# Thread: Visually Modeling Perceiving Functions

1. ## Visually Modeling Perceiving Functions

Here's a way to consider the differences between Ne and Ni.

In meterology, there exist thousands of weather stations around the country picking up the wind speed and direction at each station. The data collected is then drawn on a map and a "bulb" is used at the location of each weather station on the map to draw the direction the wind is blowing from.

The bulbs look like this:

The "bulbs" for each station then are drawn on a map like this:

The lines coming out of each circle (indicating a weather station) point in the direction the wind is blowing at each weather station.

Once you have all the weather station data points with the wind lines pointing in their respective directions, you can begin to see the overall wind/frontal patterns that exist around the country. You also can pinpoint a rough location of where a center of high pressure and a center of low pressure exist, since wind is caused by a steep pressure gradient (noted by many blue isobars close together on the map), a drastic change in pressure over a small area.

- - -

I see Ne as those weather station "bulbs" giving an isolated "reading" of how the internal dynamic can be approximated at each local context. I see Ni as the overall atmospheric pressure system swirling/fluctuating within the atmosphere that is behind all the changes in wind patterns detected at each locale.

The idea behind this is that I notice that Ne tends to run around things in the "N-domain", in a way "pointing to the truth" from different vantage points, like with the weather station map bulbs. Ni feels the trend/dynamic directly which Ne people isolate, "approximate", and permute in different contexts. Ne is like a series of mirrors that are in alignment reflecting off each other.

With this example, the Ne perspective sees the weather system as an outside observer looking at the map (essentially from the perspective we're seeing when looking at the map). It sees all the different weather station points, takes into account the Si context at each specific point (thundery skies, temperature, topography, etc), and then one of the introverted judging functions (Ti or Fi) will come in and model the data collected at the different points into something coherent. Ti will model it into an explicit structure, Fi implicit. Ti or Fi will take the multiple Ne data station points and say "Over here we can label an area of high pressure, and we can draw isobars close together to illustrate a steep pressure gradient (as shown over the upper midwest in the map I pasted)".

The Ni perspective is from the point of view of the actual pressure field itself. It perceives the changes in gradient and the unified wind pattern as a part of itself and directly experiences that essence that results in any ostensible changes observed.

Perhaps this weather metaphor could be used to model Se and Si.

What do you think? Feel free to clarify the metaphor and tie in other functions as to how they'd play into this metaphor; I'm still fleshing it out in my mind.

2. Sounds about right. You mentioned an Si context—the state and activity of the weather, etc.— at specific Ne local points. I would say that the specific pressure gradients or w/e they're called at specific areas are the discrete Se variables that tie into the overall Ni trend of the wind's direction, etc. By gauging physical objects, Ni/Se people can get a sense of their latent physical magnitude/properties, deciding on their potential value, in regards to what essential facets can be extracted and synthesized into the overall Ni pattern.

3. @Steve: I think it's a good analogy, but not really anything new or sheddding a new light on things. Ne construct a view of reality from building blocks, Ni sees complete reality first and after hat might consider the building blocks.

4. Originally Posted by consentingadult
@Steve: I think it's a good analogy, but not really anything new or sheddding a new light on things. Ne construct a view of reality from building blocks, Ni sees complete reality first and after hat might consider the building blocks.
Perfect. Essentially, Ni works backwards—'from the answer to the questions'—whereas Ne works forwards. This is why the Ni process is so centralized and holistic: once it hones in on the essential theme, everything else (at that time) is discarded, and the only things that are later incorporated are derived from explicit, discrete variables (Se) that somehow enhance/alter this latent pattern. With Ne/Si, Si establishes a gestalt connection between all of the explicit/physical information, rendering them into a field of interactions, from which localized variables (Ne) can be gauged based on latent, abstract properties and divided, rearranged, etc. With Ni, the only context is a self-contained one; Si's context is extrinsic, so Ne variables, while being abstract, will always be parameterized; Se variables, in a sense, are independent of any defined context, 'are what they are' kind of thing.

5. Mmm, see. I don't think I really agree with this interpretation. I think this is more like a difference between simply static versus dynamic information. I would go so far as to argue that this map analogy is more like an example of Se/Ni working together than an Ne microscale vs Ni macroscale. I think people try to hard to connect Ne and Ni when they aren't even the same thing. At all. I mean in the sense that they're internal perceiving functions, which is kind of like an analysis of potential, then yes, they're similar. But I dislike the fact that people are always trying to compare the two. It's more reasonable to compare Si/Ni and Se/Ne or to see how Se/Ni and Si/Ne mold together. Trying to fit Ne and Ni perspectives in matching frameworks doesn't really hold, imo.

In your analogy I seriously don't think that the weather stations can be considered Ne points. They're an Se point. They take what is externally, concretely there, a fact if you will, and they say "This is what is going on here". The Ni perspective can then take all of that information and say "Here are some things that could happen as a fallout as part of this big picture".

Ne would look at the map and look at ways that the individual points are not concrete and not certain and then use Ti/Fi to build from there. Subsequently, Si[Te/Fe] would be able to determine the best fit.

If you're a perceiver:

Ne[Ti/Fi] sees how things could be on a micro scale, on individual points, and builds solutions from these possibilities. Uses Si to help choose the best fit.
Si [Te/Fe] sees how things are coming together on the macro scale and directs it in the best way from there. Uses Ne to see individual places for change.
Se [Ti/Fi] sees how things are on a micro scale and builds solutions from these observations. Uses Ni to see how these solutions could come together in the end.
Ni [Te/Fe] sees how things could come together on a macro scale and directs the fall out from there. Uses Se to decide what is reasonable and what is not.

6. I actually imagine Ne and Ni in a completely opposite direction.

Think of a flat world. Better yet, a cube world, where we can only see one side. To know everything would be to know the entire cube.

Ne sees the whole surface of that cube, its width and breadth, multiple various terrains and aspects. Ne needs Si because Ne cannot focus in on specific details and needs Si take care of that.

Ni can see only a small radius on the face of the cube, but it can see past the surface and know what is underneath. Ni needs Se to expand its outlook and as the deciding factor of what place on the surface to look.

7. Originally Posted by mn0good
Mmm, see. I don't think I really agree with this interpretation. I think this is more like a difference between simply static versus dynamic information. I would go so far as to argue that this map analogy is more like an example of Se/Ni working together than an Ne microscale vs Ni macroscale. I think people try to hard to connect Ne and Ni when they aren't even the same thing. At all. I mean in the sense that they're internal perceiving functions, which is kind of like an analysis of potential, then yes, they're similar. But I dislike the fact that people are always trying to compare the two. It's more reasonable to compare Si/Ni and Se/Ne or to see how Se/Ni and Si/Ne mold together. Trying to fit Ne and Ni perspectives in matching frameworks doesn't really hold, imo.
Ok, you're right. But I do think that on a very general level there exists an "N" and "S" domain, as they share the characteristics of being internal and external experiential functions, respectively. Operationally, however, I agree that they are completely different.

In your analogy I seriously don't think that the weather stations can be considered Ne points. They're an Se point. They take what is externally, concretely there, a fact if you will, and they say "This is what is going on here". The Ni perspective can then take all of that information and say "Here are some things that could happen as a fallout as part of this big picture".
Yes, I would generally agree with this. Although I think that he was only trying to delineate the "N" functions; so if we look at it in that context, it makes some sense. But if we're looking at it in a general, overriding context, then yes, Se represents the specific, ostensible points which serve as discrete indicators of the underlying Ni pattern/theme.

Ne would look at the map and look at ways that the individual points are not concrete and not certain and then use Ti/Fi to build from there. Subsequently, Si[Te/Fe] would be able to determine the best fit.
What is this 'best fit'? The externally-defined context which is continuous and sort of 'levels' all of these abstract variables?

If you're a perceiver:

Ne[Ti/Fi] sees how things could be on a micro scale, on individual points, and builds solutions from these possibilities. Uses Si to help choose the best fit.
Explain best fit.

Si [Te/Fe] sees how things are coming together on the macro scale and directs it in the best way from there. Uses Ne to see individual places for change.
Se [Ti/Fi] sees how things are on a micro scale and builds solutions from these observations. Uses Ni to see how these solutions could come together in the end.
Ni [Te/Fe] sees how things could come together on a macro scale and directs the fall out from there. Uses Se to decide what is reasonable and what is not.
Makes sense.

Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
I actually imagine Ne and Ni in a completely opposite direction.

Think of a flat world. Better yet, a cube world, where we can only see one side. To know everything would be to know the entire cube.

Ne sees the whole surface of that cube, its width and breadth, multiple various terrains and aspects. Ne needs Si because Ne cannot focus in on specific details and needs Si take care of that.

Ni can see only a small radius on the face of the cube, but it can see past the surface and know what is underneath. Ni needs Se to expand its outlook and as the deciding factor of what place on the surface to look.
YES! If only more people understand the meaning of this analogy. Ne can permutate, divide and rearrange all of the various localized abstractions, but it is deconstructive and positive-feedback, so there is no real consilience. Ni basically sees all of these patterns from the 'inside,' focusing on the holistic, essential process and continually distilling it (negative-feedback).

8. About the term "best fit"

I would make the case that all field elements are inherently subjective in nature. This is because they deal with perception or judgment of relationships between things. That doesn't mean that it's about "Relationships," but the nature of this field view vs the object view is that it has to make judgements on how things are or can relate to other things. In this case, I would say that you can never really say, looking at the big picture, that something is objectively one way. So when an Si ego sees something in the big picture, they're seeing it come together, they're seeing how things are relating to each other, but you can't say that they're making a conclusive statement on how things are absolutely. You could probably say the same thing about Se to a certain extent, but the nature of assuming relationships is subjective and thus Si will always be choosing the best conclusion for this big picture, not necessarily an objective concrete statement.

9. Originally Posted by strrrng
Perfect. Essentially, Ni works backwards—'from the answer to the questions'—whereas Ne works forwards. This is why the Ni process is so centralized and holistic: once it hones in on the essential theme, everything else (at that time) is discarded, and the only things that are later incorporated are derived from explicit, discrete variables (Se) that somehow enhance/alter this latent pattern. With Ne/Si, Si establishes a gestalt connection between all of the explicit/physical information, rendering them into a field of interactions, from which localized variables (Ne) can be gauged based on latent, abstract properties and divided, rearranged, etc. With Ni, the only context is a self-contained one; Si's context is extrinsic, so Ne variables, while being abstract, will always be parameterized; Se variables, in a sense, are independent of any defined context, 'are what they are' kind of thing.
Well said

Originally Posted by mn0good
Mmm, see. I don't think I really agree with this interpretation. I think this is more like a difference between simply static versus dynamic information. I would go so far as to argue that this map analogy is more like an example of Se/Ni working together than an Ne microscale vs Ni macroscale.
Maybe so. My brain is fried so I can't think too hard about it right now. Comparing Ne to Ni is very difficult to model

Originally Posted by mn0good
I think people try to hard to connect Ne and Ni when they aren't even the same thing. At all. I mean in the sense that they're internal perceiving functions, which is kind of like an analysis of potential, then yes, they're similar. But I dislike the fact that people are always trying to compare the two.
Operationally they're quite different, but they seem to operate with certain types of information and certain realms that seem to have some commonality. Even from inter-type relations alone, it seems that Ni egos and Ne egos can understand each other on a reasonable level in terms of where each is coming from, whereas Ne egos and Se egos, or Ni egos and Si egos (other than sharing a potential common judging function in some cases) seem tuned on totally different wavelengths and one's information seems to interfere with the other's. Remember the thread talking about Ni PoLR where it became clear from people's experiences that ESFjs and INFps are tuned on a very different wavelength. Imagine ENTp-INFp interactions vs ESFj-INFp interactions. The former seem to sort of "get" each other, but the latter have an informational barrier.

I understand gamma NTs much better than I do gamma SFs, since I've noticed there's somewhat of a quasi-similar domain we operate in. So I think there's something to the idea of "N-ish" territory if you will, without getting too MBTI with it. Also, I generally understand anything presented with Te effortlessly, if it's within a context I'm familiar with (although it may seem dry to me and I'll get impatient waiting for Te to complete it's sequence as a lot of the time I know where it's going). But Fi totally evades me and I'm just left with a feeling of void that I try to skirt around when I'm hit with too much of it. Too much Te is like someone talking too much, too much Fi is immobilizing, so I feel like Te and Ti work within a somewhat similar domain and that's why one is not that jolting to the other.

Originally Posted by mn0good
It's more reasonable to compare Si/Ni and Se/Ne or to see how Se/Ni and Si/Ne mold together. Trying to fit Ne and Ni perspectives in matching frameworks doesn't really hold, imo.
Functionally, yes. And idk, maybe the picture is better for illustrating Ni/Se and Si/Ne rather than functions from each pair.

Originally Posted by mn0good
In your analogy I seriously don't think that the weather stations can be considered Ne points. They're an Se point. They take what is externally, concretely there, a fact if you will, and they say "This is what is going on here". The Ni perspective can then take all of that information and say "Here are some things that could happen as a fallout as part of this big picture".
You could be right. I've been thinking about this. Maybe the weather stations are more like Se with respect to Ni in the sense that they give the "raw data" like wind speed, wind direction, magnitude, barometric pressure, etc.

#### Posting Permissions

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