Thought About Ni

[Gilly]

Oh, but it's not taking out the feelings of not being appreciated. That's completely different. FeSi is like "are you okay? Is something wrong?" and then you have to smile at them for them to go away and cluck over how you're not actually okay in the corner with their girlfriends. Or I guess they do that really obvious, "oh, you're alright, okay" fake thing if you refuse to give them an emotional reaction, and then they very obviously "go about their business" while waiting for you to "open up." This, or at least if it's the same thing I'm describing, is more like, kick-you-while-you're-down emotionally (I don't know how it works, I just know that if you act a certain kind of happy around someone who is miserable, it just sort of grinds on them), and is kind of vindictive.

Yeah I fucking hate that shit. I don't need or want people like that.

[MatthewZ]

You make me want to cry. Go read Don Quixote. Truth always triumphs over facts.

Wait, what? By what definition are facts ever not true?

[silverchris9]

Wait, what? By what definition are facts ever not true?

lol. It was a rhetorical figure. What I meant was something like this: universal or theoretical truths such as those understood by Don Quixote ("metaphysical speculations") are as valid and as important as the more literal facts ("tangible proof"), such as the fact that Don Quixote is not of noble blood, and neither is Dulcinea, that the famous windmills aren't giants, etc. I was providing Don Quixote as an example of "truth" triumphing over "facts". In some important sense, even though Don Quixote is by no means a knight according to the "facts," it is "true", I would say in a more fundamental sense, that he is indeed a knight. Quixote had tangible proof that the windmills were not giants, but then, wasn't he somehow right, in his metaphysical speculations that turned the windmills into giants?

[silverchris9]

I never did read Don Quixote.

I only read a few selections. I was supposed to read the whole thing, but... you know. It's on my reading list for the summer though.

[strrrng]

Oh, but it's not taking out the feelings of not being appreciated. That's completely different. FeSi is like "are you okay? Is something wrong?" and then you have to smile at them for them to go away and cluck over how you're not actually okay in the corner with their girlfriends. Or I guess they do that really obvious, "oh, you're alright, okay" fake thing if you refuse to give them an emotional reaction, and then they very obviously "go about their business" while waiting for you to "open up." This, or at least if it's the same thing I'm describing, is more like, kick-you-while-you're-down emotionally (I don't know how it works, I just know that if you act a certain kind of happy around someone who is miserable, it just sort of grinds on them), and is kind of vindictive.

yeah, this tendency is what generates the most conflict with alphas SFs, for me (more so ESEs). it feels like emotional states are assessed with assumptions, which creates this sort of unavoidable feeling of being 'labeled' one way or another. the fact that said thing is primarily dependent on circumstance, only amplifies the frustration (contrasted to gamma SFs, who will define people in a more implicit, immutable manner).

if I appear hazy/gloomy, then I must have had a bad day, or whatever. and it's just kind of like, why do you care? and if you do care, at least make the effort to get it right, not just subserve me to your emotional context.


it's not like beta NFs don't make assumptions about peoples' emotional states, but said things are usually based more on general, behavioral patterns, rather than tangible expression; and so, the frequency of assessment is less, because the application is a bit broader; consequently, you being in one state or another won't really matter, if it aligns with their basic understanding of you. if anything, they will use this as a means to shed more specific light on how you're reacting in a specific circumstance.

[redbaron]

it's not like beta NFs don't make assumptions about peoples' emotional states, but said things are usually based more on general, behavioral patterns, rather than tangible expression; and so, the frequency of assessment is less, because the application is a bit broader; consequently, you being in one state or another won't really matter, if it aligns with their basic understanding of you. if anything, they will use this as a means to shed more specific light on how you're reacting in a specific circumstance.

exactly.

[Beautiful sky]

exactly.

We look at intonations and gestures and can notice fine emotions in others very well.

[redbaron]

We look at intonations and gestures and can notice fine emotions in others very well.

??

[redbaron]

okay... I guess I thought we were talking about beta NFs vs. alpha SFs. So that's why I got confused. sorry.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

if I appear hazy/gloomy, then I must have had a bad day, or whatever. and it's just kind of like, why do you care?

They care because all moods are infectious. It's just sort of a natural human thing. I don't think this is type related. They care because they care about themselves, just like you do. So if you're unhappy, we're unhappy. People are just empathetic that way.

I don't know you're a smart guy, but you seem to have a problem with empathy and so I can understand why you might be confused about something that to me is pretty simple. Maybe you're confusing empathy with something that's too soft or teletubby ish? I honestly don't know.

and if you do care, at least make the effort to get it right, not just subserve me to your emotional context.

Well they can only help. If you're in a gloomy mood it's your own job to pull yourself out of it....if you want to. And that's what makes it frustrating for both people, I guess. Nobody can 'get it right for you', because it's really our own responsibility to lighten up around others. But they want so much for you to get it because like, everybody is emotionally connected that way. Not in a sort idealized carebear way but just in a default, base way.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

okay... I guess I thought we were talking about beta NFs vs. alpha SFs. So that's why I got confused. sorry.

Hmm. No offense, and I say this politely, because I don't really want you to get hurt but:

You really need to grow a spine sometimes. *sigh*

[redbaron]

Hmm. No offense, and I say this politely, because I don't really want you to get hurt but:

You really need to grow a spine sometimes. *sigh*

why, cause I wasn't RUDE like 98.5% of this forum?? *sigh* I dunno B&D, I was being polite to Maritsa, in a similar way that you were being polite to me above. I was truly confused as to what she was talking about. I didn't mean "I'm sorry" as in "I was wrong" but rather "I'm sorry" if she was as confused as I was.

what-ever.

[strrrng]

They care because all moods are infectious. It's just sort of a natural human thing. I don't think this is type related. They care because they care about themselves, just like you do. So if you're unhappy, we're unhappy. People are just empathetic that way.

I am not dependent on others' moods past a transient degree, and so don't expect them to be dependent on mine; when they are, it makes me feel burdened.

I don't know you're a smart guy, but you seem to have a problem with empathy and so I can understand why you might be confused about something that to me is pretty simple. Maybe you're confusing empathy with something that's too soft or teletubby ish? I honestly don't know.

I basically see empathy as a delusion. It is, by definition, the ability to recognize and appreciate a person's inner state, as it relates to an observable position. This, to me, is at the very least presumptuous, and at the very most personally invasive.

Well they can only help. If you're in a gloomy mood it's your own job to pull yourself out of it....if you want to. And that's what makes it frustrating for both people, I guess. Nobody can 'get it right for you', because it's really our own responsibility to lighten up around others. But they want so much for you to get it because like, everybody is emotionally connected that way. Not in a sort idealized carebear way but just in a default, base way.

Not all people want 'help.' I don't think the responsibility to 'pull myself out of it' should be for anyone's benefit but my own.


For objects to be connected, they have to exist independently. People assume inherent connectedness to repress the fact that they aren't (the fear of alienation is a powerful force).

[silverchris9]

98.5% was a nice percentage to pick.

yeah, this tendency is what generates the most conflict with alphas SFs, for me (more so ESEs). it feels like emotional states are assessed with assumptions, which creates this sort of unavoidable feeling of being 'labeled' one way or another. the fact that said thing is primarily dependent on circumstance, only amplifies the frustration (contrasted to gamma SFs, who will define people in a more implicit, immutable manner).

I'm fine with being labeled in an IEI sort of way, but I agree, labeling is a good term for that ESE response. However, when I'm in a bad mood, nothing is less helpful than a delta NF who wants me to calm down and take deep breaths or what-the-eff-ever. Argh.

if I appear hazy/gloomy, then I must have had a bad day, or whatever. and it's just kind of like, why do you care? and if you do care, at least make the effort to get it right, not just subserve me to your emotional context.

Exactly. It's like they see a chance to be caretakers and they immediately go into that mode whether it's actually going to be helpful or not. That said, I'm sure LIIs really appreciate that.

it's not like beta NFs don't make assumptions about peoples' emotional states, but said things are usually based more on general, behavioral patterns, rather than tangible expression; and so, the frequency of assessment is less, because the application is a bit broader; consequently, you being in one state or another won't really matter, if it aligns with their basic understanding of you. if anything, they will use this as a means to shed more specific light on how you're reacting in a specific circumstance.

Right. I'm much more likely to say, "hmmm... x reacted in manner y to occurrence z; would my current model have predicted this, does this fit or not fit with my conception of x, how does this change my theory of who x is, etc." and then try to act in the way that, based on my (newly refined) understanding of the person, I would guess which action would be most likely to produce the desired response, be it cheering the person up (if possible), or making them feel even worse (if possible), or whatever. ESEs, on the other hand, tend to see the emotional reaction and have a blanket sort of, "oh, you're not talkative ---> you must be sad ---> you must want chicken soup," reaction. It's like they let the emotional moment dictate their response rather than a broader, more long-range understanding of who the person is. Which, again, is helpful to LIIs, I'm sure (although I don't know how).

[silverchris9]

Also, IEI personality reading is essentially temporal in nature. It is about taking a sign backwards in time to its origin. This may be one reason IEIs are often enneagram 4s and enneagram 4s are often IEIs: both seem to have some relationship to origins (insofar as the "Holy Idea" of 4s is Holy Origin, and the IEI style of temporal interpretation could be used to track something back to its origins---a hallmark of IEI philosophy/thought, I think, as in Parmenides---a sure Ni ego---and Heraclitus---certainly an Ni valuer if not an Ni-ego).

On another note, I'm not even interested in idealizing Se any more. I just want it to be like Ni, a part of the background of my life. Or rather, I want what those two terms describe to be part of the background of my life. Always be wary of believing in signifiers rather than what they signify (that will kill your poetry).

Ni is also a lot about the interpretive context under which one evaluates the sign. The framework, the heruistic. Ni will often doubt its own conclusions because it understands the multiple frameworks by which one can view something. I think this is different from Ne, but I don't know how. Maybe it's in this: say you have an object viewed from seventeen different perspectives. Ni is about deducing the object from the seventeen different perspectives. Ni focuses on the perspectives. Ne is about deducing the seventeen different perspectives from the object. Ne focuses on the object and then says, "how could we look at this?" Ni focuses on the ways of seeing and says, "how can I get the full picture of what this is?" But that's just my speculation, and is more informed by how I operate than how Ni actually is, perhaps.

[strrrng]

On another note, I'm not even interested in idealizing Se any more. I just want it to be like Ni, a part of the background of my life. Or rather, I want what those two terms describe to be part of the background of my life. Always be wary of believing in signifiers rather than what they signify (that will kill your poetry).

and always be wary of the wariness that interpreting signifiers can cause you to harbor towards them.

Ni is also a lot about the interpretive context under which one evaluates the sign. The framework, the heruistic. Ni will often doubt its own conclusions because it understands the multiple frameworks by which one can view something. I think this is different from Ne, but I don't know how. Maybe it's in this: say you have an object viewed from seventeen different perspectives. Ni is about deducing the object from the seventeen different perspectives. Ni focuses on the perspectives. Ne is about deducing the seventeen different perspectives from the object. Ne focuses on the object and then says, "how could we look at this?" Ni focuses on the ways of seeing and says, "how can I get the full picture of what this is?" But that's just my speculation, and is more informed by how I operate than how Ni actually is, perhaps.

I agree. Ni just assumes that objects -exist- and are therefore subject to the interpretation of lenses of perception. more objects gathered, contexts widens, shifts, etc.

Ne feels backwards, in that regard. what 'actually' exists, is more of a rotary function (Si recursion...). so every object's parts are divided within a changing space.

[Satan]

Nick smoke more pot and talk with less intellectuals. You're getting convoluted.

[strrrng]

actually, I'm just sleep-deprived and disjointed, but I figure that won't matter, since I'm talking to silverchris.

also, I haven't smoked pot in weeks. but thanks for reminding me, asshole.

[redbaron]

actually, I'm just sleep-deprived and disjointed, but I figure that won't matter, since I'm talking to silverchris.

[Mattie]

Ni proper is primarily concerned with signifier-signified relationships, i.e., meaning. More specifically, it is about how signifier-signified relationships change--internal dynamics of fields. I think the linguistic metaphor sheds light on something important about Ni (and also about why the archetype for the IEI is a lyric poet). So when we talk about Ni being about predicting the future, what will happen, etc., we're really talking about reading signs, figuring out what the meaning is going to be. Notice that it's what the meaning is going to be--Ni doesn't read signs in a 1 to 1 relationship--that's more like Ti and Fi (statics of fields). Ni reads signs in a dynamic way--how the meaning will change over time. As such, "high-level" Ni (that is, one of the most impressive or difficult skills that an Ni outlook on life helps you to master) can learn to manipulate the relationships between signifiers and what they signify, changing what the sign means. This can take the form of political rhetoric (i.e., Barack Obama), or, of course, it can take the form of poetry.

Did you read some Saussure or Derrida before this post? I have to agree with the wording Gilly provided, significance seems more fitting than meaning. How something is pertinent to the overall process, or objective, or whatever is going on, seems to be around what I conceive of . Really, I'm glad this topic was brought up because I wanted to read how a bunch of types see this IE, brings a little clarity, thought it would have been nice for an NiTe to pop their head in here.

Ne seeks out unassimilated information (i.e. what it doesn't understand), which often means anything mysterious and unknown. The harder and more conceptual something is, the more I want to learn it.

I responded this way as well, between and there only seems to be this objective/subjective difference in seeking possible significance. When you brought up liking to go on walks by yourself, I thought about the times I traveled to San Francisco by myself and Chicago with my NeTi best friend. I still felt an overwhelming feeling on the inside, almost like blocks fitting into place as I took the cities in, and I was particularly traveling to them to see if they were places I'd want to live. It was almost like I was placing myself in something that already existed and saw how it all lined up with me; I felt like I was a factor amongst many others, and it was beautiful. It was more like being a part of some grand thing rather than assimilating it into myself, almost like being aware of the air around me instead of my breathing, if that makes sense.

Yeah, it is. While certainly a given person can be either selfish or selfless depending on their ideals, there is a fundamental selfishness to Fe, because Fe is about the emotion, the change for its own sake, and thinks that the internal change is more important than keeping the relationship solid, keeping people comfortable. I see this all the time with my SEE brother (semi-duality is really a bitch, because each one expects the other to be their dual because it just seems so much like it). He wants to avoid the raw feelings for the sake of keeping people from being upset, for the sake of maintaining the quality of the relationship, whereas I would rather upset the relationship for a while for the sake of expressing myself, and yes, there is something truly selfish about wanting to express one's self (feel the extremes of internal change) rather than focusing on how that self-expression is going to impact your relationship to another human being, and so I can't argue when he says I'm selfish in that way, 'cause it's true. But I kind of have to assume that it's valid in its own way, even if sometimes it is excessive (tcaud-I-think has this idea of transcendent and immanent, and I feel like the idea of transcendence is like settling, moderating your behavior, letting things be; I want to go past all limits and all time, I don't want to moderate myself, I want to pursue my way so far that it becomes okay, I don't know).

There's a flip side to this, I think the "selfishness" is equal enough not be a noteworthy enough of a difference. While I'd agree somewhat along the lines of your brother, there's a part of valuers that also easily can give up "responsibility" for other people, in a sense, not really feeling obligated to upkeep or maintain anything with a person because they don't fit within the -valuer's category of people to care about. And this is a little broad, but it's something along the lines of "please respect this arbitrary line that I've created that allows me to act whatever way I deemed appropriate in my arbitrary manner," which can be very selfish. This relates to something redbaron said that I'll dwell on later. And while everyone kinda has this (I'd say egos have this the least), there can be a feeling of being damned or obsessed over without having done anything that you've realized to prompt such behavior (this is something that annoys me about other valuers). My NeTi best friend and I have problems with this, because while she is trying to use and look for interaction, if someone does something that puts me off, I initially don't feel obligated to entertain them or act in a manner that coincides with the overall going-ons. She takes getting hit on by gross guys way better than I do, she's able to just laugh with them and maybe even talk while my body language screams "GET AWAY FROM ME" if they have done something to make me uncomfortable.

I have caught myself doing this also. With an IEE friend/acquaintance (or she might be EII). Like she'll be standing there all mopey and there will be someone else there too and I'll intentionally start throwing around the positive Fe with the other person, right in front of delta NF. She's free to join in of course but since she's mopey, she doesn't. Which is fine by me--I don't feel bad about it but I'm sure as heck not gonna be brought down to her miserable mood.

I'm guilty of this crime (of the NeFi), and it's a pretty shitty thing to do. It goes along with the selfish bit; I feel like that if I'm feel bad and I want someone to do something about it, I'll act that way until it's fixed. It's a bit of an immaturity thing, or when I just have had so much go on and I don't want to explode, so I get so expressionless and dull that it's hard to tolerate and you have to interact with me. I did this at a get-together once because I was overwhelmingly upset at an SiTe that was at it and was just a silent, curt mope the entire time. I was pretty ashamed afterwards, but it did eventually get the SiTe to talk to me and find out what was wrong, but it was because he hated that sort of behavior. And I didn't like doing it, but the logic behind it made sense, except that I didn't feel obligated in the effect I had to other people I didn't particular care about as much.

if I appear hazy/gloomy, then I must have had a bad day, or whatever. and it's just kind of like, why do you care? and if you do care, at least make the effort to get it right, not just subserve me to your emotional context.

Funny, if I appear particularly gloomy, its because I want people to know I had a bad day and I want them to care it. If I don't want people to know anything about the bad day I had, or it's just averagely bad that it's not worth mentioning, they would have zero idea, I can completely hide it.

[strrrng]

Funny, if I appear particularly gloomy, its because I want people to know I had a bad day and I want them to care it. If I don't want people to know anything about the bad day I had, or it's just averagely bad that it's not worth mentioning, they would have zero idea, I can completely hide it.

well, I don't typically give off much, emotionally. the problem is, alpha SFs have some detector for the slightest changes in one's physical state. so, it feels like I can't not reveal something, though the error comes in making the connection between how someone is affecting you within the environment and what their more basic emotional state is. it's just a bit invasive; I need to let my moods course along, regardless of how 'good' or 'bad' one may be at some point, because the broader evolution is more important to me.

[silverchris9]

and always be wary of the wariness that interpreting signifiers can cause you to harbor towards them.

HB says that Hamlet has no faith in language. But I guess Shakespeare had a cautious faith in language, which abided.

I agree. Ni just assumes that objects -exist- and are therefore subject to the interpretation of lenses of perception. more objects gathered, contexts widens, shifts, etc.

Ne feels backwards, in that regard. what 'actually' exists, is more of a rotary function (Si recursion...). so every object's parts are divided within a changing space.

I'm not in the mood to discuss socionics, but I wanted to respond to your post. I agree. Might edit this later.

actually, I'm just sleep-deprived and disjointed, but I figure that won't matter, since I'm talking to silverchris.

Why thank you!