.
.
.
Last edited by theticalanti; 06-14-2016 at 02:04 AM.
Ne isn't valued, so they aren't going to recognize its usefulness. They probably feel the same about your Ne-valuing and don't see its usefulness.
Or, more likely, recognize that both functions have their good parts and their weak parts and theres nothing wrong with that. :]
Well, dang.
You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains. You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek.
But first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril.
You shall see things, wonderful to tell. You shall see a... cow... on the roof of a cotton house. And, oh, so many startlements.
I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the ob-stacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward.
Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukq_XJmM-k
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Okay then.
How is any of this related to introverted intuition???Originally Posted by William
I see the potential of people, I just don't see many people reaching it, even with a blatant push in the right direction.
People will do what they want, regardless of how much you care.
Negativity also has as much place in the world as positivity. I could see negativity being the basis of desire to reform, and depending on the particular preferences of a person and the reform in question, that could be viewed as something very beneficial.
I just fail to see how introverted intuition egos are in anyway like you have described?
Did you have a bad day?
What you call "gamma NTs" are ime ILIs and ESIs.
But, yeah, even I wouldn't think a 5'6'' person could easily become a NBA player, or a blind person a great air pilot, if that's what you mean.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
William, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE???!
As we reach for the stars, we must put away childish things; gods, spirits and other phantasms of the brain. Reality is cruel and unforgiving, yet we must steel ourselves and secure the survival of our race through the unflinching pursuit of science and technology.
- Stellaris
I don't know what you are on about well I think a lot of what you say has zero to do with Ni but might apply to some ILIs and ESIs, but if you want to say Ne is potential then an Ne person can look at you and say you've got fuck all potential. How fucked up is that according to you?
My Ni tells me the time isn't right for me to post a response.
I could be wrong but aren't you being a bit hypocritical here with what you're saying? Especially with telling Ni to look at things with Ne (which probably wouldn't be good) while simultaneously disregarding Ni instead of practicing what you preach? Also, with my horrible insufficient knowledge of Socionics, I'd assume that a lot of what you're saying could easily be applied to strong negativist types in general (could easily see a bad LSE for example, being that way).
The best part is when the Ni makes them all fatalist and grumpy... They actually get depressed because of their negative assessments of individuals aha. Look, you don't need to be GPS's guiding everyone through life. Making your suggestive comments every 20 seconds. Please I've got enough Ni oomph that 9/10 your information is already accounted for. I don't need to be babied through the processes of everything. PLEASE STAHP, ~50% of people have enough Ni that your info is already noticed. out of the other ~50% only half actually care for it as op clearly pointed out. So only ~25% of people out there want your babying, Stop babying 100% of everyone! Simple math,
Muggsy Bogues made it happen at 5' 3"
and here's a look into some of the how:
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I grew up hearing all about how I was wasting my potential. Honestly they did not know what my potential was and some still don't. I don't hold that against "Ne" or anyone else. I notice potential but it is not my place to point it out to another unless they want my general feedback, I feel it is going to directly effect my life or in the context of being asked directly for an assessment on a specific situation. I offer up enough of my own opinions/advice as it is without adding in someone is wasting or utilizing their potential since I didn't like it when it was done to me. Even if I do see it I am aware it is only a possibility but not the most probable probability for someone based on where they are currently. I hold a space for anyone to change and whatever experience they gained in the process just adds to uniqueness of people so I am an optimist and try not to make negative assumptions on why people do what they do.
And for the record: Everyone I have dated was worthy, regardless of how it turned out, else I wouldn't have bothered dating them., so it is rare to see me trashing an ex. Even though I may discuss their behavior at times.
Thanks for venting @William obviously something triggered you and you wanted to get it out but yeah, it has nothing to do with Ni and more to do with your perception of human relationships. In your following statement you start off calling people stupid, dumb, low IQ and bad, Then ask if we know people have potential to change... I guess you only mean "good people". I find those low life, stupid low iq people just as worthy of my love/compassion and friendship as anyone else and sometimes moreso. I do not see things in the negative way you have suggested.
You'll look at the stupidest, dumbest parts of society, the lowest IQ people out there, and you'll use that as a measuring stick against everyone else, and grow and develop this ugly hate for mankind and people in general. How can you live like that???? How can you fill up all those bad impressions and lose your appreciation for the good in people??? Doesn't seem like a way to live!
Don't you realize people have potential to grow and change??? Why don't you consider the Ne possibilities!! It's frustrating. No, you'd rather see the worst in people. Dissect people into their primitive emotions. Wtf. We're all motivated differently and can set our eyes on different things!
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I use my Ne frequently to see the plethora of ways in which people are ugly pieces of shit!!
^
BabyGiraffe'sInDefenceOfNiBrigade
There are angsty ILE's too.
Ni is like the antidote to Ne and vice versa. Ni is critical of Ne and with good reason. The world would quickly get away from itself without historical Ni references. Ne chaos is great, but it's more useful in smaller doses to avoid system collapse. I mean, I'm not really ready for the end of the world or anything.
And what I find so interesting about Ne's desire to tear down systems is that it doesn't always have a positive outcome, and yet, a negative outcome is rarely considered before Ne starts the tear down process.
Ni chaos is usually calculated upfront regardless of whether it's a negative or positive outcome.
why not? you'd end with it, and you'd end sometime soon anyway. Why not make it grand, why not make it spectacular, why not make it Ne-awesome?
My experience: every negative thing that has blindsided me in the past is added to the formula for approaching the future. The purpose of which is to be better prepared to improve on the next outcome. In my case--taking the worst that something could be & having a Te plan in my back pocket. I've seen Ne types put too much faith in others or in things working out nicely, and subsequently become lost in their disappointment. My strategy is to start out viewing something negatively so I can never be fooled by it, and end up happy in the end when the worst never happened or was thwarted. Preferable to me than the reverse.
Basically for me defence is the best offence--and you're right it's a negative approach, but it uses the strengths I have since I can't use Fe to be positive or Se to will positive change, since they're not strong enough tools for me.
I had (have(?)) issues with Ni ego approach to philosophy and politics but not really to their approach/evaluation of concrete people. I think that is because philosophy and politics is regurgitation of your own thoughts that leads to purification of them in their extremity and limitations, lopsidedness while evaluation of a person is perception/ reflection that involves all you elements. In my experience Ni egos give plenty of Ne allowance in their evaluation of people in a way that particularly creative sensors might not. There is the issue of what is spoken and left unspoken, and in alignment with previous distinction when it is the worldview that is talked about most of it gets said because most of it is of the ego elements, while smaller part is said when it is more personal. Then there is how you would or would not read implied information depending on the functions.
Point being I know what you are talking about concerning Ni ego "world view" but don't agree upon Ni ego "judging people", @William.
William, keep in mind that Ni creative have Ne demonstrative. They're already well aware of different possibilities, and narrow things down towards the direction they want things to go in. Ni base also have strong Ne, but find Ne just clutters things up. And there's plenty of problems and criticisms to lay at Ne ego's feet.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Ne chaos is great whenever it yields a desirable outcome that drives momentum (and I'm not talking about reestablishing the Soviet Union and then the Ottoman Empire *wink wink*), especially once stagnation hits. It's not so great whenever it yields devastation to overcome progression, stagnation, or regression. It's pretty all or nothing (isn't it?!), which didn't actually occur to me until this moment. Perhaps this is why LSE and SLI types have weaker Ne since their Te is already so all or nothing - the gauntlet of Truth, anyone? With enough Te and Ne, you could probably collapse the world into nothingness. So yeah, that's why LSEs and SLIs need NF humanitarians.
Last edited by IBTL; 08-12-2014 at 05:06 PM.
Socionics can be so upsetting!!!!????!!!!!?
"[Scapegrace,] I don't know how anyone can stand such a sinister and mean individual as you." - Maritsa Darmandzhyan
Brought to you by socionix.com
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Lol, if this is in relation to forum drama, I don't think it's as much a Ni issue as it is a filter effect from this forum attracting and keeping an abnormally high amount of neurotic and socially isolated and challenged people, and the Decisive dichotomy focusing even larger amounts of people with such traits.
I think the real realizations are as such:
Socionics doesn't exist.
Functions don't exist as anything but psychological and emotional needs. Aspects are total BS.
A hyper-egalitarian schema shouldn't be applied and mental health assumed in any typology.
and... yet...you're still here.
@William....you're also Ni Polr. so.
I get annoyed with negativity at times too.. actually with people.
Observation first, but if I had to invent a reason:
From the "research results" article (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Dichotomies):
Decisive types will often mobilize before it is really necessary, as if they are subconsciously preparing for accomplishing upcoming tasks; after accomplishing a task Decisive types remain in a state of mobilization for some time afterwards. A state of readiness is their natural state.
It is necessary for Decisive types to stay in their natural sate of mobilization up until the end of an important task—the more effective the mobilization, the more fulfilling their rest will be ("If you don't go to work—you cannot rest")
After completing the necessary task, Decisive types have trouble leaving their state of mobilization (frequently this is expressed by aimless, thoughtless activity). Therefore, Decisive types often require subsequent additional, external stimuli (for instance, they may plan a diversion: "After the test, I will certainly go see a movie") or turn to other people to help them relax and forget about their actual work.
Decisive types are not inclined to divide upcoming large tasks into separate stages. They will instead stay mobilized for the entire duration of the task so that the task could be accomplished as a whole. While the task is still unfinished, they maintain a state of internal readiness.
Decisive types become aware of their own state of mobilization at the moment they make a decision i.e. when the mobilization reaches a sufficiently high level. They are aware of the moment of they undertake a decision and remember it ("I have decided that...").
Decisive types better recognize the stage of their involvement, starting from the moment that they made a decision. They invest more time and effort into carrying out the task, since they consider the actual work to be the most important part. They appreciate far less and are far less aware of the preparation and planning stages than the subsequent decisions and their implementation.
Decisive types are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus). In contrast to the Judicious types, they can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this. They evaluate their place of work by looking at what returns they get for the effort they invested (including monetary rewards).
Speech features: Decisive types underscore the moments of making a decision and in detail speak of stages of its implementation; in conversation about work they speak about its "fruits", decisions and results; in speech the word "money" is often heard.
I've bolded bits and pieces that, to me, paint a picture of someone subject to a lot of harmful social influences that produce a stressed out, anxious individual. Not everyone will check all the boxes, but the bits I've bolded are more of a typology of psychological or sociological pathology than an egalitarian "everyone is healthy and equal" typology. (Like type A/B personality and heart disease vs the I/E Big Five dimension). People identifying with these traits are more likely to be emotionally unhealthy, which I would here consider to be higher trait Neuroticism and disease processes like suicidality, anxiety, depression, poor self-esteem.
Anyway, I meant no offence. I do realise it's not the heights of politeness to call people "unhealthy".
What contradiction do you see?and... yet...you're still here.
In response to your assertation that mental health should not be assumed, I found this very interesting:
"Social Sphere
Historically, the first representative of a Dialectical worldview would be Heraclitus. Epitomizing the Dynamic dichotomy, he was of the opinion that "you cannot enter the same river twice" because whenever you enter again, the flow is already of different water. In more recent times it developed into Hegel's comprehensive theory of a rational system. Since Dialectical cognition, compared to other styles, is the most oriented towards creative intention, it invariably leads to ideas of a creator, an absolute, a cosmic intelligence, etc.
Two of its representatives—EIE and ILI—are usually recognized in society as the most intellectual types. They form the backbone of intellectual elites, expert clubs, esoteric groups, etc. They are the best computer programmers, knowing better than other types how to work with moving structures—algorithms. Algorithmic diagrams consist of blocks and arrows showing the order of transitions, branches, and loop cycles. The crux of a program is its dynamic structure—pointers, rather than blocks. The formula "if-then-else" is, in essence, the core of any algorithm.
The disadvantages in Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition include instability and uncertainty. Algorithmics suffer from difficulty in making choices and embracing unambiguous decisions. This thinking is more comparable to a symphony of flowing interwoven imagery, rather than a mechanism of clearly established instruction sets. Another problem is increased criticality, which can be so high that it incurs self-destruction, plunging them into danger of total detachment from reality, and leading to mental disorders, especially in cases of hereditary predisposition."
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...vist_Dichotomy
Sorry, mental health shouldn't be assumed in the sense that all types are equally happy, healthy, intelligent, functional, etc (hence why I mentioned a hyper-egalitarian schema). Another example: the Enneagram likes to pretend that E6 isn't just shorthand for "anxiety disorder" and that an E6 can be as happy as an E9; the opposite being that E9s or E7s must have some kind of underlying pathology, rather than pathology being incidental and narratively unrelated to the types.
No no. Trust me. It's ok. And thank you for bringing up Dichotomies and mental illness. Now I can quote Gulenko in order to draw connections between what William is dismissing ("Screw Ni") and what you are asserting about mental illness. That is, EIEs and ILIs are both Ni egos who are predisposed to "criticality".
So yeah. Gulenko's idea was there all along. We just had to have the right people discussing the topic at hand to bring it all to the table.
I see my Ni as the tool that keeps me from being one of those people who are just complete idiots. I keep myself in check by measuring. Something Si creatives often neglect *cough cough*
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
@William
People don't really change and if they do its too slow to notice it anyway. Way too slow. Ni just cuts through their essence, what you're going to get anyway so its superior. I get what you mean though man I really do. It is rather victimy and annoying and fatalistic and negative. My best friend said my main weakness is that I see other people's darkness too easily, that I'm so harsh with them about their shadow sides and that I can't see how they can be better. So I think your criticism is right. But idk man, Ne to me still feels like it's like too mama's boy ideal or something. Afraid to hit the pavement. Too self help book-y.
omg this reminds me of how so many Deltas told me that I need to fly more instead of burrowing my head into the emotional drama of others. Whatever DELTAS, I don't see wings sprouting on your backs either.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
