Ne vs Ni

[Creepy-male]

Ne - extraverted. Relationships are assumed to be mutable. Qualities of things are considered to be fixed.

Ni - introverted. Relationships are assumed to be fixed. Qualities of things are mutable.

ESI mum, in a moment of Ni HA: "you have a great brain, but who knows what it'll be used for..."

This is Ni's fixed Intuitive/temporal relationship: The intuitive bodies are "the past", "now" and "in the future". The relationship is of fixed quality: there's some great path for me. That said, the qualities of the "in the future" body are completely unknown in nature.

I suppose the Ne approach would rather be "You're in a really high-potential situation! You've got a good brain that could do any number of really cool or useful things!" Any particular course of action over time is ignored because temporal fields are considered to be changeable in nature. What's focused on are all the different potential outcomes.

(As an aside, HAs are probably really good for studying what functions look like in as pure a way as is possible in a human being, since I think they'll typically be engaged in a way essentially divorced from either DS or PoLR.)

[1981slater]

Ne - extraverted. Relationships are assumed to be mutable. Qualities of things are considered to be fixed.

Ni - introverted. Relationships are assumed to be fixed. Qualities of things are mutable.

If anything, I perceive Ni/Se as rather skeptical when it comes to assessing the potential qualities of people and things. On the other hand, they seem well aware that relationships are mutable.

I perceive relationships as "hard to change" and qualities as "easy to change (it requires hard work, nonetheless". I think this was written in wikisocion as an example of E vs I.

[Beautiful sky]

Ne - extraverted. Relationships are assumed to be mutable. Qualities of things are considered to be fixed.

Ni - introverted. Relationships are assumed to be fixed. Qualities of things are mutable.

ESI mum, in a moment of Ni HA: "you have a great brain, but who knows what it'll be used for..."

Do you see the Ne PoLR in your mom's statement? Excellent post. I LOVE IT.

If anything, I perceive Ni/Se as rather skeptical when it comes to assessing the potential qualities of people and things. On the other hand, they seem well aware that relationships are mutable.

I perceive relationships as "hard to change" and qualities as "easy to change (it requires hard work, nonetheless". I think this was written in wikisocion as an example of E vs I.

What do you mean by this? Please give an example.

[FDG]

ESI mum, in a moment of Ni HA: "you have a great brain, but who knows what it'll be used for..."

Actually, that's often one of the weakest points of Ne-polr in ESIs - understanding other people's potential abilities and talents. It's where supervision from the side of IEE can be really visibile. Sometimes even I have to come off strongly in order to make them change their mind. I understand what you mean though - it can be consdered as an indirect way to ask for

If anything, I perceive Ni/Se as rather skeptical when it comes to assessing the potential qualities of people and things. On the other hand, they seem well aware that relationships are mutable.

Se types are extremely skeptical (too skeptical, I'd say they can't do it all, in my experience - especially ISFjs and ESTps), Ni types can be good at evaluating potential since they do have strong Ne (especially INFps and ENTjs, since they're positivist).

[EyeSeeCold]

Functions need to be redefined, Ne is not always about potential. It's objective intuition.

For example, types can more likely predict how someone / something is in a neutral sense, like mind reading. Mind reading seems subjective but it's really not. People usually have a common theme of thought, like sex or money troubles, or how much their job sucks.

on the other hand predicts due to unique qualities. It can mind read based on an individual's mode of conduct.

[Beautiful sky]

Functions need to be redefined, Ne is not always about potential. It's objective intuition.

For example, types can more likely predict how someone / something is in a neutral sense, like mind reading. Mind reading seems subjective but it's really not. People usually have a common theme of thought, like sex or money troubles, or how much their job sucks.

on the other hand predicts due to unique qualities. It can mind read based on an individual's mode of conduct.

please clarify...

[EyeSeeCold]

please clarify...

Right now you're at your computer, browsing the internet, refreshing pages and looking for replies. You're probably tired or about to be.

Accurate?

[Beautiful sky]

Right now you're at your computer, browsing the internet, refreshing pages and looking for replies. You're probably tired or about to be.

Accurate?

YES!!! How did you know?

[EyeSeeCold]

lol

I'm just saying, plays around with objective information to make its intuitive leaps, so the stuff that is produced seems wildly accurate, but its only because it's objective.

plays with subjective information so it only seems accurate or makes sense to those who've had previous experience.

Gypsies, mind readers etc have all probably been Ego.

[Creepy-female]

ESI mum, in a moment of Ni HA: "you have a great brain, but who knows what it'll be used for..."

I suppose the Ne approach would rather be "You're in a really high-potential situation! You've got a good brain that could do any number of really cool or useful things!"

These examples didn't stand out for me so much functionally as, the first one sounds in general as rather negative to hear from one's mother, while the latter gives an impression of positivity and encouragement.

[Beautiful sky]

lol

I'm just saying, plays around with objective information to make its intuitive leaps, so the stuff that is produced seems wildly accurate, but its only because it's objective.

plays with subjective information so it only seems accurate or makes sense to those who've had previous experience.

LOL I know

I like this explanation a lot.

[Beautiful sky]

lol

I'm just saying, plays around with objective information to make its intuitive leaps, so the stuff that is produced seems wildly accurate, but its only because it's objective.

plays with subjective information so it only seems accurate or makes sense to those who've had previous experience.

Gypsies, mind readers etc have all probably been Ego.

We follow objects around just like Se types, except we can't see the object for it's surface qualities we see it for something in potential of it's qualities. For instance an Se might look at a brick and say it has these feature, rectangle, dark copper color, rough course etc...

I look at a brick and say, it can be used for building a house and for grinding and making into cement, etc. I don't care much about what it actually is.

Same with people. Because Ne/Si go together I might like or be attracted to someone for other than their looks, but more for their potential. I would say my SLI X was average looking to me, most women were really drawn to him, but to me it was the potential he held as an individual who could work hard and succeed at something with me.

[Creepy-male]

These examples didn't stand out for me so much functionally as, the first one sounds in general as rather negative to hear from one's mother, while the latter gives an impression of positivity and encouragement.

Really? I think it's quite a positive message. That's what mums are for. I just get more excited over being told that I have potential rather being told that I have some great and unforseeable destiny.

[1981slater]

That's not true. I ruthlessly size up the potential of everyone and everything I come into contact with. I recognize promising people and ideas when I see them, and dismiss incapable people and stupid ideas.

Of couse Ni/Se see possibilities: imagine an entrepeneur (gamma NT, for instance) thinking about setting a new business. What I think Se/Ni do not "accept" is the possibility of someone regarded as "having x trait" being able to develop "y trait or z trait".

[Beautiful sky]

Of couse Ni/Se see possibilities: imagine an entrepeneur (gamma NT, for instance) thinking about setting a new business. What I think Se/Ni do not "accept" is the possibility of someone regarded as "having x trait" being able to develop "y trait or z trait".

Se and Ni are great at recognizing potential, but especially being supportive of your endeavors because they provide more positive feedback to bubble you up, inflate your ego, make you feel strong, make you feel like that mountain is yours and you can go get it

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Ni:

-understanding things throughoutly
-going to the root, the essence of things
-trying to be ambitious, setting long-term goals and thinking about ways achieve them (suggestive Se)
-going through life in a strategic way, considering every eventuality, being perfectionistic
-thinking about your inner essence, your soul, and who other people really are behind the curtain

Ne:

-being curious and trying out many different directions without aiming at fully understanding them
-being bored with repetition and in-depth studying
-considering alternatives, finding different ways to solve a problem. "Hey, we are currently stuck in a rut here, why don't we do something else instead" "let's consider this alternative". "I feel like abandoning my projects and start something entirely different instead"
-being fine with understanding the basics of an issues, knowing about it 50-75% is good enough

Ni is the inventor, Ni+ to be precise, because you need to study something in-depth to find something new, while Ne improves things that already exist by finding alternatives and different perspectives

[Lord Pixel]

When I dated an ILI sometimes she would read into what I was saying and be convinced that her interpretation of what I said was correct and would argue with me about what I really meant, lol made no sense to me.


And alot of the times I see Ne say "X is like Y." but Ni says "X is just Y." "This movie is like that movie but with guns." /"This movie is just that movie but with guns." and idk but reductionists rub me the wrong way lol.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Downsides of a low focus on Ni for Ne base types:

-doesn't like to plan too far ahead, prefers to do things spontaniously as the situation progresses without preparation, changes course on a whim, likely fails at something that they set out to do

Downsides of a low focus on Ne for Ni base types:

- doesn't like to be confronted with a new perspective out of nowhere once they have studied something in-depth. has a difficult time opening up for an alternative route

[CR400AF]

Ni:-understanding things throughoutly-going to the root, the essence of things-trying to be ambitious, setting long-term goals and thinking about ways achieve them (suggestive Se)-going through life in a strategic way, considering every eventuality, being perfectionistic-thinking about your inner essence, your soul, and who other people really are behind the curtainNe:-being curious and trying out many different directions without aiming at fully understanding them-being bored with repetition and in-depth studying-considering alternatives, finding different ways to solve a problem. "Hey, we are currently stuck in a rut here, why don't we do something else instead" "let's consider this alternative". "I feel like abandoning my projects and start something entirely different instead"-being fine with understanding the basics of an issues, knowing about it 50-75% is good enoughNi is the inventor, Ni+ to be precise, because you need to study something in-depth to find something new, while Ne improves things that already exist by finding alternatives and different perspectives

-understanding things throughoutly ......THIS IS Ne-going to the root, the essence of things ...... THIS IS NeA typical misunderstanding is to believe that Ni perceives the essense of objects. No. It should be clear that the essence of objects are decided by the object so it's extraverted. It's Ne instead.Ni is.totally different. Ni is oriented towards the archetypes in our collective unconsciousness. It's able to predict the past and future with the archetypes. This is what Ni values. It values our archetypes (introverted).instead of the essense of objects themselves (extraverted).

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Ne doesn't really go deep. It is always focused on alternatives and scattered by nature. I think we disagree here.

[Aster]

Ne is play dough or legos and Ni is a puzzle- sometimes you can make out what the pieces are or what they will form. Or what the end result will look like.

[DogOfDanger]

Ne is pretty poorly understood...
-while it's an extraverted function it's still an internal function and primarily subjective, it's just a bit more objective than Fi or Ni
-since it is a static function it is about taking in information. the information does not come from within, it's information out in the world being brought in. it's really the point where the information being taking in first makes contact with the subject
new information being integrated into the self has to be evaluated, assessed for what it means to the self and what it is worth, how it can be integrated into the subject, what its ramifications are.. the possibilities of Ne are internal - it is an internal function - they're about what the information may or may not mean and what its worth, they're not prospects out there in the world. Prospects in the world are much more related with Se. And alot of the strategic and goal oriented thinking I see being associated with it is actually more related to Te. The mistake being made is assuming that it being an extraverted function makes it an external function, this is something socionics is very confusing about... it is an internal function. TBH if you want to really understand the functions I recommend you think first about the static/dynamic and internal/external axis, and only as an afterthought consider the introverted/extraverted axis.

Ni differs from Ne in that it's an introverted function - they're both internal functions, but Ni is more purely subjective, it's more deeply internal. Ni is also dynamic - with Ni the information is emerging out of the subject. The emergence can be spontaneous, it can be deliberately recalled... it can be from the unconscious but doesn't have to be, it can also be from the subconscious or the conscious mind. What distinguishes it is just that the subject is the source - their memories - rather than the environment. Ni is the very first emergence of the information from the subject. So something like brainstorming, where the prospects come from the subject, is mainly a Ni activity..

[CR400AF]

Ne doesn't really go deep. It is always focused on alternatives and scattered by nature. I think we disagree here.

I think the essence is how to understand introversion/extraversion.

Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay in the object.

In this paragraph, Jung actually said that Ne has a "penetrating vision".

But I personally prefer to stick on the fundamental definition of introversion/extraversion. The essence of things are decided by the objects themselves. So valuing and focusing on the essence of objects is an extraverted altitude.

Since Ne sees and values the essence of things, a number of possibilities appears. For instance, you see a backpack sitting on the road and you (Ne) realize that the essence of the backpack is that it contains gunpowder. Then, based on this essence, you can consider many possibilities: it could be nothing, it could burn, and it could explode. Ni, on the other hand, is not concerned with this essence; it is concerned with the archetypes that are relevant in our collective unconscious. Through this archetype, Ni uses those perceptions that we humans have evolved about the successive relationships between things to make a prediction about the future of this backpack: it could explode.

In the language of Socionics Model A, Ne is oriented toward objects while Ni is oriented towards (successive) relationships. I think it's exactly the same as what Jung tried to express.

[Renna]

I think Ne focus on the possibilities of an object, that’s why it’s call static, because the possibility of an object doesn’t change when you put it alone, not interacting with other object.

Ni gather information when they see different objects interact with each other, then form a pattern of it, but because the information they gathered are never enough, the patterns they found would always change overtime to keep up with reality, so it dynamic

So Ne better for inventing because it focus on the potential of each object, it has more details. when Ni see the big picture, predicting the future by pattern of past experience.

But Ne may not as useful as Ni in a sense that a potential of an object doesn’t mean it would work in the real world, when it has to interact with different object, so a lot of trial and error are needed. But Ni has draw back too because of the imperfection of information.

Just like Ti vs Te, Ti when create a system, they will put it in a static state for easily working with it.

Ti system would work at their best in a “perfect condition”. But life never give you a perfect condition because it’s dynamic, so you need Te to fix random thing that happens to break the Ti system.

[DogOfDanger]

I think the essence is how to understand introversion/extraversion.
...
In this paragraph, Jung actually said that Ne has a "penetrating vision".

But I personally prefer to stick on the fundamental definition of introversion/extraversion. The essence of things are decided by the objects themselves. So valuing and focusing on the essence of objects is an extraverted altitude.

What we have here is a very deep confusion where we equivocate the internal/external aspect with the introverted/extraverted aspect. This unfortunately does trace back to Jung, who really did not understand the information aspects and was first forming these ideas, and he did not write about them with very great precision. He was definitely getting at something, but the fact is the subject is always primarily involved in feeling or intuition, and the object is always the chief concern of sensing or thinking.

I think Ne focus on the possibilities of an object, that’s why it’s call static, because the possibility of an object doesn’t change when you put it alone, not interacting with other object.

Ne isn't about objects, it's about information, it is primarily subjective. Intuition and feeling are always primarily subjective, Ni and Fi are merely more deeply internal (i.e. subjective) whereas Fe and Ne are just not as deeply internal.
The static functions take in information. Static information doesn't effect other things in the world, but it does relate to / integrate with information in the subject.
Se drinks in raw sensory information.... Ti sifts through information, deciding what makes sense and what doesn't... i.e. what to retain. Fi deeply internalizes the information and resonates it with the rest of the subject. And Ne is assessing prospectively what the information means to the subject, evaluating it and its ramifications. Ne is not about possibilities of objects, Ne is an internal function. The fact it is called "extraverted" is misleading, I know alot of confused / mentally deranged socionics authors have described it as being concerned with objects, this is nonsense, this is just a desperate wedding of Se and Ne that is being promoted here. Or Te and Ne. It is a bit more objective than Ni or Fi yes, but Ne is more subjective than something like Ti or Si which are external functions.
The "possibility of an object" could mean pretty much anything - it could mean where the object could move... that would be Se. It could mean what you can do with the object... that would be Te. It could mean... what the object is exactly. That would be Si. It could mean... alot of things, really. To Ne an object is information that carries a set of implications, Ne evaluates what the information means to the self.

[crazymaisy]

Lego pieces, not legos