Ni, Ne, and the Future

[Krig the Viking]

Ok, I know this has been discussed extensively in other threads, but I just thought of a way to describe the difference between how Ne and Ni perceive the future, and wanted to see what you guys think.

Ni sees the present as moving along a certain path. Therefore, it sees the future as simply an extension of that path. The actual path the future takes may vary somewhat to the left or the right, but it will always be going in that general direction.

Ne sees the present as a set of potentialities. Therefore, it sees the future as a wide range of possibilities which could spring from those potentialities, some of which are more likely than others, but any of which could conceivably happen.

As a consequence, Ni tends to be more sure of what the future will hold, whereas Ne tends to take a less certain "anything could happen" approach.

Thoughts?

[Brilliand]

Ne sees the present as a set of potentialities. Therefore, it sees the future as a wide range of possibilities which could spring from those potentialities, some of which are more likely than others, but any of which could conceivably happen.

I actually think that the future is those potentialities - no "springing from," is just abstract enough to see the latent potential instead of (or perhaps as well as) the revealed potential.

[Trevor]

=

=

I think that is like a bunch of s at night, gathered around the campfire, singing songs due to presence of acoustic guitar and coming to the mutual conclusion in spirit of utter friendship and agreement.

[Creepy-male]

I think Ne can make fairly confident predictions about what will happen, since it's inherently a static function and already "lives" in the future. One of the resonant areas of discussion for Ne users is "insight", and I think this points to how analytical Ne can take a bunch of components, ingredients, or events at a specific juncture (a time object, pretty much) and sort of sum them together as a "Well, it's obvious that this is going to happen" sort of thing.

I think aixelsyd did a good job of capturing the extravert/introvert dichotomy between the Intuitions. When Ne looks at things, it can freely hop around because it's extraverted, and the distance between them is ignored (for instance, an attitude of "I can sit around and wait to implement this"). When Ni looks at things, it's the distance between the points that's important, so "this process will take X amount of time to fully unfold", which is why one of the advisory roles of Ni bases for their duals is "when to act" moreso than "What isn't like to happen, so please don't worry ", which is what Ne bases provide for their duals.

I suppose you can also apply the extravert/introvert thing to how they function on a creative level, too. I understand Ni as being a continual evolution due to its "flow" nature, while Ne is more analytical (ie, it thinks in terms of what something's abstract "ingredients" are, so I might look at user Isha and think she's made of Musician and Counselor, among other things, or look at user CeruleanFlame and think he's made of Whiner and Dweeb, among other things (j/k )) and associative (for instance, one of my favourite games is "Five words" where I ask for five words and generate a theme from them and produce a related piece of trivia, or starting making links and tangents between them to see where I wind up).

EDIT

I think also, because Ne is Extraverted, it can live in a world where the future has already happened, while Ni will be engrossed in the various processes occurring, even if it can extrapolate them.

[Marie84]

That's how I see it too, Krig

Ni- a straight path, going towards something specific in the future
Ne- less reliance on the future, sees many possibles and thus can't narrow it down to a singular path

Ni has more confidence in the future but has less alternatives.
Ne has less confidence in the future but has other alternatives.

So both have their positives and negatives

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Ok, I know this has been discussed extensively in other threads, but I just thought of a way to describe the difference between how Ne and Ni perceive the future, and wanted to see what you guys think.

Ni sees the present as moving along a certain path. Therefore, it sees the future as simply an extension of that path. The actual path the future takes may vary somewhat to the left or the right, but it will always be going in that general direction.

Ne sees the present as a set of potentialities. Therefore, it sees the future as a wide range of possibilities which could spring from those potentialities, some of which are more likely than others, but any of which could conceivably happen.

As a consequence, Ni tends to be more sure of what the future will hold, whereas Ne tends to take a less certain "anything could happen" approach.

Thoughts?

Pretty much.

Something also, maybe not quite related, it seems from my observation that Ni types see a single path, and it can of course be quite imaginitive, inventive even, seeing how the single path will turn out (and also quite useful in business related activities when seeing how a beginning project will turn out for instance), also, because it's such a strong function in the Ni types (ie in their ego), they can actually believe the path that they see so strongly that they think it is real. Following the sort of side note is that in a way this can how Ni can be correlated with religion - "religion" in the sense that they have such a strong belief that the course they see is the reality. I think this is how for instance an ENTj can become so focused on their work - more so even than their Te leading counterpart ESTj), the path that they see unfolding for it is so strongly believed by them, that in that way, to follow that course (and therefore their work) becomes their religion.

It's maybe how this loosely correlated HA word of "belief" for Ne PoLR's comes about

[silverchris9]

Ni is all about finding patterns, connections, the internal logic (I meant that in a completely non-socionics way, obviously) of change, fundamentally having to do with how one thing changes in relation to another, so that nothing is tied down to an object, and everything involves a bit more flux than we're otherwise used to.

So yes, Ni does predict future events, and yes, it does severely restrict the possibilities, but it always comes with a fundamental understanding of possibilities as well, insofar as any one conception or theory of a process (the pattern Ni discovers, which seems static, but then even the pattern isn't static, really, because it too changes in relation to other patterns, when the patterns are considered as objects--think of the object, i.e., not propositional, knowledge of Plato), is inherently inaccurate; that is, you can't get a perfect account of anything. So Ni does allow for possibilities insofar as the "model" or, more accurately, theory or account ("logos," really) of the process created by Ni is inaccurate, but then again Ni-egos tend to place great confidence in their models, theories, and accounts. But we are aware that they can be wrong and often are. Just fyi.

Ne is a different thing altogether in its relationship to the future. Ne is not really concerned with what will happen. Ne is concerned with what could happen. It is not concerned with a theory or account of a thing, but with the bundle of potentials that make up who we are. The best example I can think of is Plato's Ni (all about the Forms as the Account or Logos of the phenomenon), as opposed to Aristotle's Ne (all about the potential of the thing *as* the thing; we are what we can do, the soul is the first actuality or "set of powers" of a natural body, etc.)

In a roundabout way, yes. Ne = less predictive power, more possibilities, while Ni = more predictive power, less possibilities. But don't forget that Ni naturally entails an awareness of possibilities because of the incomplete nature of accounts, and Ne naturally entails an awareness of trends insofar as a set of possibilities is in some way an account or theory of a thing from which trends can be drawn. Maybe.

Sorry this post is so rambly/nonsensical. Anyway, Ni is special and magic and we should all love it, etc.

[strrrng]

Ok, I know this has been discussed extensively in other threads, but I just thought of a way to describe the difference between how Ne and Ni perceive the future, and wanted to see what you guys think.

Ni sees the present as moving along a certain path. Therefore, it sees the future as simply an extension of that path. The actual path the future takes may vary somewhat to the left or the right, but it will always be going in that general direction.

Ne sees the present as a set of potentialities. Therefore, it sees the future as a wide range of possibilities which could spring from those potentialities, some of which are more likely than others, but any of which could conceivably happen.

As a consequence, Ni tends to be more sure of what the future will hold, whereas Ne tends to take a less certain "anything could happen" approach.

Thoughts?

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, and think it sums the difference up nicely.

[Blaze]

I think Ne can make fairly confident predictions about what will happen, since it's inherently a static function and already "lives" in the future. One of the resonant areas of discussion for Ne users is "insight", and I think this points to how analytical Ne can take a bunch of components, ingredients, or events at a specific juncture (a time object, pretty much) and sort of sum them together as a "Well, it's obvious that this is going to happen" sort of thing.

I think aixelsyd did a good job of capturing the extravert/introvert dichotomy between the Intuitions. When Ne looks at things, it can freely hop around because it's extraverted, and the distance between them is ignored (for instance, an attitude of "I can sit around and wait to implement this"). When Ni looks at things, it's the distance between the points that's important, so "this process will take X amount of time to fully unfold", which is why one of the advisory roles of Ni bases for their duals is "when to act" moreso than "What isn't like to happen, so please don't worry ", which is what Ne bases provide for their duals.

I suppose you can also apply the extravert/introvert thing to how they function on a creative level, too. I understand Ni as being a continual evolution due to its "flow" nature, while Ne is more analytical (ie, it thinks in terms of what something's abstract "ingredients" are, so I might look at user Isha and think she's made of Musician and Counselor, among other things, or look at user CeruleanFlame and think he's made of Whiner and Dweeb, among other things (j/k )) and associative (for instance, one of my favourite games is "Five words" where I ask for five words and generate a theme from them and produce a related piece of trivia, or starting making links and tangents between them to see where I wind up).

EDIT

I think also, because Ne is Extraverted, it can live in a world where the future has already happened, while Ni will be engrossed in the various processes occurring, even if it can extrapolate them.

i like this one.

and yeah, krig.

[Singu]

Ni sort of sees the present as irrelevant... and instead, it tries to live in the future (or perhaps in the past). Ni sees itself as being constantly pushed around by the present-force (Se). So to react to this, the Ni says, "Okay, so if you do that, then I will do this (in the future)". Or perhaps it thinks to itself, "If you move me to a so and so certain place, then I will most likely end up in this so and so place". Or maybe something like, "If you say this, then I will say that". This is why it's called the "Victim" function... because it sees itself as being constantly pushed around by the present-force, and it is almost at the mercy of this force. The Ni by itself almost can not make a move unless the forces around them make the moves first (which is often what the Se actually does). It's also (I think) called the "Calculating" function precisely because of those reasons... it is constantly trying to calculate what (some)one might or might not do in the future.

So the Ni tries to look into the future by constantly being IN the future... it imagines itself as an object in the future, which gets pushed around by the present moment. The Ni is most often like to think something along the lines of... "If this has happened before, then this might bound to happen again", or "If you say this, then I will say that" and so on. It tries to predict the future by looking into the past actions and trends, or it will continue to calculate and imagine itself living in the future until the outcome sounds good enough. Or maybe that's just common sense, I don't know...

[Jarno]

10 different opinions, something tells me that there can only be 1 right one, so at least 9 of these are bullshit.

useful forum is this.

[717495]

This is more of an example of Ni-PoLR than Ne valuing, in my opinion. I think Ne egos are based more on deeply exploring various possibilities that come up and getting information that way, and Ni egos don't care as much about the exploration of possibilities in that sense, and would rather develop a sort of relevant "line up" of possible thoughts, and much of the time never get around to a lot of these thoughts. Ne thought process is more an action of targeting a thought by sorting through ones that don't fit, where as Ni thought process steps back more and carefully sequences a path of thought, paying less attention to the current situation. All in all, the Ni path of thought does not necessarily go straight. The sequence can be rather wandering, yet thoughts are always more closely connected to each other, that is why more connections can be made rather than Ne's way of coming to conclusions.

[xkj220]

This is Ne:




And This is Ni:

[Brilliand]

10 different opinions, something tells me that there can only be 1 right one, so at least 9 of these are bullshit.

useful forum is this.

They all looked pretty good to me... just minor variations on the same theme.

[717495]

Of course you must think, what happens when this Ni path becomes blocked? Ne can easily go around, or come back to obstacles when when they go away or when better suited. Ni can be slowed down by a natural tendency to focus on the path, and getting through the obstacle, and simply put can be "stuck". At the same time, Ne seems to always be moving, but it doesn't necessarily know where it's going and can end up in places that it didn't want to be, and it is this very mental fatigue which can slow them down.

[krieger]

I think the difference is in how, when predicting the outcome of a football match, Ne would account for a horde of unicorns storming onto the field and consider it as a real possibility, whereas Ni would ignore such an event on account of it's being irrelevant and too far removed from anything normal.

INTjs are more likely to say "it's possible" in hindsight and "everything is possible" in foresight than to run by each of the possibilities individually like an Accepting Ne type would, though.

The question is on what level the person considers issues of normality. Ne/Si types think in terms of "I'm used to this"/"I'm not used to this". Ni/Se types think in terms of "this is normal"/"this is not normal".

Just 2 cents worth of speculation I guess.

I think that is like a bunch of s at night, gathered around the campfire, singing songs due to presence of acoustic guitar and coming to the mutual conclusion in spirit of utter friendship and agreement.

You're sounding very rational as usual.

[marooned]

This is Ne:




And This is Ni:

I like this. The Ni one is how I've often seen Ni. (in general... it isn't exactly how I've seen it... but it's close enough that I can see it as "getting at" what I've seen).

[matilda]

Ni sort of sees the present as irrelevant... and instead, it tries to live in the future (or perhaps in the past). Ni sees itself as being constantly pushed around by the present-force (Se). So to react to this, the Ni says, "Okay, so if you do that, then I will do this (in the future)". Or perhaps it thinks to itself, "If you move me to a so and so certain place, then I will most likely end up in this so and so place". Or maybe something like, "If you say this, then I will say that". This is why it's called the "Victim" function... because it sees itself as being constantly pushed around by the present-force, and it is almost at the mercy of this force. The Ni by itself almost can not make a move unless the forces around them make the moves first (which is often what the Se actually does). It's also (I think) called the "Calculating" function precisely because of those reasons... it is constantly trying to calculate what (some)one might or might not do in the future.

So the Ni tries to look into the future by constantly being IN the future... it imagines itself as an object in the future, which gets pushed around by the present moment. The Ni is most often like to think something along the lines of... "If this has happened before, then this might bound to happen again", or "If you say this, then I will say that" and so on. It tries to predict the future by looking into the past actions and trends, or it will continue to calculate and imagine itself living in the future until the outcome sounds good enough. Or maybe that's just common sense, I don't know...

perfect

[Brilliand]

Of course you must think, what happens when this Ni path becomes blocked? Ne can easily go around, or come back to obstacles when when they go away or when better suited. Ni can be slowed down by a natural tendency to focus on the path, and getting through the obstacle, and simply put can be "stuck". At the same time, Ne seems to always be moving, but it doesn't necessarily know where it's going and can end up in places that it didn't want to be, and it is this very mental fatigue which can slow them down.

Seems to me you've gotten mixed in with there... Dynamic?

[Brilliand]

This is Ne:




And This is Ni:

These are actually very appropriate images.

[somavision]

This is Ne:




And This is Ni:

I also like these.

[Trevor]

I think that is like a bunch of s at night, gathered around the campfire, singing songs due to presence of acoustic guitar and coming to the mutual conclusion in spirit of utter friendship and agreement.

You're sounding very rational as usual.

You don't get what I was trying to say. Don't you? No wonder that poets are often misunderstood. Well, here's what I was getting at, spoken in the language of you, regular mortals.

What does it mean when I say that Ni is like a bunch of Nes at night, gathered around the campfire, singing songs due to presence of acoustic guitar and coming to the mutual understanding in spirit of utter friendship and agreement? Well, as you know, Ne perceives possibilities, a lot of them. Latent state of things. Given X, various Ys can manifest. Now, it is evident that all those latent possibilities are not to be manifested. It is impossible. How so that Ni is bunch of Nes. Well, you perceive many possibilities regarding object A, then you perceive a lot of possibilities regarding object B, then you perceive a lot of possibilities regarding objects C and D, even E, F and perhaps G. Now all those possibilities regarding various objects form a system. A system of understanding regarding most likely future occurence. You have a lot of information on abstract properties of various objects and then you let things settle. Some of those possibilities get wiped out of the face of earth, they get nullified due to evergrowing income of conflicting, mutually exclusive information. That's the moment when you get Ni out of Ne.

This, what I have just described is part of my thinking process because that's how LIIs think, therefore that's how I think. I am well aware that this is something that you call Limiting/Creating/Static/Intuition - Ne. If this is Cre Ne why am I calling it Ni then? It's not just any kind of Ni, it is the Demonstrative Ni as explained in model A. Of course Demonstrative Ni is Creative Ne, as it is Mobilizing Si and Vulnerable Se at the same time.
Knowing that you rejected Object-Fields dichotomy just complicates things. Accepting Objects-Fields dichotomy would simplify things for you. It would make what I say self-evident to you since Object dichotomy operates with various objects and Field dichotomy signifies a system of how things work made out of these and other objects.

[717495]

Seems to me you've gotten mixed in with there... Dynamic?

Well, more like moving from point to point, like teleportation.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Ni is more direct and linear but more careful and planned, Ne is branch out and possibilities 'anything can happen.' Ne-valuers try to put me in a variety of situations 'try this and that sam etc' but other Ni-valuers respect what I really want to do more. Ni is like one direct ray of sunshine and Ne is just more branchy.

[FDG]

Nobody sees the future.

[717495]

Yeah. Nobody, and only nobody.

[Brilliand]

Yeah. Nobody, and only nobody.

[krieger]

You don't get what I was trying to say. Don't you? No wonder that poets are often misunderstood. Well, here's what I was getting at, spoken in the language of you, regular mortals.

What does it mean when I say that Ni is like a bunch of Nes at night, gathered around the campfire, singing songs due to presence of acoustic guitar and coming to the mutual understanding in spirit of utter friendship and agreement? Well, as you know, Ne perceives possibilities, a lot of them. Latent state of things. Given X, various Ys can manifest. Now, it is evident that all those latent possibilities are not to be manifested. It is impossible. How so that Ni is bunch of Nes. Well, you perceive many possibilities regarding object A, then you perceive a lot of possibilities regarding object B, then you perceive a lot of possibilities regarding objects C and D, even E, F and perhaps G. Now all those possibilities regarding various objects form a system. A system of understanding regarding most likely future occurence. You have a lot of information on abstract properties of various objects and then you let things settle. Some of those possibilities get wiped out of the face of earth, they get nullified due to evergrowing income of conflicting, mutually exclusive information. That's the moment when you get Ni out of Ne.

This, what I have just described is part of my thinking process because that's how LIIs think, therefore that's how I think. I am well aware that this is something that you call Limiting/Creating/Static/Intuition - Ne. If this is Cre Ne why am I calling it Ni then? It's not just any kind of Ni, it is the Demonstrative Ni as explained in model A. Of course Demonstrative Ni is Creative Ne, as it is Mobilizing Si and Vulnerable Se at the same time.
Knowing that you rejected Object-Fields dichotomy just complicates things. Accepting Objects-Fields dichotomy would simplify things for you. It would make what I say self-evident to you since Object dichotomy operates with various objects and Field dichotomy signifies a system of how things work made out of these and other objects.

The story has very little relation to what you put there at first. The campfire analogy is almost entirely redudant to your explanation. I'm sure you can find some Ti rationalization for what you say in hindsight, but that doesn't mean there was one in the beginning. The Ti just isn't the primary focus in what you do. It's afterthought.

[Krig the Viking]

I actually think that the future is those potentialities - no "springing from," is just abstract enough to see the latent potential instead of (or perhaps as well as) the revealed potential.

The way I see it working is like this: A Ne+Ti type (by which I mean either NeTi or TiNe) sees a sports car parked somewhere. His Ne assigns that car the label "potentially fast car". This information is shifted over to Ti, which assigns the car to the Ti category "fast cars". Looking around that category for a moment, he sees the subcategory "Pictures of Spectacularly Crashed Fast Cars Like Ferrarris That I Have Seen On The Internet". Shifting this information back to Ne, he sees that this car on the street has the potential to fit in that Ti subcategory.

Therefore, by using Ne and Ti in concert, the Ne+Ti type has generated one possible future from the inherent potential aspects of the car: "This car might crash spectacularly". This all takes place within a fraction of a second, and the Ne+Ti type goes on to generate other possible futures for the car by the same method. A second or two later he's thought of four or five possible futures for the car.

Then, if he cares enough, he might use Ti to compare each possible future to the present Ne potentialities, and narrow down which possible future is most probable. The car is in a quiet neighbourhood, and the house has kids' toys on the lawn, and such things tend to be associated with the Ti category "Parent", and since the "Parent" category substantially overlaps with the "Responsible Drivers" category, the driver probably belongs to the "Responsible Drivers" category, which doesn't really overlap very much with the "People Who Get Into Spectacular Accidents In Sports Cars" category. Therefore, the car not very likely to crash spectacularly.

Of course, that's a fairly simplified description of how the Ne+Ti mind works. There's also Se and Fi in the Super-Ego, which play a role as well, not to mention the whole Vital ring.

Ni- a straight path, going towards something specific in the future
Ne- less reliance on the future, sees many possibles and thus can't narrow it down to a singular path

Pretty much, except I would say that Ni is not necessarily directed toward something specific in the future, but rather extrapolates forward in the direction the present is already moving. "Where the future is headed" is determined by "the direction the present is moving" to an Ni type.

Pretty much.

Something also, maybe not quite related, it seems from my observation that Ni types see a single path, and it can of course be quite imaginitive, inventive even, seeing how the single path will turn out (and also quite useful in business related activities when seeing how a beginning project will turn out for instance), also, because it's such a strong function in the Ni types (ie in their ego), they can actually believe the path that they see so strongly that they think it is real. Following the sort of side note is that in a way this can how Ni can be correlated with religion - "religion" in the sense that they have such a strong belief that the course they see is the reality. I think this is how for instance an ENTj can become so focused on their work - more so even than their Te leading counterpart ESTj), the path that they see unfolding for it is so strongly believed by them, that in that way, to follow that course (and therefore their work) becomes their religion.

It's maybe how this loosely correlated HA word of "belief" for Ne PoLR's comes about

Makes sense. I do think Ni types may see several paths the future may take, but they're all paths in the same direction that the present is moving towards. Since Ne types don't see the present as moving at all (static), they see paths in all directions as being possible.

So yes, Ni does predict future events, and yes, it does severely restrict the possibilities, but it always comes with a fundamental understanding of possibilities as well, insofar as any one conception or theory of a process (the pattern Ni discovers, which seems static, but then even the pattern isn't static, really, because it too changes in relation to other patterns, when the patterns are considered as objects--think of the object, i.e., not propositional, knowledge of Plato), is inherently inaccurate; that is, you can't get a perfect account of anything. So Ni does allow for possibilities insofar as the "model" or, more accurately, theory or account ("logos," really) of the process created by Ni is inaccurate, but then again Ni-egos tend to place great confidence in their models, theories, and accounts. But we are aware that they can be wrong and often are. Just fyi.

I think I get what you're saying. To put it in other words, Ni predicts the future by extrapolating on the direction the present is going, but this assumes that their understanding of the direction the present is going is correct, which it may not be. "The direction the present is headed" is a dynamic, flexible concept, based on the patterns of events observed in the present. Yes?

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, and think it sums the difference up nicely.

I'm glad to hear that from an Ni type.

Ni sort of sees the present as irrelevant... and instead, it tries to live in the future (or perhaps in the past). Ni sees itself as being constantly pushed around by the present-force (Se). So to react to this, the Ni says, "Okay, so if you do that, then I will do this (in the future)". Or perhaps it thinks to itself, "If you move me to a so and so certain place, then I will most likely end up in this so and so place". Or maybe something like, "If you say this, then I will say that". This is why it's called the "Victim" function... because it sees itself as being constantly pushed around by the present-force, and it is almost at the mercy of this force. The Ni by itself almost can not make a move unless the forces around them make the moves first (which is often what the Se actually does). It's also (I think) called the "Calculating" function precisely because of those reasons... it is constantly trying to calculate what (some)one might or might not do in the future.

So the Ni tries to look into the future by constantly being IN the future... it imagines itself as an object in the future, which gets pushed around by the present moment. The Ni is most often like to think something along the lines of... "If this has happened before, then this might bound to happen again", or "If you say this, then I will say that" and so on. It tries to predict the future by looking into the past actions and trends, or it will continue to calculate and imagine itself living in the future until the outcome sounds good enough. Or maybe that's just common sense, I don't know...

Exactly. I think this correlates with my description of "extrapolating from the direction of the present" nicely.

This is Ne:




And This is Ni:

Awesome.

What does it mean when I say that Ni is like a bunch of Nes at night, gathered around the campfire, singing songs due to presence of acoustic guitar and coming to the mutual understanding in spirit of utter friendship and agreement? Well, as you know, Ne perceives possibilities, a lot of them. Latent state of things. Given X, various Ys can manifest. Now, it is evident that all those latent possibilities are not to be manifested. It is impossible. How so that Ni is bunch of Nes. Well, you perceive many possibilities regarding object A, then you perceive a lot of possibilities regarding object B, then you perceive a lot of possibilities regarding objects C and D, even E, F and perhaps G. Now all those possibilities regarding various objects form a system. A system of understanding regarding most likely future occurence. You have a lot of information on abstract properties of various objects and then you let things settle. Some of those possibilities get wiped out of the face of earth, they get nullified due to evergrowing income of conflicting, mutually exclusive information. That's the moment when you get Ni out of Ne.

This sounds a lot like my description of Ne + Ti working in concert...

[silverchris9]

I think I get what you're saying. To put it in other words, Ni predicts the future by extrapolating on the direction the present is going, but this assumes that their understanding of the direction the present is going is correct, which it may not be. "The direction the present is headed" is a dynamic, flexible concept, based on the patterns of events observed in the present. Yes?

Yes, exactly, and you put it in much clearer words too.

What does it mean when I say that Ni is like a bunch of Nes at night, gathered around the campfire, singing songs due to presence of acoustic guitar and coming to the mutual understanding in spirit of utter friendship and agreement? Well, as you know, Ne perceives possibilities, a lot of them. Latent state of things. Given X, various Ys can manifest. Now, it is evident that all those latent possibilities are not to be manifested. It is impossible. How so that Ni is bunch of Nes. Well, you perceive many possibilities regarding object A, then you perceive a lot of possibilities regarding object B, then you perceive a lot of possibilities regarding objects C and D, even E, F and perhaps G. Now all those possibilities regarding various objects form a system. A system of understanding regarding most likely future occurence. You have a lot of information on abstract properties of various objects and then you let things settle. Some of those possibilities get wiped out of the face of earth, they get nullified due to evergrowing income of conflicting, mutually exclusive information. That's the moment when you get Ni out of Ne.

I very much like/agree with this. It's really interesting, and makes me think about what both intuitive functions have in common (and consequently what the logical, ethical, and sensory functions have in common too). I like how you've expressed Ni in terms of Ne, and I wonder if one could express Ne in terms of Ni in a similar fashion.

[strrrng]

Pretty much, except I would say that Ni is not necessarily directed toward something specific in the future, but rather extrapolates forward in the direction the present is already moving. "Where the future is headed" is determined by "the direction the present is moving" to an Ni type.

Yeah. There's never any directly-related sequence of events that Ni envisions, or even a clear-cut "destination" that they are heading towards; despite it being able to effectually size up the given "rhythm" of a situation, instinctively correlate it with rhythms of past situations, and thus, extrapolate an idea about the "end" – but this will be nothing more than a hanging beacon in the mist.

Both dynamic field functions impose subjective boundaries on temporal processes; Ni carries an implicit idea of thematic consilience, more or less. It's assumed by an Ni ego that, in any given situation, some underlying theme will be gleaned, which will serve to reaffirm or alter the previously-established rhythm of things.

Makes sense. I do think Ni types may see several paths the future may take, but they're all paths in the same direction that the present is moving towards. Since Ne types don't see the present as moving at all (static), they see paths in all directions as being possible.

This is also true. Disparate deviations are foreign to Ni; even when it springs multiple impressions, said things manifest more as threads of abstraction, nascent and loosely-connected processes that will eventually find convergence with additional evolution.

I think I get what you're saying. To put it in other words, Ni predicts the future by extrapolating on the direction the present is going, but this assumes that their understanding of the direction the present is going is correct, which it may not be. "The direction the present is headed" is a dynamic, flexible concept, based on the patterns of events observed in the present. Yes?

I think you've touched on what tends to be both the impending fear and bane for Ni types – that their internal "vision" of the evolving processes is skewed or incorrect. Since everything extracted is highly internal, and all combines to alter the overall direction, it's very hard for an Ni type to simply "drop everything and start over." This hasn't happened too much ime, mostly because the keen individuals will not risk fucking up an understanding for the sake of momentary ease or whatever.

I'm glad to hear that from an Ni type.

[strrrng]

Ni uses far more than one input to get one output - it's more likely to use 20 inputs to get one output, and a slight change in any of those inputs or possession of additional factors will change the predicted output automatically ("transcending the axis of time"). I like to use a reverse spectrum analogy:



Subtle changes in any of the inputs (the multiple colours on the left) will subtly affect the colour and direction of the output (the single beam on the right).

I suppose an analogous description of Ne seeing the future is a diffraction grating:

Those are really good.

[Waddlesworth]

Ok, I know this has been discussed extensively in other threads, but I just thought of a way to describe the difference between how Ne and Ni perceive the future, and wanted to see what you guys think.

Ni sees the present as moving along a certain path. Therefore, it sees the future as simply an extension of that path. The actual path the future takes may vary somewhat to the left or the right, but it will always be going in that general direction.

Ne sees the present as a set of potentialities. Therefore, it sees the future as a wide range of possibilities which could spring from those potentialities, some of which are more likely than others, but any of which could conceivably happen.

As a consequence, Ni tends to be more sure of what the future will hold, whereas Ne tends to take a less certain "anything could happen" approach.

Thoughts?

Socionics attempts to break down Jung's functions into very impersonal, physical phenomena. I like this because it is objective and fundamental, but unfortunately no one can yet demonstrate practical application of these definitions.

Right now I am leaning more toward intuition being the same for introverts and extroverts, but having a different attitude attached to it. The introvert prefers to explore the potentials within themselves, whereas the extrovert directs toward potentials outside of them.

So, in essence, the type will be involved in 'movements', be they political or scientific, whereas the type engages in more self exploration of fantasy and personal development.

I may be wrong about this though.

Maybe the perception of time is different between and , but for now it seems to me that the and people look at time pretty much the same way. The difference in the intuition is one of attitude/interest.

Of course when and describe theories of time there may be visible differences, but this is because these types have different aspirations and goals when they think, it isn't so much because they perceive developments of things/time differently.

[strrrng]

Right now I am leaning more toward intuition being the same for introverts and extroverts, but having a different attitude attached to it. The introvert prefers to explore the potentials within themselves, whereas the extrovert directs toward potentials outside of them.

Despite this being very general, I don't think it's incorrect. Jung even touched on the difference between the extroverted and introverted intuitives, in saying (paraphrased), "...the same way that the extrovert [intuitive] goes from idea to idea, seemingly unbound by any established circumstance, so the introvert [intuitive] moves from image to image, abandoning each as a newer one arises."

So, in essence, the type will be involved in 'movements', be they political or scientific, whereas the type engages in more self exploration of fantasy and personal development.

So, I guess ****** must have been an Ne-ego then, eh?

[Waddlesworth]

So, I guess ****** must have been an Ne-ego then, eh?

I can't test ****** and even if I did I still can't prove type is real etc... etc...

I assume can be involved in politics, but it would be because of some deep internal sense of purpose or significance. "This is my journey; my calling" that kind of thing.

Though this does kinda sound like I feel there is a difference .

In addition: National Socialism was heavily occult, which seems to be an thing.

[strrrng]

I can't test ****** and even if I did I still can't prove type is real etc... etc...

I assume can be involved in politics, but it would be because of some deep internal sense of purpose or significance. "This is my journey; my calling" that kind of thing.

Yeah, I agree. And that seems a more appropriate assessment of ******'s manner.

Though this does kinda sound like I feel there is a difference .

Perhaps. NiFe is more about transforming the internal vision into something that will have an emotional effect on people; with gammas, the Ni focus is less spiritual, more aimed at structuring and stabilizing processes, allowing for interpersonal relations to be secured. Delta Fi is more idealistic than gamma Fi, but the implementation of the values and ideals, is of the most concrete and stable nature; so, the focus on structured processes becomes highly pronounced, as it provides a firm ground to pursue the more spiritual aspirations from.

[Marie84]

Pretty much, except I would say that Ni is not necessarily directed toward something specific in the future, but rather extrapolates forward in the direction the present is already moving. "Where the future is headed" is determined by "the direction the present is moving" to an Ni type.

Good point

So, in essence, the type will be involved in 'movements', be they political or scientific, whereas the type engages in more self exploration of fantasy and personal development.

I would say "movements" are more Ni, as they're about following a trend/concept, whereas Ne is more sporadic, often going off course.
I'd also say they're far more (successful and powerful) Ni politicians than Ne

[Waddlesworth]

I would say "movements" are more Ni, as they're about following a trend/concept, whereas Ne is more sporadic, often going off course.
I'd also say they're far more (successful and powerful) Ni politicians than Ne

A 'movement'(as in politics or science) is by definition an extraverted phenomenon. when it is a new movement, brimming with potential it would be

Once the movement begins to become mainstream, as with and ism then it becomes

If a politician is going be successful implementing a movement the movement MUST already be in a stage of mainstream action. When this occurs it has already reached the Beta quadra. But in the initial stages of any political action there is always an personality and they always are symbolic as the 'conscience' of that movement.

[Brilliand]

A 'movement'(as in politics or science) is by definition an extraverted phenomenon. when it is a new movement, brimming with potential it would be

Well no... is quite capable of describing reality, it just isn't situational as is. A movement is probably too broad in scope for - though the wonderful idea that starts the movement is not. The movement, before it starts, would be ; the movement foreseen as events that haven't happened yet would be . or might each determine the nature of the movement (yes, there are movements), while the Sensing elements would deal with what might be done to stop, alter or perpetuate the movement.

[Waddlesworth]

Well no... is quite capable of describing reality, it just isn't situational as is. A movement is probably too broad in scope for - though the wonderful idea that starts the movement is not. The movement, before it starts, would be ; the movement foreseen as events that haven't happened yet would be . or might each determine the nature of the movement (yes, there are movements), while the Sensing elements would deal with what might be done to stop, alter or perpetuate the movement.

You're just totally silly, Brilliand.
It's like, you disagree, without realizing you agree. Yet you kinda misunderstand at the same time.