The reason that Ni is related to time

[717495]

Ne-Si individuals who love categorization perspectives are always going to attempt to understand the Ni-Se action/movement/presence perspectives by applying a categorical definition and critiquing the category in which it lies when it is an irrelevant distinction.

Hmm. I definitely think there is often some truth to that.

How exactly do you think that Alpha intuition differs from Beta intuition?

Perhaps of Alpha and Delta has to do in one familiar way of externalizing a global resolution or completion, trying to root associations into objectivism.

This is probably why gets associated with exploring possibilities, because the elements in its vision are being externalized or "object"ified. But the common link between alpha and beta is that they ruminate more from a detached or disentangled perspective (), where alphas (and deltas) emphasize, even unintentionally, collecting their thoughts into a global principle (), where as betas (and gammas) are able to just let associations and concepts flow and consume their awareness ().

[Hitta]

internal dynamics of fields
internal statics of objects

Internal statics of objects basically translates into the meaning that we place into isolated moments of our philosophical registry. Statics in socionics linguistics basically means isolated or the singular moments. In terms of Ne it means the potentiality that we see in objects and ideas as we encounter them in our frame of reference.

Internal Dynamics of Field roughly translates into how the potentiality of the objects within our spectrum combine to create the perception field. In terms of human experience(which is what we are doing), it is kind of like the overarching philosophical identity of the person, and what we take from those static elements. Dynamic functions are fluid, they are what lies under the static properties of reality (the identity, static elements approaching infinity, the view point that looks outward). You cannot take isolated meaning without an overarching perspective on the objects in the frame of reference, nor can you have an overarching perspective without isolated meaning from objects.

Ni and Ne logically have to be linked, otherwise the entire definition of IM elements is flawed.

[Hitta]

Btw, I'm not the one that created the model, you owe that to the wonderful International Institute of Socionics. Though I'm not sure what that has to do with the rationality of the model, just stating it because for some reason people tend to look at things that have been documented by accredited institutes.

[rat1]

No, I'm just completing the model, and I don't really care if Jung has an aneurysm over it.

Jung would have agreed with you

[InvisibleJim]

internal dynamics of fields
internal statics of objects

Quite, but dynamics, although it may sound 'time' based to an Ne user has little real 'time' concerns to Ni.

Ni merely observes the momentum/inertia of an action/idea and therefore predicts forward.

Time is an irrelevant distinction merely the apparent inertia requires gauging. If it can be seen to move it is visible and you can trace how multiple apparently different categories are either divergent or commingling and thus you can ascertain exactly what variables are free and which correlate.

Ne preference tends to view that if something is far away regardless of momentum then it can be put off. - time is factored in
By contrast to Ni something that is far away but has real inertia is important now. - time is ignored

I always hear about Ni being 'related to time' and I giggle, because it is actually time ignoring when you utilize strict logical deduction. I think many people who are Ni dominant have just been told they do this so often they just shrug and accept it.

This 'inertia only' perspective is seen vividly in how IEI/ILI ignores the 'small movements today', for IEI it is Te, the doubt that analysis must obey reality that they are not interested and thus do not observe. Similarly so for ILI it is Fe, the small parts of todays 'nicities' and 'common ethics' that are ignored because they aren't important to such an ego.

[The Ineffable]

Ni merely observes the momentum/inertia of an action/idea and therefore predicts forward.

This is wrong man, Ni does not oberve anything. Is that hard for people to notice when there are objects and where there are not?... this is an easy thing to understand, but IMO one should use as little speculative/mystifying reasoning over vague concepts as possible. Things are overcomplicated for nothing.

But enough of the sermon. In your case we have objects. The inertia one starts off to make a prediction is an instance, it is something, concrete, objectual. By no means it is Fiels cognition, therefore neither Ni. Let me give you some examples to better understand the difference:
- A car with enough momentum can jump over the gap - this is primarily Fields (Introverted).
- Our car has enough momentum to jump over the gap - this is primarily Bodies (Extroverted).

It is IMO important to retain the above distinction [1], now I'll develop over a different aspect. Momentum/inertia is a Static and Bodies kind of information, it is an intrinsic property of an object, the same as power, force, mass, so it naturally falls onto Se and eventually Ne [2]. So the two above examples would be Ji/Pe [2] and respectively Pe/Ji [3] manners of cognition.
---

But Ni is indeed used for predictions in actuality, although blocked with Bodies IEs, which is always the case. The point is to differentiate what comes under it and what comes under another function, even when Bodies and Fields IEs are practically inseparable. A Pi equivalent of the above would be of the form: "a car that jumps over the bridge", it never deals with intrinsic properties or connections (it is Dynamic), but with the processes, interactions, even if abstract [5]; neiter it deals with a certain instance (it is Fields) but with the general.

You may ask "does not the car that jumps over a gap mean that it had the required momentum to jump over it before it happened?". Good observation, it had that momentum, this is the actual implication of the Id and Super-Id functions (all Static in this case). I won't take each case separately (Te, Si, Ni, Fe), one consequence of it is that you always end-up confirming the unconscious ring (especially the Super-Id), it just happens you don't use it .
---

Pi deal with things that do this and that, that happen so and so, but not with how they are. Perceiving analogies between these processes, Ni Egos have a complex understanding about how things happen, being able to identify timely patterns in the phenomenological reality, using the Dynamic information that their Bodies ("Extroverted") functions can provide in order to make forecasts. Unlike to Si, which is limited to things directly leading one to another. Hearing a crime documentary channel on TV, off the top of my head, "cause of death":
- Si - shotgun wounds to the head;
- Ni - loosing one's job.

Both are causes of death, while Si is information that directly connects a cause to one effect, Ni is the one that connects a cause to multiple effects. No one can deny that loosing one's job did lead to murder, though no one can say that loosing one's job leads to murder. They are two contradictory aspects of reality which end-up in conflict when used as universal VS particular. The "abuse" of Si-Base in dealing only with the immediate consequences alienates Si-PoLRs, as if the former would be narrow-minded people, incapable of understanding all the implications of each act; the sustained "surreal" of Ni-Base alienates Ni-PoLRs as being incapable to conform to "real-life" rules, expecting counter-intuitive "bullshit" outcomes. (among other divergences based on the same difference)

(no time to correct the text, if applicable)
---

[1] - in the end, that is immediately related to Extroversion/Introversion.
[2] - depends on the perception of the vector. It is Ne when it is not obvious, when it is an extrapolation of other properties - Ne (and Fi) properties are not clear-cut like Se (and Ti), they interleave with each other through means of internal connections (ie analogy).
[3] - blocks that correspond to the Ego of: LSI, LII, ESI, EII
[4] - blocks that correspond to the Ego of: SLE, SEE, ILE, IEE.
[5] - more generally synthetic reasoning, as understood from Kant.

[InvisibleJim]

This is wrong man, Ni does not oberve anything.

N is the process of perceiving ideas in the mind.*

You'll get it eventually.

Just as you are observing categorical deduction in your post.


*regardless of attitude

[The Ineffable]

One of the differences between Ni and Si determines on the psyche, when the former is found in the Ego, a "Decisive" or "Resolute" attitude - one of Reinin's dichotomies. The idea is that since using Ni, two things that are causally related, no matter how, form a conclusion, it does not require much examination. In law there is cause-in-fact corresponding to it, it just needs to pass the "but for" test. Its judicious counterpart is the proximate cause, that is something that requires much examination to be determined, case-by-case analysis and is often disputable.

Off-topic: Similarily, we find this distinction between argumentum o contrario (Se) and analogy (Ne), when law needs to be consistent over something new, that is not already covered.

It is very easy to understand the nature of Judicious and Decisive attitudes, once the properties of the Irrational IEs are learned, even when this can't be deduced analytically - based on the information aspects alone.

[The Ineffable]

N is the process of perceiving ideas in the mind.*

You'll get it eventually.

Just as you are observing categorical deduction in your post.


*regardless of attitude

I would be grateful if you could develop. Except for your second line, I will pretend I haven't read that .

[InvisibleJim]

I would be grateful if you could develop. Except for your second line, I will pretend I haven't read that .

I can't give a weak explanation to you today for what you will understand, yourself, much better tomorrow.

[DividedsGhost]

No, I'm just completing the model, and I don't really care if Jung has an aneurysm over it.

Jung didn't assert absolutes, YOU ARE. His functions are based on philosophy of thought. Completing the model doesn't make it anything more than relative nonsense.

All You're doing is confining yourself to your own truth - your own bullshit for who really cares why.

[DividedsGhost]

internal dynamics of fields
internal statics of objects

Internal statics of objects basically translates into the meaning that we place into isolated moments of our philosophical registry. Statics in socionics linguistics basically means isolated or the singular moments. In terms of Ne it means the potentiality that we see in objects and ideas as we encounter them in our frame of reference.

Internal Dynamics of Field roughly translates into how the potentiality of the objects within our spectrum combine to create the perception field. In terms of human experience(which is what we are doing), it is kind of like the overarching philosophical identity of the person, and what we take from those static elements. Dynamic functions are fluid, they are what lies under the static properties of reality (the identity, static elements approaching infinity, the view point that looks outward). You cannot take isolated meaning without an overarching perspective on the objects in the frame of reference, nor can you have an overarching perspective without isolated meaning from objects.

Ni and Ne logically have to be linked, otherwise the entire definition of IM elements is flawed.

This misses the bigger picture though. You dont understand how the extrovert function links to the introverted one. All this nomenclature takes away from their very basic relations.

[Hitta]

Quite, but dynamics, although it may sound 'time' based to an Ne user has little real 'time' concerns to Ni.

Ni merely observes the momentum/inertia of an action/idea and therefore predicts forward.

Time is an irrelevant distinction merely the apparent inertia requires gauging. If it can be seen to move it is visible and you can trace how multiple apparently different categories are either divergent or commingling and thus you can ascertain exactly what variables are free and which correlate.

Ne preference tends to view that if something is far away regardless of momentum then it can be put off. - time is factored in
By contrast to Ni something that is far away but has real inertia is important now. - time is ignored

I always hear about Ni being 'related to time' and I giggle, because it is actually time ignoring when you utilize strict logical deduction. I think many people who are Ni dominant have just been told they do this so often they just shrug and accept it.

This 'inertia only' perspective is seen vividly in how IEI/ILI ignores the 'small movements today', for IEI it is Te, the doubt that analysis must obey reality that they are not interested and thus do not observe. Similarly so for ILI it is Fe, the small parts of todays 'nicities' and 'common ethics' that are ignored because they aren't important to such an ego.

That is kind of the point I was making about time and why Ni relates to it. Time is the comparison between objects in space, which is why Ni is called the function of time. It is kind of our relativistic/subjective philosophical reference point. The main point of this thread was that Ni wasn't like the king of the clock or something.

[Hitta]

This misses the bigger picture though. You dont understand how the extrovert function links to the introverted one. All this nomenclature takes away from their very basic relations.

Oh I do understand that, which I have made in other posts before in different threads. If someone is sitting on the ground quite and still, and keeping to themselves, they are still producing extroverted behavior; which is why you have polar aspects of certain functions. You can't escape the extroverted and the introverted components of each function, which is why Model A is incomplete. Every single action has both an introverted and an extroverted component, which is the main idea behind Bukalov's model.

[The Ineffable]

I can't give a weak explanation to you today for what you will understand, yourself, much better tomorrow.

Just learn the difference between Bodies and Fields information and much of it falls in place. Don't let my whole explanation distract you [1], focus on the first part. It's too noobish to confuse the two, as a rule of thumb: when it is about "this thing", "this one", "John", a certain X, etc - it's Bodies; when it's "something", "something like", "a man", a type of X - it's Fields. When you say "potential" it is Fields, it's just conceptual, not applied to anything; but the potential of something, like in "the potential of InvisibleJim to understand Socionics is questionable", that is Bodies.
---

[1] - it is advanced but I had to put it.

[Ave]

Just learn the difference between Bodies and Fields information and much of it falls in place. Don't let my whole explanation distract you [1], focus on the first part. It's too noobish to confuse the two, as a rule of thumb: when it is about "this thing", "this one", "John", a certain X, etc - it's Bodies; when it's "something", "something like", "a man", a type of X - it's Fields. When you say "potential" it is Fields, it's just conceptual, not applied to anything; but the potential of something, like in "the potential of InvisibleJim to understand Socionics is questionable", that is Bodies.
---

[1] - it is advanced but I had to put it.

Jim's point is valid - Ni manifests itself by taking time to understand stuff, Ne wants the answer right away. You're not getting it.

[The Ineffable]

Jim's point is valid - Ni manifests itself by taking time to understand stuff, Ne wants the answer right away. You're not getting it.

You don't even address the issue.

[InvisibleJim]

Jim's point is valid - Ni manifests itself by taking time to understand stuff, Ne wants the answer right away. You're not getting it.

This isn't what I was describing at all. I was describing the focus of the attitudes of intuition.

[Ave]

Ive read through your arguements I dont see what I could argue to show you Ni in practice. The issue here is knowing the issue and the issue is that there is no issue.

[Ave]

This isn't what I was describing at all.

Ok, but my point stands like a phallus.

[Creepy-pokeball]

INFp Ti is just unfettered -- just like ENFp Te is.

[DividedsGhost]

Hey Hitta, are you familiar with integration and derivation in Calculus?

Instead of talking about dynamics of fields and statics of objects, which I've never even heard anyone properly define, we can use calculus to explain it another way.
Basically, we postulate that there is an objective reality:
1. The integration of that reality (to a present moment) would represent the accumulation of it (from the past).
2. The derivation of that reality (to a present moment) would represent the changes within it (from the past).


Just Speaking in Terms of Single Functions:
2. Ni/Si would derive the changes inherent in reality to determine how the world interacts and how they want to associate with it.
But Ni would understand how objects relate and communicate, whereas Si would experience how objects flow.

1. Ne/Se would integrate to the accumulation of reality and determine how they want to redirect it to new horizons.
But Ne would create the previously unimaginable, whereas Se would create new experiences.

1. Ti/Fi would integrate to the accumulation of reality and determine how they want to define it by asserting absolutes (known simply as judging).
But Ti has no concern for personal absolutes, whereas Fi would have no concern for impersonal absolutes.

2. Te/Fe would derive the changes inherent in reality to determine how best to manipulate their world toward a given aim.
But Te aims to create reliable processes, whereas Fe aims to create reliable interactions between people.