exactly sure what you are specifically referencing to.

[Catholic Schoolboy]

Well... isn't this amusing.

[anndelise]

Cone, I was referring to some of the Ni's who attribute intellectual patterns to specific functions. I don't understand how/why they do it, but don't like when others do. Any insight willing to share? please.....

[Cone]

Um, most people in Socionics do this. I'm not sure why you are pinning it on Ni's. Do I do it?

[anndelise]

I would definitely watch attributing intellectual patterns to specific functions. These Ni people could have very well been ganging up on you like that for the sheer sake of argument.

I must have misinterpreted this then, I am sorry, Cone.

I was trying to figure out why "attributing intellectual patterns to specific functions" would be connected to 'ganging up on me for the sheer sake of argument'.

[tempus]

Okay. So anndelise, you've have described what you believe to be the fundamental difference of attitudes in types with strong Ne or Ni. For additional clarity, could you go a step further and use the idea you have come up with to describe the manifestions of Ne and Ni as weak, conscious functions by (again) placing them in opposition to one another?

[anndelise]

Tempus, I will admit that I do not follow the function order meaning of the socionics. (I admit that I do not understand it.) So what I answer may not be what you were looking for. Also, it will be me posting as I think aloud, which might just drive everyone bonkers.
...
(after much cut, copy, and deleting)

I think what I noticed from this past week is only one of the fundamental differences. I could never say that it is the only difference.

As for 'describing the manifestations of Ne and Ni as weak, conscious functions by placing them in opposition to one another'....I don't think I could do that...especially not at this time.

I think what I noticed applies to those with Ne or Ni in the top two categories..but mostly as the first Function. I don't believe that I could say if or how it applies beyond the first function because I believe that each function beyond the first one or two would be "flavored" by the first two functions or maybe even used to somehow support the first two functions.

One thing I HAVE noticed though, is that my ISFP bf uses Ne as described above, just not as extreme as I do. Also, the ISTP I knew used humor similar to what I described above, but again, not as extreme as I do.

Ugh, basically...too many possibilities for me to even attempt to sort it through.

[tempus]

Ah, I see...But learn the functions! This is of primary importance. It's quite likely that you have many insights to offer but communication could be so much more productive and meaningful if we are all speaking the same "language" (socionics ordering) in terms of the functions.

[anndelise]

Ah, I see...But learn the functions!

This topic IS an attempt to learn about two specific functions.

... communication could be so much more productive and meaningful if we are all speaking the same "language" (socionics ordering) in terms of the functions.

I don't believe that I should first have to understand an entire language before I can attempt to understand a few of its words.

[XoX]

Isn't what she is saying is that Ni is seeing from the past that usually one thing happened (X) and so that is what will happen now. But Ne is seeing, while X did happen in the past often, other things could possibly happen as well (X, Y, Z).'
I don't think this is completely wrong about Ne and Ni, but maybe I'm completely wrong about how I interpreted it...

Lurker, you are correct. It seems that the Ni's can't get past the symbol "%".

I'm not sure how accurate the analogy is but I agree it grasps something essential about the difference. When Ni thinks something has a 0% possibility then it is almost impossible to change that position. The main weakness of Ni might be loss of creativity due to quickly dismissing the "branches" they figure have 0% or very close to 0% possibility and never considering them again. Ni is somehow more "prisoner of the past" than Ne. Ne is more like "prisoner of the future". Umm..I'm not sure if that last sentence makes sense but it would be cool if it did

[anndelise]

XoX...pretty much...For me, I'd say "prisoner of the maybe", not sure if that is me or if it fits others.

[tempus]

"This topic IS an attempt to learn about two specific functions."

You misunderstand me. I was suggesting that you should learn the functional ordering.

"I don't believe that I should first have to understand an entire language before I can attempt to understand a few of its words."

Nor do I. If I did, I wouldn't have responded to this topic.

[Creepy-Paul]

I am actually NiTe, no F here, but here are my thoughts on the difference between NiTe and TiNe. Can’t really speak about NFs, don’t understand them at all.

TiNes tend to fundamentally believe in logic, almost in a religious way. The universe must be logical, because for whatever reasons, they just believe that it must be that way. Einstein was probably a TiNe. That would explain why he had so many problems with quantum mechanics.

NiTes tend to fundamentally believe that the universe tends to follow patterns of some sort or the other. That is a looser assumption than the one that the universe must be logical. To an NiTe, the universe does not have to be logical, but, for what ever reasons, it does normally follow the patterns described by logic, therefore, logic is an extremely invaluable useful tool. Quantum mechanics seems to be easier for NiTes than it is for TiNes, maybe the reverse for relativity.

Paul

[Ms. Kensington]

I am actually NiTe, no F here, but here are my thoughts on the difference between NiTe and TiNe. Can’t really speak about NFs, don’t understand them at all.

TiNes tend to fundamentally believe in logic, almost in a religious way. The universe must be logical, because for whatever reasons, they just believe that it must be that way. Einstein was probably a TiNe. That would explain why he had so many problems with quantum mechanics.

NiTes tend to fundamentally believe that the universe tends to follow patterns of some sort or the other. That is a looser assumption than the one that the universe must be logical. To an NiTe, the universe does not have to be logical, but, for what ever reasons, it does normally follow the patterns described by logic, therefore, logic is an extremely invaluable useful tool. Quantum mechanics seems to be easier for NiTes than it is for TiNes, maybe the reverse for relativity.

Paul

ive been trying to articulate the difference between NiTe and TiNe for some time (rather Ti and Ni). You seem to have an opinion. why is it that an INTp would say that the world seems to follow patterns prescribed by logic but isnt logical? to my mind, one would think that is just what that means-- even if its not a necessary connection it is stil describable by that term. etc

[FDG]

I am actually NiTe, no F here, but here are my thoughts on the difference between NiTe and TiNe. Can’t really speak about NFs, don’t understand them at all.

TiNes tend to fundamentally believe in logic, almost in a religious way. The universe must be logical, because for whatever reasons, they just believe that it must be that way. Einstein was probably a TiNe. That would explain why he had so many problems with quantum mechanics.

NiTes tend to fundamentally believe that the universe tends to follow patterns of some sort or the other. That is a looser assumption than the one that the universe must be logical. To an NiTe, the universe does not have to be logical, but, for what ever reasons, it does normally follow the patterns described by logic, therefore, logic is an extremely invaluable useful tool. Quantum mechanics seems to be easier for NiTes than it is for TiNes, maybe the reverse for relativity.

Paul

ive been trying to articulate the difference between NiTe and TiNe for some time (rather Ti and Ni). You seem to have an opinion. why is it that an INTp would say that the world seems to follow patterns prescribed by logic but isnt logical? to my mind, one would think that is just what that means-- even if its not a necessary connection it is stil describable by that term. etc

My personal interpretation of his wording is on the line of - for the NiTe, the world does not necessarily follow patterns, but when it follows them, they are logically discernible and their course is predictable; on the other hand, for the TiNe mind, all the happenings in the world necessarily follow a structure, a structure which can however conduct to different outcomes. Thus, the NiTe develops different premises with different outcomes, whereas in the same situation the TiNe takes all the premises into one theory and develops the possibile different outcomes for a given intput.

[Cone]

So now you're calling all INTjs positivists? I'm sure some of them wouldn't like that.

[FDG]

Yes, and yes my interpretation is open to corrections from both parties.

[anndelise]

Kioshi, Paul, and others...Thank you for your input. I have been reviewing what you each wrote and seeing how/where it matches/mismatches my thoughts.

As soon as I get my thoughts organized on paper, I will post something.

[Creepy-Paul]

I am actually NiTe, no F here, but here are my thoughts on the difference between NiTe and TiNe. Can’t really speak about NFs, don’t understand them at all.

TiNes tend to fundamentally believe in logic, almost in a religious way. The universe must be logical, because for whatever reasons, they just believe that it must be that way. Einstein was probably a TiNe. That would explain why he had so many problems with quantum mechanics.

NiTes tend to fundamentally believe that the universe tends to follow patterns of some sort or the other. That is a looser assumption than the one that the universe must be logical. To an NiTe, the universe does not have to be logical, but, for what ever reasons, it does normally follow the patterns described by logic, therefore, logic is an extremely invaluable useful tool. Quantum mechanics seems to be easier for NiTes than it is for TiNes, maybe the reverse for relativity.

Paul

ive been trying to articulate the difference between NiTe and TiNe for some time (rather Ti and Ni). You seem to have an opinion. why is it that an INTp would say that the world seems to follow patterns prescribed by logic but isnt logical? to my mind, one would think that is just what that means-- even if its not a necessary connection it is stil describable by that term. etc

An NiTe sees and senses the patterns. The patterns are more important than the logic. Logic does an extremely good job at describing the patterns, maybe even “explaining” them and hence an NiTe values logic. To an NiTe, logic is an observation of how the universe tends to work.

A TiNe tends to believe that the universe is intrinsically logical. There must be a logic explanation for everything.

Einstein, probably a TiNe, would state that he refuses to believe god plays dice with the universe. An NiTe would respond, well, why can’t he?

In quantum mechanics, it is entirely possible for an object to go from point A to point B with out ever passing through a plane between them. P orbitals are an example of this. This disturbs TiNes greatly and they go off and try to come up with all sorts of reasons to try to make this logical. To an NiTe, it just sort of makes sense.

Paul