Ne types, when did you begin active seeking?

[Cat King Cole]

inb4 most thread in existence.

I think a key aspect to is avoiding losing intellectual freedom. For instance, when it comes to looking at various religious, spiritual or ethical systems, sees the raw materials for constructing its own beliefs, rather than systems that must be committed too. This is the "passive" aspect of seeking.

"Active" seeking would be, personally, the point at which I realised that I can't look at a thing and appraise its full potential unless I have a large bank of knowledge about stuff. You only get new ideas by adapting old ones; so information-seeking becomes an imperative.

Back to the title, my question is thus: when did you have that moment where you realised you wanted or needed to start learning more about the world for some end?

[Suz]

inb4 most thread in existence.

I think a key aspect to is avoiding losing intellectual freedom. For instance, when it comes to looking at various religious, spiritual or ethical systems, sees the raw materials for constructing its own beliefs, rather than systems that must be committed too. This is the "passive" aspect of seeking.

"Active" seeking would be, personally, the point at which I realised that I can't look at a thing and appraise its full potential unless I have a large bank of knowledge about stuff. You only get new ideas by adapting old ones; so information-seeking becomes an imperative.

Back to the title, my question is thus: when did you have that moment where you realised you wanted or needed to start learning more about the world for some end?

Yeah i definitely do this in bursts. And i definitely need help uncovering the information, but once i am assisted with that, the floodgates come open and it's a whole new world to me that i just cant get enough of. I also end up berating myself for not having discovered it sooner.


From the thread title i initially thought u were referring to when one started actively seeking one's dual-seeking function, which would also be an interesting topic of discussion.

[fen]

For me it was in 8th grade when my friend introduced me to this horrible band called Trivium. I didn't really like it, but then I was like, "Well, all metal can't be bad. I wonder what else is out there..." and thus started my music exploration project. And then that seeking nature to make sure I could compare things well permeated through all areas of my life. Haha.

Though, maybe I misinterpreted what you meant.

[Jonathan]

I think a key aspect to is avoiding losing intellectual freedom. For instance, ... sees the raw materials for constructing its own beliefs, rather than systems that must be committed too. ....

So by your definition, everyone who isn't an Ne-type (or Ne-quadra type) does not value having his/own beliefs, but rather conforms to the beliefs of others?

[Cat King Cole]

Of course not, but I notice that eclecticism seems to be a key component of , for instance musicians who cover a billion different genres, album to album or song to song, or people whose belief systems take bits and pieces from already established traditions (like, say, borrowing ritual hair combing from the Sikhs, breathing from folk Chinese practices, exercise from hatha yoga; bits and pieces of moral thought from Confucians, Kant, and whatever and whoever else, etc, etc).

Anything else I say about that eclecticism is pure gloss.

[Beautiful sky]

In order to construct my own thoughts on religion and human beings in general, I decided that I had to learn the very foundations of human conception. I took History, Biology, and various mixed Anthropology classes from the beginning of the founding of life on earth to the present day. The theory for me was to understand the different perspectives of what life was and what the different thoughts (scientists, religious institution, etc) thought about what life is and what we are, I had to accumulate as much knowledge in an area. I settled on religions as an undergrad degree as opposed to Psychology, because unlike Psychology, Religions allowed an encompassed curriculum that allowed for history, medicine etc, once I was past History courses. I have come to the point where Psychology is the next step. So for me it was a linear experience, from time and empathetic experience. Experiencing in emotion what people of certain times felt, were moved by their conscious awareness of themselves and the world around them. It was very planned with me and was very carefully thought out.

[Suz]

Of course not, but I notice that eclecticism seems to be a key component of , for instance musicians who cover a billion different genres, album to album or song to song, or people whose belief systems take bits and pieces from already established traditions (like, say, borrowing ritual hair combing from the Sikhs, breathing from folk Chinese practices, exercise from hatha yoga; bits and pieces of moral thought from Confucians, Kant, and whatever and whoever else, etc, etc).

Anything else I say about that eclecticism is pure gloss.

That is true i do have highly eclectic interests and tastes.

[Suz]

In order to construct my own thoughts on religion and human beings in general. I decided that I had to learn the very foundations of human conception. I took History, Biology, and various mixed Anthropology classes from the beginning of the founding of life on earth to the present day. The theory for me was to understand the different perspectives of what life was and what the different thoughts (scientists, religious institution, etc) thought about about what life is and what we are. I settled on religions as an undergrad degree as opposed to Psychology, because unlike Psychology, Religions allowed an encompassed curriculum that allowed for history, medicine etc, once I was past History courses. I have come to the point where Psychology is the next step. So for me it was a linear experience, from time and empathetic experience. Experiencing in emotion what people of certain times felt, were moved by their conscious awareness of themselves and the world around them. It was very planned with me and was very carefully thought out.

I would have taken a very similar route (history, anthrolopology, psychology, etc) if my family hadn't insisted that I go a more job-secure route.

[PistolShrimp]

I'm not sure if I'm Ne-creative or Ne-dual seeking, but I think I started seeking in high school. I had been in Catholic school for 10+ years, went to mass fairly often, and finally realized I didn't really believe in God when a friend of mine declared she was an atheist. In the years following, I started questioning my views of many different cultural norms, love, and reality itself, and came up with a hodge-podge belief system with some tenets of Buddhism and absurdism a la Camus. I minored in Philosophy in college and enjoyed reading about the different schools of thought, however thought they were kind of irrelevant to everyday life. I continue to read non-fiction, watch TED talks and documentaries now and then to expand my worldview.

[noid]

I would have taken a very similar route (history, anthrolopology, psychology, etc) if my family hadn't insisted that I go a more job-secure route.

Too. That what interest me too, with the same family effect.
My family is generally here when it come to say "people should do what they really want", and last to notice that they have do nothing they have been interested into, in addition to hypo-impose the same to their kidz.
I just notice now, when not many time left for doing what I want (aside a soul-less job, even if requiring competences), that I should have kick their ass long time before.

[mu4]

I never learned for any particular reason i can remember, boredom, curiosity and competition maybe, not really related to a goal.

I never really worried about intellectual freedom since I'm pretty good at figuring stuff out. I think a lot of education and knowledge is kinda of boring because it's more study, less thinking and I'm more of a less study, more thinking person.

Not sure if is about intellectual freedom. I think might allow for openness to information associated with the Ij function(i.e , ) and consequently the corresponding Ej function(, ) so it's only really open to these channels of information.

[Creepy-Snaps]

You only get new ideas by adapting old ones; so information-seeking becomes an imperative.

Or you can just brainstorm new ideas altogether.

Like Ashton suggested, I think a lot of people 'explore the world' and want to gain knowledge, no matter what type, and this isn't necessarily type-related. Regardless if I'm truly Ne-ego or not, I'll say I've always been curious about the world we live in, loved science as a child, but started to focus on truly growing my knowledge of people, personality types, and religion, when as a young teenager, I thought that I could truly make a difference in the lives of other people, and find my place in society, and know that the more knowledge I had, the better the difference I could make in the world.

I think it's natural for people to want to explore the world, discover a purpose for themselves, and try to figure how they can apply their skillsets, or develop skills of their own, in order to make a positive contribution to society. People want to be heard, want to make a difference, and want to be respected in society.

[The Ineffable]

I don't relate to the OP at all, I was always figuring things on-the-fly, I somehow trusted my spontaneity, that things just eventually come out to me at one point. Somewhere in my late 20s I realized that I have to be more disciplined with my knowledge, but that was conscious, based on my life experience, and it rather regards rigor, selectivity (perfecting the intellect) than gathering and recycling arbitrary knowledge. In fact, my whole life converged towards unification of knowledge and removal of redundancy, because human knowledge is bloated by fictional categories; finding how it connects, its common denominators, how things known as "different" are actually the same thing, removed my confusions [1]. Based on this, I would say I'm the opposite of the OP, the more I learn, the more I realize that the answers are simpler than I imagined and more importantly, they were right there next to me.

I'm a declared opponent of eclecticism, my stance becoming stronger in time, although I become more understanding with people relating to it because I realize its usefulness in practice (ie in business, entertainment), it is extremely efficient/productive, however I'm intolerant when it is used inappropriately, for example when truth is conventionally [2] established based on it.
---

[1] - a lot of thinkers like Kant recommend it, too.
[2] - it can't be otherwise but conventional in this case. Something like a quick and dirty "let's agree this is the truth since it works and let's move on with our lives".

[Jonathan]

Of course not, but I notice that eclecticism seems to be a key component of , for instance musicians who cover a billion different genres, album to album or song to song, or people whose belief systems take bits and pieces from already established traditions (like, say, borrowing ritual hair combing from the Sikhs, breathing from folk Chinese practices, exercise from hatha yoga; bits and pieces of moral thought from Confucians, Kant, and whatever and whoever else, etc, etc).

Anything else I say about that eclecticism is pure gloss.

Yeah, I get you now. There is some a tendency for base-Ne to express itself in eclecticism and tendency to "reference" lots of external things, due to the extraverted nature.

I'm pretty sure everyone with an IQ of at least 110 does this.

I agree with that too. ... although asking specifically Ne types when they remember any sea change in terms of first supplementing their intuition with more knowledge may still be a legitimate question.

[1981slater]

inb4 most thread in existence.

I think a key aspect to is avoiding losing intellectual freedom. For instance, when it comes to looking at various religious, spiritual or ethical systems, sees the raw materials for constructing its own beliefs, rather than systems that must be committed too. This is the "passive" aspect of seeking.

"Active" seeking would be, personally, the point at which I realised that I can't look at a thing and appraise its full potential unless I have a large bank of knowledge about stuff. You only get new ideas by adapting old ones; so information-seeking becomes an imperative.

Back to the title, my question is thus: when did you have that moment where you realised you wanted or needed to start learning more about the world for some end?

In my fourth or fifth birthday, my relatives gave me books (some kind of "encyclopedias for children") instead of toys, so I started to read and re-read them everyday. From that time onwards, I have spent a great deal of my time reading. Wikipedia, for instance, is a great way of finding new topics to explore.
IMO, IQ or "intelligence" is not related to "reading interesting-and-probably-useless-stuff".
Anyway, I have read that there is a theory which claims that, the less you know about a topic, the less likely you are to change your mind about it. OTOH, I have a hard time when it comes to make my mind about sth, just because I usually have read lots of articles on it...is this type related?