Ne: A Deeper Look

[anndelise]

I might feel empathy faster than an entp would, however, the feeling of "pity" falls into a judging function and not Ne.

The feeling of empathy also does fall into creative function as much as pity does.

i think that it is a possiblity that it is only an illusion that enfps relate well to people. I find myself in constant awe as well as argh in dealing with people, which is one main reason why i am constantly asking them questions about why they did x and how they felt about x, etc....i want to relate to them...but that doesn't mean that i do it well.

You do relate to people well, trust me. 'Relate' means to know in almost every situation if somebody hates you and why, or lies about own feelings towards you. Get it?

Now, if you're more INTUITIVE subtype, then your emotions it perception of other's emotions towards you or a third party aren't very clear! FEEL more and fell CORRECT (whatever that means)!

But I do NOT "know in almost every situation" if somebody hates me and why, or is lying bout their feelings towards me. Which is why i said that i think it is an illusion to others that enfps "know" these things. I've seen many enfps make many mistakes each when it comes to other people's feelings. That isn't what Fi is about. It is NOT about predicting or reading feelings. It IS about evaluating things...whether it be an individual's feelings towards something/someone, or even the value of an object/idea to whatever/whomever. It's about values, not feelings. It's about an enfp asking "do you like this? why did you do that? did it meet your criteria? how did you feel about the consequence?" etc.

[Kristiina]

My interest in this topic is in discovering the similarities and differences of the Ne of entp vs the Ne of enfp, if there are any. It seems that there might be, but so far, descriptions are including too much of the judging functions as well.

Look, in previous posts I assumed that our are the same, that they percieved that same situation. I move on to creative functions to find out the differences.
IMHO, there is no difference between in ENFP and in ENTP. It's the creative function that makes the difference. I guess...

However, there was some fuss with that ENTJ girl about and differences. I stated that people with can imagine brand new, never- seen-before-by-human-eye situations and explain them. People with can't do that, they can only imagine situations they seen before by an physical eye. Hey, ENTJ girly, what do you think?

I can definitely imagine brand new, never- seen-before-by-human-eye situations and explain them, although they are similar to the things I have seen. I can imagine what could happen, because all the visual clues are right in front of me (the girl, the bicycle, etc). I can easily imagine what probably happened.

EDIT: anyone can guess what happened to the girl, I'll see it as a movie, where she ends up in the position I see.

But as I mentioned in another thread (gamma->ENTj women), when it comes to future, I'll the the most likely outcome and I'll see the less obvious alternatives as sudden unexpected flashes. I think that having Ni as my creative function automatically means that I'll be receiving the Ne, while I have little or no control over it. I'm not good at generating the different versions of alternative outcome. Ni works well, but Ne just contributes to the "female intuition" or "gut feeling".

[anndelise]

Summary of Ne in this thread, thus far:

Thread topic is Ne. More specifically, what do we know about it, and how do we recognize it.
This shouldn't be such a hard question to answer, however, it has not yet been agreed upon in this thread. As Kristiina points out, there must be some way of distinguishing enfps and entps from other people (which, if we get that figured out, would aid in distinguishing Ne, thus answering Gilligan's and Kristiina's questions.)

Thus far,
Gilligan sees Ne as "a function of the desire to gauge potential in everything that one sees."

Drake proposes that Ne is about potential behavior of objects.
(He also aligns visualizing with Ne, and, while I too see visuals, I cannot limit Ne to just visuals.)
---

From there,
Though the entp might modify their perceptions and sort what they see according to potential, I argue that the sorting process is a judging function and should not be confused with the Ne perceptions themselves.

I believe that accepting Ne is simply about perceiving associations. Which associations depends on the individual, and, to a degree, the type.

As the Ne1 (Ne in the first function) person sorts those associations, for whatever purposes, they do so by following certain criteria. The more specialized the sorting, the more specialized the focus, the more specialized the filters, and thus the more specialized the types of associations/information which will be attended to, cycling into a specialized information metabolizing system (in this case, the enfp/entp).


From what Gilligan, Drake, and others elsewhere mention of entps, it seems that the entp perceives associations that deal with possible actions/uses of an entity. (Entity here is used to refer to animate/inanimate/systematic objects.)

From my own observations of a number of varying enfps, I suggest that the enfp perceives possible affects/consequences on an entity.

Basically, one sees an object doing…the other sees the object being done to.
---


Bringing this post back to the original questions of how does one recognize Ne:

I believe that if a person is attending to associations regarding an object, then at that moment, the person is utilizing their Ne. This can be in the form of deliberately creating associations (as in Diana's wondering why the little girl has blue hair), or in passively receiving associations (as in, ooh! bleeding little girl can run over and smack that oncoming car, fall over, freak out the driver, and get lots of money).

However, determining which order it's in, is not as easy to notice unless one pays attention to consistency and patterns of the person's Ne usage.
---


It is late, and I am running on scattered energy. If the above doesn't make sense, or someone has something else they would like to offer, I am certainly open to other possibilities.

[FDG]

Drake, your inability to feel pity is not connected to being an ENTp but more to being messed up yourself, probably.

Every type can imagine brand new things. I know an ISFj which is into fractal geometry applied to market behaviour.

[drake]

Drake, your inability to feel pity is not connected to being an ENTp but more to being messed up yourself, probably.

I can feel pity. And I'm not messed up! I'm trying to really understand that ENTP person, because of it's structure and weak wouldn't feel pity right away, but would be trying to find out the reason why the girl fell.

Every type can imagine brand new things. I know an ISFj which is into fractal geometry applied to market behaviour.

I don't agree. Brand new things may mean in the case of ISFJ:
- reflecting it's own survived moments before this moment in it's life.
Nothing else. Everyone has unique past! If I say that I fell from a bike 15 years ago in a brand new context, then - sure - I said a brand new thing. An ISFJ person can do that, ISTJ, ESTJ, ... anyone. That's perhaps what you wanted to say by that every type can imagine brand new things.

However, and are very complex and it's almost impossible for us here on this forum without experiments on certain people to determine the differences, the realization and flaws, and I don't know what else.
Perhaps it's better to quit fighting.

[FDG]

I don't agree. Brand new things may mean in the case of ISFJ:
- reflecting it's own survived moments before this moment in it's life.
Nothing else. Everyone has unique past! If I say that I fell from a bike 15 years ago in a brand new context, then - sure - I said a brand new thing. An ISFJ person can do that, ISTJ, ESTJ, ... anyone. That's perhaps what you wanted to say by that every type can imagine brand new things.

Sure as hell felling from a bike it's just the same as figuring out fractal patterns in graphs.

However, no, everyone can imagine a flying Mammoth, provided that:

- They know what a Mammoth is
- They know what wings are

Which, of course, you must know as well, since if you didn't, you couldn't define what you imagined as "flying Mammoth".

[Ms. Kensington]

As I vaguely figure, the main difference between and is that people with can't put some object in a situation that they haven't seen before. That is, if you have and you haven't seen a flying mammoth, then you can't imagine it. I, with can, because with I alter structure of that mammoth by adding wings and voila -> a flying mammoth. I mean, I can imagine a clear blue sky and a mammoth above the ground. But I see the mammoth with wings. )

Get it? people NEVER change structure of objects, people do!

This isn't a good way to constrast and . Like FDG, ANY person can imagine new, never before seen things that are completely unrelated to anything they've seen or experienced before. That's just part of being human (and a lot of what makes us so great) and isn't something related to any given function persay.

I don't think and are all that dissimilar. I think for the most part they eventually reach the same conclusions. just does it quicker and it comes in one big lump which you then have to tease apart and figure out how you made the leap from A -> Z. takes the time to consciously connect things and make the sequence from A -> B... -> Z, while also considering various alternatives like Bx and By along the way. Each has it's advantages. I also tend to think if you have well-developed or , you'll usually have a pretty strong component of the other.

I thought the current problem people had with socionics is that people talked about what people can do and what they normally do, and i think that its true that you dont see Ni people spending upwards of 80% of their time thinking about winged mammoths for the reason of putting different real world elements together. Ne people might spend all their time doing such things and get enjoyment out of it. I speak for myself. Dont know if that was a good example, but i was using the one that was given. uh.. so yeah if there had been some evidence that there were wing buds that were in the works for evolution of a mammoth an INTp would be talking about winged mammoths if the wind blew the right way. Would he be dreaming up vivid images? i dont know? But i think i'd commit myself to saying of course anyone CAN imagine a winged mammoth so that if one reproduced that image on paper we'd all point to it and say yup winged mammoth.

Also i think that you cant really use Ne and Ni coming to the same conclusions as a method to show the difference between them because i feel they are on different planes. You said " takes the time to consciously connect things and make the sequence from A -> B... -> Z" and I dont think Ne is connecting things to make a sequence. I dont think that Ni and Ne have the same goals or work with other functions/work with people's goals who have Ne or Ni. So if they are not doing the same thing, working towards the same goal, i dont think its really useful to compare them as to which one is better than the other in a certain procedure. For some reason I see your description as considering one goal and that is making a sequence. But yes I agree that if the goal is to find the sequence the Ne person would have to consciously use his Ti to make some sort of sequence whereas the Ni person would make the sequence as a lump and then flesh it out with Te.

note this still leaves room for Ni and Ne to be similar.

[anndelise]

Ne = associations in space (breadth) connected to an object -->possibilities (?)
Ni = associations in time (depth) connected to a subject --> trend (?)

(I actually dislike using the term "possibilities", but thus far, it's the only I can think of off hand...though substituting it with "connections" may/may not work.)

[schrödinger's cat]

First thing I read of this thread was this:

Sure as hell felling from a bike it's just the same as figuring out fractal patterns in graphs.

However, no, everyone can imagine a flying Mammoth...

Taken out of context, that was pretty ...interesting... stuff.

[schrödinger's cat]

My guess is:

Our senses give us a constant stream of data, and our brain can't really process all that. So you need to make choices, set priorities, organize the stuff into categories etc. Your preferred irrational function is how you do that. It's how you start with a bunch of random disconnected data and end up with a perception. It's how the part of you works that gets all the incoming visual (etc) data, puts it in front of itself on a large desk, and goes "hmmmm... four legs, tail, whinnies... Horse."

So Intuition is simply one way of taking the mindless blatherings of our five senses and processing it into meaningful perceptions. Of course, different "perceiving functions" are good at perceiving different things, but we're not talking about that right now, so let's skip it. What's important is this: Intuition is a way of perceiving reality. The real reality out there. It sees things that really exist and that you'd otherwise miss. How does Intuition work? Errmm... with patterns? It sees things as complex entities, scenarios, scenes where everything is connected with everything else. Holistic stuff. Do you know those books for kids where you have a page of meaningless doodles, and if you put a piece of red plastic over it you suddenly read a message? Like that.

The difference between and could be similar to the difference between and . Perhaps and are both about the outside world and what happens there, the effects some actions have or could potentially have. and could be more about what happens when an action hits you, sort of; your perceptions, directly, as they happen inside of you.

perceives those outside-world-patterns (or whatever) directly, personally, by sort of thinking yourself INTO a situation. is more ...disconnected?... and takes a step back to see things from a certain distance. lets you know what you know; it's an internal system of logic which you know for sure is dependable. If you perceive something, you process this in a way that enables you to point exactly at similarities, differences, (someone else's) mistakes, and you're often able to tell people how things could be improved. can't do that all that well. It sees the whole thing in its entirety, as it stands. Sometimes it sees patterns almost... or not entirely... or it senses them out there, just out of reach... or it sees them clearly and for certain, but can't for the heck of it describe what it's like. I'm fondly hoping that this is because we do see things that other people are blind to; very subtle hints, developments, potentials that are just hard to grasp.

[Raver]

To me is that random idea or thought that enters my mind when I examine the outside world. For example, if I am looking at an object that would appear mundane to most I visualize it in my head separately and focus on it. Afterwards in a spontaneous and uncontrolled fashion, ideas and thoughts flood into my head concerning that object. Unconsciously or subconsciously my mind will scour for possibilities involving that object and produce several results, only which a few would be practical. There are situations where I see an individual acting in a peculiar manner and I don't understand why at the moment. Afterwards, I experience something and then it suddenly clicks in my head that my body and brain are undergoing the same process that individual was, but in a partially/completely different way. However, that could possibly be depending on your perspective.

[Rocky]

I see as liking to jump to conclusions. Sometimes dominant types can also get really excited and act overly-dramatic in a humorous way.

I'm not sure what to make of the rest of this thread yet.

[Rocky]

This thread makes me wonder; wtf is Ne really?

I have a better understanding of Ni actually. I can also recognize Ne types fairly well, but wouldn't know how to describe their thought processes in reality. I have to admit, there's has been nothing really distinctive in this thread. Even the way Jung described Ne it seems just like an impulsive reaction to altering exterior enviorment, and a changing identity.

So, what actually goes on in the head of Ne? Does Ne actually *think* at all?

[Slacker]

What I think Ne is:

Sometimes someone will say something and I'll immediately think, "This person would be FABULOUS in politics!" Or, "This person would be great at organizing a big event!" Or whatever.

Or once I saw some plates at a garage sale and I thought, "I bet those would make a beautiful mosaic table!" So I bought them, and they're still sitting in the garage waiting to be made into a table. But I digress.

Or sometimes my husband will show me what he's working on and I'll say, "Couldn't you just bend that a little and you could avoid doing these three steps" and even though I know nothing about cars it'll end up that I'm right and he avoids three steps.

That kind of thing.

[Rocky]

Or sometimes my husband will show me what he's working on and I'll say, "Couldn't you just bend that a little and you could avoid doing these three steps" and even though I know nothing about cars it'll end up that I'm right and he avoids three steps.

That makes sense. Most of the time Si is too focused on the process of a perticular matter that it needs to loosen up and take a step back.

[detail]

I'll paste old posts i wrote about intuition functions in general which are aiming at complementary (Without covering every side) points because it's a good start.

Intuition is kind of a statistical process, distributing potentialities hierarchically in the mind according to the frequency the object observed by intuition has been perceived, with a direct influence of the judging function(s) used to discriminate and of course the experience trail following the judger which governs what can/will and cannot/won't be taken into account.


The difference between introverted and extraverted intuition is put better in the form of this metaphor: Imagine the infinity of possibilities represented as a sphere, with each single point representing a "point of view" or a circumstance.

-Extraverted intuition use implies looking through the (invisible) sphere from the outside to see the point located in the exact center of said sphere from the most possible angles as to gain an objective (I mean by objective that all data is outside the subject; The subject is an observer) understanding (while being intuitive, that is, dependent of the quantity/quality of angles used and of course the judging function(s) used) while...

-Introverted intuition is the engine of the opposite process. The subject places himself at the center of the sphere and from there looks in the most possible directions through the sphere as to gain a subjective (Receives data; The information penetrates him.) understanding of a pattern. Of course the dependence on other factors mentionned earlier is still of great importance.


That explains well why Ni types often accuse Ne types of being fooled by the appearence of reality while Ne types often accuse Ni types of being biased.

Any input?

What made be seen as intuition of time is people's consciousness of the time flow. They are aware of it because it's fluent. I think everybody knows by now that what people see (or try to see) is the structure of everything that can exist. In case you think you don't know it, i mean by "the structure of everything that can exist" all the links between all objects/processes/concepts/younameit under all possible grouping criteria (It should be noted that the relevance of the used grouping is up to the judging function of the dude/chick). What i wanted to point out with (Since most people understand it better than ) is that the grouping it uses can be abrupt, random, hence "more objective" as it's often pointed out.



With that in mind, we can come back to , time, and fluidity. , like it's introverted perception pal , prefers to be grounded to reality but not nessessarily to concrete reality, as intuition is not about that. The best way to stick to abstract reality would be to litterally(Well not so) stick to it, which is exactly what does, like a melted bubblegum it follows the path and shape of abstract reality. That explains the way ers are conscious of time and why was coined "intuition of time" since it's contact with time is more visible than it's contact with abstract reality. But more importantly, it explains why is not random and is looking for "the one" as it has been pointed out. I mean face it, an INFp trying to say something random will probably achieve to say the most random possible thing that can be said within the context.

I'll also comment on them, check this out:

I don't think alone (even though it's hard to find the exact boundary between a set of perceptive/judging functions) is as structured as it may sound. I probably projected too much but it still gives a good idea i think. Also, it seems obvious plays a more passive role (Other side of the coin) than (Other side of the coin). So when you (You especially being Rocky in this case since he seems to really wonder) hear someone speaking of and using the word "goal", then a self-agrandizing tendency influenced the good hearted describer by projecting or something. That doesn't mean doesn't have bones, only it's structure is lazy when it comes to actual thinking. I mean by that that when an EN*p is called absent-minded, he lets his thoughts follow a path that is probably more linked to an unconscious focus line (As opposed to BTW which is led by a "fluid of circumstances" if we can call it like that, remember them looking for THE one?).

I think we now have enough material to answer:

So, what actually goes on in the head of Ne? Does Ne actually *think* at all?

I guess we can call it thinking but it's more like a line of thoughts related to each previous ones with an unconscious influence that is mixed with another influence from the judging function accordingly to type. The ratio between the two influences depends on factors that we don't give a fuck about right now but that you can have a rough idea of i guess.

Also,

I see Extraverted Intution as liking to jump to conclusions. Sometimes Extraverted Intution dominant types can also get really excited and act overly-dramatic in a humorous way.

I'm not sure what to make of the rest of this thread yet.

It has to do with being an extraverted function about seeing possibilities. It's all about reacting to the implications of a thought or a concept before they're even concrete. Of course these are extreme implications in that they are highly improbable, kinda like we can see in movies. Well movies with themes like these are made to entertain so EN*ps are entertained by their imaginary and extreme thoughts. At that point thought there is more often than not an influence from the judging function as to which direction the thoughts will take to attain these imaginary implications. Think ENTp concept vs ENFp dream. That's why stuff like chaos theory seems like a cult to some EN*ps. It's all about the implications.

As for constantly jumping from one idea to the other, there's another reason directly linked to the above paragraph's explanations. As being obsessed with possibilities makes it mandatory to link stuff based on any similarity, the same obsession will make an fueled person stick to the new object of thoughts because of it's implications, until it gets linked to another, and so on.

Did it shed some light on the alpha/delta extraverted perceiving function? I hope so, i'm fucking tired of using the same words over and over again because i lack english vocabulary.

[Steve]

What throws the switch in your head that says "This guy is an Ne type" when you meet one?

I see Ne as a function of the desire to gauge potential in everything that one sees. That's about all I can think of right now.

I think for me it has to do with the look in a person's eyes. When Sensing types are looking in the distance, it's as if their attention is still concentrated on the here and now. When Ne's look in the distance, it has an amused look to it - it looks like they're actually understanding something by directing their focus divergently and outward.

Maybe this analogy will illustrate it. If 2 people were riding on a train, one a sensor and one an Ne, and they were both looking from the front of the train to the distance down a flat straightaway, with some hills and scenery in the distance,
The sensor would probably be looking at the tracks, notice some trees and some mountains far off and maybe notice how fast the train is moving.

The Ne would notice how when looking down a straight flat surface the earth begins to curve, and that the fewer the trees and objects near the moving train, the slower the train seems to be moving, or even think about what it must have been like for the workers originally laying down the train tracks many years ago.

It's as if intuitives are engaged by a divergent focus, at least from my experience, when they look in the distance, they don't see a 2 dimensional picture, they see a dynamic 3-dimensional entity.

[Rocky]

What throws the switch in your head that says "This guy is an Ne type" when you meet one?

I see Ne as a function of the desire to gauge potential in everything that one sees. That's about all I can think of right now.

I think for me it has to do with the look in a person's eyes. When Sensing types are looking in the distance, it's as if their attention is still concentrated on the here and now. When Ne's look in the distance, it has an amused look to it - it looks like they're actually understanding something by directing their focus divergently and outward.

Maybe this analogy will illustrate it. If 2 people were riding on a train, one a sensor and one an Ne, and they were both looking from the front of the train to the distance down a flat straightaway, with some hills and scenery in the distance,
The sensor would probably be looking at the tracks, notice some trees and some mountains far off and maybe notice how fast the train is moving.

The Ne would notice how when looking down a straight flat surface the earth begins to curve, and that the fewer the trees and objects near the moving train, the slower the train seems to be moving, or even think about what it must have been like for the workers originally laying down the train tracks many years ago.

It's as if intuitives are engaged by a divergent focus, at least from my experience, when they look in the distance, they don't see a 2 dimensional picture, they see a dynamic 3-dimensional entity.

J/P differences.

[Ms. Kensington]

i'm fucking tired of using the same words over and over again because i lack english vocabulary.

does someone want to disagree with this? your english is great

[detail]

i'm fucking tired of using the same words over and over again because i lack english vocabulary.

does someone want to disagree with this? your english is great

You just convinced me of never ever commenting on my english again. While we're in this topic, what do you think about the actual post?