Discussion of Introverted Intuition Ni

[Expat]

Somehow is the information element that is most controversial here.

I think that part of the problem is the function blocked to it. Just like some people tend to think of as mostly the Alpha version, +, which is also what Jung was mainly thinking of when he wrote about his Extraverted Feeling, others tend to see as basically +, the Beta version - which, again, is what Jung was mainly thinking when he wrote about his Introverted Intuition.

I think that there is an inclination on part of some people not to think of the differences between + and +.

Then, for course, there is still a greater difference when you don't have but .

A long, long time ago I wrote descriptions on how would be perceived by those types. I wouldn't necessarily write them again today like that, I would at least change the wording, but I believe they are still essentially correct.

Ni types

Ni types perceive reality as a flow that is taking them -- somewhere, but the final destination is less a central part of their perception than the flow itself.

Let us imagine a boat sailing gently down a river. Ni types are on an observation deck of the boat. They feel best when they know that the voyage is proceeding at the right speed and along the desired route- however, should there be an unexpected change in the route and a secondary river be taken, the Ni types immediately adjust to that and are now immersing in the flow of the new route. Transition is managed without stress.

The INTp feels that the boat is sailing as desired as long as the INTp knows that there are no Te obstacles - the boat's machines are running smoothly, the water level will remain adequate, all the harbors will be open and with the desired supplies. As long as the information on such matters is satisfactory, the INTp is contented: the trip will proceed along the optimal flow.

The INFp feels that the boat is sailing as desired as long as the INFp knows that there will be no Fe obstacles. The INFp relies on the other people of the boat to assure that the trip will proceed well. As long as those people are well-disposed towards the INFp emotionally, the INFp is contented: the trip will proceed along the optimal flow.

The INTp is not particularly concerned with the other people on the boat. However, the INTp does need a trusted companion who will deal with them (if necessary) and will help the INTp to actually deal with the obstacles perceived by the INTp. That companion is the ESFp, who probably was also the one to get the INTp on board in the first place.

The INFp prefers not to deal with the kind of obstacles the INTp regards as vital: the INFp feels that the trip will proceed smoothly as long as the other people on the boat are well disposed. However, not everyone will be well-disposed towards the INFp. To the deal with those, and to the other obstacles that might arise, the INFp has an ally, the ESTp. And, again, probably it was the ESTp who got the INFp on board in the first place.

Depending on how you see it - - the ESXp is the bodyguard and guardian of the INXp; or the INXp is the navigator for the ESXp.

Te types

ESTjs and ENTjs perceive reality through their knowledge of how the world works - or that the world even works. For them, their environment, their world - both in a real and a figurative way - must be known in its own terms, so as it really is. Te is wary of believing in ideologies or systems even if they already seem to make perfect sense and are consistent: Te is suspicious of this, it feels like self-delusion. The world and the environment must work logically, they must make sense, they must work efficiently, but not through rigid structures: efficiency is measured on results and achieved by knowledge, not primarily by structural logic. Result is what counts.

At a basic level, reality as perceived by the ENTj and the ESTj can be understood as if they were driving a car. For the ENTj, the efficiency and speed of the journey itself, as well as the final destination, are the primary criteria to optimize the workings of that environment, that situation. As long as ENTjs judge the speed and the expense of the journey to be proceeding as they judge optimal, they are contented. They may stop and "waste time" at their own discretion, however; that is ok as long as the EJ remains in control of what is going on. But just see the ENTj be faced with an unforeseen and open-ended event, like a traffic jam: the ENTj will go mad, since the perception of flow Ni, one of the main criteria for the ENTj to evaluate the final Te efficiency, has just escaped out of his EJ control.

The ENTj will not be too concerned with whether the car is clean, tidy, or even working at optimal level: as long as the car takes the ENTj to the final goal along a perception of time flow agreeable to the ENTj, those matters do not concern the ENTj much. That is not the the case with the ESTj: it's the opposite. The ESTj's evaluation of Te efficiency of the car journey is defined by a well-running car, a tidy and clean car, an engine doing just the right noise. The efficiency that concerns the ESTj foremost is that of the car; while the efficiency that concerns the ENTj is that of the journey itself. That is not to say that the ESTj does not care about the final goal; but his focus on attaining it will be different from that of the ENTj. And, accordingly, the ENTj's problems with the journey will be related to not focusing enough on the details of car itself, and the ESTj's, to not focusing enough on possible obstacles during the journey.

Let us change the car into a boat sailing along a river: the ENTj will want to be in control of the journey, to feel that the goal will be reached when the ENTj wishes (but not necessarily according to a pre-established schedule), so the ENTj will, again, focus on the journey itself, possible obstacles, and act to avoid them and compensate for them. The ENTj will want the boat to sail smoothly but its state is important to the ENTj only as a means to an end; the ENTj will tend to neglect the appearance and tidiness of the boat, and will check on its engines but not very enthusiastically; the ENTj is a bit impatient with doing that. The ESTj, though, will pay the closest attention to the state of the boat in its details, and will be inclined to comparatively neglect the flow of the journey itself - or go the opposite way and concentrate on a rigid, pre-fixed schedule.

For Te, reality - the external environment - must make sense as it is. Te expects reality to change and wants to stay ahead of such changes, steering them in the right direction. That is only possible if reality is understood and can be subjected to a measure of Te's control. To be subjected to a external reality that makes no sense, and can't be steered towards sense, is one of the sources of greatest distress for Te. This includes bureaucratic rules, idiotic authority figures, and the like. Te wants to get the car moving and complete the journey - that is not helped by someone saying that the brakes have to be checked when Te knows that that isn't necessary, or someone with power telling Te to take a particular route because "I want". To reach an optimal situation of sense-making reality, Te may feel the need to assume control over the environment and other people arond; however, control is a means to an end, not the goal.

[strrrng]

Ni types perceive reality as a flow that is taking them -- somewhere, but the final destination is less a central part of their perception than the flow itself.

I disagree with this. I don't think Ni information processing has anything to do with a continuous flow that we are being taken along on.

Let us imagine a boat sailing gently down a river. Ni types are on an observation deck of the boat. They feel best when they know that the voyage is proceeding at the right speed and along the desired route- however, should there be an unexpected change in the route and a secondary river be taken, the Ni types immediately adjust to that and are now immersing in the flow of the new route. Transition is managed without stress.

I think this is a stretch. Of course Ni is described as this continuous vision-like function that immerses itself in time by all the classic sources, but sorry, I think that's bunk. I don't pay the least bit of attention to my life rhythm/flow and have the shittiest sense of time in the world. If that means weak Ni, well, what can I say lol?

The INTp feels that the boat is sailing as desired as long as the INTp knows that there are no Te obstacles - the boat's machines are running smoothly, the water level will remain adequate, all the harbors will be open and with the desired supplies. As long as the information on such matters is satisfactory, the INTp is contented: the trip will proceed along the optimal flow.

The INFp feels that the boat is sailing as desired as long as the INFp knows that there will be no Fe obstacles. The INFp relies on the other people of the boat to assure that the trip will proceed well. As long as those people are well-disposed towards the INFp emotionally, the INFp is contented: the trip will proceed along the optimal flow.

The INTp is not particularly concerned with the other people on the boat. However, the INTp does need a trusted companion who will deal with them (if necessary) and will help the INTp to actually deal with the obstacles perceived by the INTp. That companion is the ESFp, who probably was also the one to get the INTp on board in the first place.

The INFp prefers not to deal with the kind of obstacles the INTp regards as vital: the INFp feels that the trip will proceed smoothly as long as the other people on the boat are well disposed. However, not everyone will be well-disposed towards the INFp. To the deal with those, and to the other obstacles that might arise, the INFp has an ally, the ESTp. And, again, probably it was the ESTp who got the INFp on board in the first place.

Depending on how you see it - - the ESXp is the bodyguard and guardian of the INXp; or the INXp is the navigator for the ESXp.

I think this entire metaphor was pretty concrete for an Ni ego type. Not trying to spark a flame, but the way you referenced something physical and incorporated such details into it?? I don't know, most Ni peoples' metaphors tend to be more general and abstract; this seemed like you were referencing something quite real as an analogy.

But I'm sure people are gonna come in and tell me how I don't know shit about Ni lol, so whatever. I just don't think it's inherently about any of the aforementioned things. It's a lot more specific than that. Maybe I'll post more later after there have been some more responses.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

I disagree with this. I don't think Ni information processing has anything to do with a continuous flow that we are being taken along on.

Well, when I wrote this I was also thinking of the IP temperament.

I think this is a stretch. Of course Ni is described as this continuous vision-like function that immerses itself in time by all the classic sources, but sorry, I think that's bunk. I don't pay the least bit of attention to my life rhythm/flow and have the shittiest sense of time in the world. If that means weak Ni, well, what can I say lol?

Please note that my description of INTp and INFp said nothing, directly or indirectly, about "sense of time". As far as that goes, it's a straw man.

I think this entire metaphor was pretty concrete for an Ni ego type.

Of course it was - according to your already-arrived-at view of what a Ni ego type is - whether NiFe, FeNi, NiTe and TeNi. Ever thought that the Te in "TeNi" might, just might, make things different than for a NiFe?

Not trying to spark a flame, but the way you referenced something physical and incorporated such details into it?? I don't know, most Ni peoples' metaphors tend to be more general and abstract; this seemed like you were referencing something quite real as an analogy.

Yet that was a metaphor -- which creates an image for the purpose of illustrating a point. I certainly don't think that INFps or INTps are actually imagining themselves on a boat. If you want to insist on seeing that as Si, fine; my own view is that as long as you do, you will never understand what TeNi is.

Something to think of -- would you agree that Stanley Kubrick was ILI? In that case, he was NiTe, yet his films - which were indeed his films - were also "referencing something quite real".

I think that as long as you see only the Beta Ni+Fe as the "only Ni", you will be limiting your own understanding. But, whichever you decide.

[strrrng]

I just like to see Ni as a vector. I also think of Ne as a prism scattering light in all directions, and Ni as one beam.

Yes, this is a very good metaphor.

[strrrng]

Of course it was - according to your already-arrived-at view of what a Ni ego type is - whether NiFe, FeNi, NiTe and TeNi. Ever thought that the Te in "TeNi" might, just might, make things different than for a NiFe?

Um, Ni is Ni, and Ni metaphors are more abstract than that.

Yet that was a metaphor -- which creates an image for the purpose of illustrating a point. I certainly don't think that INFps or INTps are actually imagining themselves on a boat. If you want to insist on seeing that as Si, fine; my own view is that as long as you do, you will never understand what TeNi is.

The metaphor was pretty concrete and detailed.

I think that as long as you see only the Beta Ni+Fe as the "only Ni", you will be limiting your own understanding. But, whichever you decide.

It's not about beta NiFe. THAT is a straw man on your part

[unefille]

It's late and I'm really tired so I might come back and give it another go tomorrow, but Ni as I experience it:

It's less like a beam than silvery interlacing threads. I use it more than I 'experience' it. It essentialises information, tags information, creates a web-like tagging system that would, I suppose on a visual level, be somewhat like a silvery mesh of tree roots and forges connections between discrete pieces of information (data input). Perception is like knowledge and Ni is some internal translation device. All new information is taken, tagged and sorted into various interconnected clusters. Everything is interconnected, because you're not dealing with surface qualities but the numerous 'essential concepts' that composed it. Clusters therefore form 'significant concepts': I suppose I see them much like literary tropes - recurring themes, ideas, metaphors, conventions. Identification of tropes = understanding life.

Or maybe that's my weird brain. But I notice recurring patterns and ideas a lot, because new information gets tagged and identified with old clusters immediately - kind of shuffled into lines. Significant 'clear' things arise out of a mass of information, due to pattern recognition (the tagging system recognises it). Information is being distilled and relocated according to prior patterns (clustering structures). It means I process new information very quickly in a given area because I can pick up on repeated or recurring ideas, or adjustments/changes (how idea A was altered slightly to produce idea B).

Ok, an action happens. Taking into account the action and its context (information), it decomposes to 5 'factors'. Each factor lights up a particular 'point' in my existing 'web' of knowledge. Connecting the points produces a line/beam/thread. Following that beam, there is only a few possible outcomes and one of them is more likely that the others due to frequency. The more information, the more points like up, the stronger the direction of the beam produced, the more likely I can 'foretell' what's going to happen next on the basis of extrapolating from past patterns.

ETA: Come to think of it, that 'sorting/tagging' system uses Ti in conjunction with Ni.

[Expat]

Um, Ni is Ni, and Ni metaphors are more abstract than that.

In other words, another reiteration of "Ni is just the precise way I understand it and anything else is wrong, by definition".

The metaphor was pretty concrete and detailed.

Same point as above.

It's not about beta NiFe. THAT is a straw man on your part

Not at all. Again, are you saying that functions - any function - are not influenced by the blocks? That there is no difference between Fe+Ni and Fe+Si; between Fi+Ne ad Fi+Se; and of course, between Ni+Fe and Ni+Te?

If you think that makes little or no difference - which would make sense according to your "Ni is Ni" statement - then we have very fundamental differences with socionics in general. And if you think that yes, the functions are indeed different according to their blocks, then it's not clear to me how you see the difference between Ni+Fe and Ni+Te.

[strrrng]

It's late and I'm really tired so I might come back and give it another go tomorrow, but Ni as I experience it:

It's less like a beam than silvery interlacing threads. I use it more than I 'experience' it. It essentialises information, tags information, creates a web-like tagging system that would, I suppose on a visual level, be somewhat like a silvery mesh of tree roots and forges connections between discrete pieces of information (data input). Perception is like knowledge and Ni is some internal translation device. All new information is taken, tagged and sorted into various interconnected clusters. Everything is interconnected, because you're not dealing with surface qualities but the numerous 'essential concepts' that composed it. Clusters therefore form 'significant concepts': I suppose I see them much like literary tropes - recurring themes, ideas, metaphors, conventions. Identification of tropes = understanding life.

Or maybe that's my weird brain. But I notice recurring patterns and ideas a lot, because new information gets tagged and identified with old clusters immediately - kind of shuffled into lines. Significant 'clear' things arise out of a mass of information, due to pattern recognition (the tagging system recognises it). Information is being distilled and relocated according to prior patterns (clustering structures). It means I process new information very quickly in a given area because I can pick up on repeated or recurring ideas, or adjustments/changes (how idea A was altered slightly to produce idea B).

Ok, an action happens. Taking into account the action and its context (information), it decomposes to 5 'factors'. Each factor lights up a particular 'point' in my existing 'web' of knowledge. Connecting the points produces a line/beam/thread. Following that beam, there is only a few possible outcomes and one of them is more likely that the others due to frequency. The more information, the more points like up, the stronger the direction of the beam produced, the more likely I can 'foretell' what's going to happen next on the basis of extrapolating from past patterns.

Based on this writing, I don't think you're Ni. It's too detailed and discrete. An Ni type wouldn't describe Ni so thoroughly, basically performing mirror-reflections of the same pattern over and over again, and deconstructing it in the way you did.

[strrrng]

Not at all. Again, are you saying that functions - any function - are not influenced by the blocks? That there is no difference between Fe+Ni and Fe+Si; between Fi+Ne ad Fi+Se; and of course, between Ni+Fe and Ni+Te?

If you think that makes little or no difference - which would make sense according to your "Ni is Ni" statement - then we have very fundamental differences with socionics in general. And if you think that yes, the functions are indeed different according to their blocks, then it's not clear to me how you see the difference between Ni+Fe and Ni+Te.

I didn't say Ni wasn't influenced by blocks. Yes, NiTe is more concrete than NiFe, but Ni people still describe things in abstract terms, regardless.

[unefille]

Based on this writing, I don't think you're Ni. It's too detailed and discrete. An Ni type wouldn't describe Ni so thoroughly, basically performing mirror-reflections of the same pattern over and over again, and deconstructing it in the way you did.

Based on that, what would you say I was?

[Expat]

I didn't say Ni wasn't influenced by blocks. Yes, NiTe is more concrete than NiFe, but Ni people still describe things in abstract terms, regardless.

Right, so NiTe is more concrete than NiFe.

Any reason why TeNi shouldn't be more concrete than NiTe?

[strrrng]

Right, so NiTe is more concrete than NiFe.

Any reason why TeNi shouldn't be more concrete than NiTe?

Just because it's *more* concrete than NiFe, doesn't mean it's *that* concrete. Ni people still describe dynamic processes with with abstract images, regardless of if they transfer this information to Fe or Te. Your description was a concrete process - Si.

[strrrng]

Based on that, what would you say I was?

Ne-ENFp

[Expat]

Just because it's *more* concrete than NiFe, doesn't mean it's *that* concrete.

And you're totally sure of your ability to draw the line precisely?

Ni people still describe dynamic processes with with images, regardless of if they transfer this information to Fe or Te. Your description was a concrete process - Si.

Ok. Never mind. So you think I'm an ESTj. I think that in that case you will never understand what Te+Ni, and Gammas, are all about, and that your understanding of socionics types will never go much beyond the point where it's now.

[Expat]

Ne-ENFp

That is so totally wrong, sorry.

[strrrng]

And you're totally sure of your ability to draw the line precisely?

Um, yes. It's easy to spot how someone describes the dynamic processes that they observe.

Ok. Never mind. So you think I'm an ESTj. I think that in that case you will never understand what Te+Ni, and Gammas, are all about, and that your understanding of socionics types will never go much beyond the point where it's now.

Nice aristocratic cop-out lol. "You don't agree with me, therefore your understanding of socionics is horribly incorrect." Patronizing bullshit lol. A true Ni type wouldn't get all uppity and defensive at someone challenging them on using Ni. Nor would they write such a bland metaphor on Ni. Stop trying so hard to protect your image by belittling people who disagree with you. It's transparent as fuck.

Now people will come in and vilify me for my stupid actions lol. And the bullshit feedback loop continues.

[Expat]

Perhaps your irrational and ethical use of Ni is so nonconcrete, even an Ni-ENFj's Ni appears unusally concrete to you.

Yes.

Also, if strrrng's image of what "TeNi" is like stems from interactions with Ashton, then of course it's not going to be "that concrete".

[strrrng]

Yes.

Also, if strrrng's image of what "TeNi" is like stems from interactions with Ashton, then of course it's not going to be "that concrete".

Why can't you wrap your head around the idea that Ni people share essential similarities, regardless of function blocks? Ni abstracts things in a specific way. Whether these abstractions are transferred to Fe or Te is only secondary. And your abstractions just aren't Ni. Period. But keep condescending to gain the upper hand and write me off as some deluded person who doesn't understand functions at all. I could care less lol. I'm just pointing out what I see.

[Expat]

Nice aristocratic cop-out lol.

Nothing to do with socionics aristocracy.

"You don't agree with me, therefore your understanding of socionics is horribly incorrect." Patronizing bullshit lol.

How is that more patronizing than your own stance that only your understanding of Ni is the only possible one and that my, and unefille's, understanding - even as it refers to different functional orderings from yours - are so totally off? At the very least, it's a case of pot and kettle.

A true Ni type wouldn't get all uppity and defensive at someone challenging them.

Nice Fe argument :"I wil say something that aims at diminishing the other person's credibility".

Moreover, generally speaking, is there any reason why "a true Ni type wouldn't get all uppity and defensive at someone challenging them"? Not that I am "defensive", but that argument seems to come out of nowhere.

Nor would they write such a bland metaphor on Ni. Stop trying so hard to protect your image by belittling people who disagree with you. It's transparent as fuck.

Now you're projecting your own motivations onto me. That is what is "transparent as fuck".

Now people will come in and vilify me for my stupid actions lol.

How so? That's a bit paranoid.

[Expat]

Why can't you wrap your head around the idea that Ni people share essential similarities, regardless of function blocks?

Why can't you wrap your head around the possibility that it's not as simple?

But keep condescending to gain the upper hand and write me off as some deluded person who doesn't understand functions at all. I could care less lol. I'm just pointing out what I see.

From my perspective, I could say precisely the same words to you lol. Can you even see that?

[unefille]

Based on this writing, I don't think you're Ni. It's too detailed and discrete. An Ni type wouldn't describe Ni so thoroughly, basically performing mirror-reflections of the same pattern over and over again, and deconstructing it in the way you did.

Just on this again for the moment.

When I try to describe a thought or an idea I have in my mind, I try to think of how I can make other people understand it, particularly an unsympathetic party. That's the rule of communication. So part of it is describing the same thing from several angles, shading closer or from a different slant each other. Different people will connect with different descriptions. Then I try to decompose it - take it apart and explain what going on. Then I try to give an example. The emphasis is on trying to communicate it.

Concreteness is good. You should always imagine yourself talking to your conflictor. If they can understand you, chances are anyone can.

[strrrng]

Nothing to do with socionics aristocracy.

Right lol.

How is that more patronizing than your own stance that only your understanding of Ni is the only possible one and that my, and unefille's, understanding - even as it refers to different functional orderings from yours - are so totally off? At the very least, it's a case of pot and kettle.

I don't claim that my understanding of Ni is the end all. Jesus christ. I do however know how to spot it, and sorry, just don't see it in you. And since I am just one person - one who you think doesn't understand socionics - why does my simple observation seem annoy you so much?

Nice Fe argument :"I wil say something that aims at diminishing the other person's credibility".

I wasn't trying to diminish your credibility. In fact, I was pointing out how you were trying to diminish my credibility. Where the fuck are you getting this from?

Moreover, generally speaking, is there any reason why "a true Ni type wouldn't get all uppity and defensive at someone challenging them"? Not that I am "defensive", but that argument seems to come out of nowhere.

I meant that they wouldn't be so defensive about being told that they weren't Ni, because they would be secure in their understanding/usage of it, given that they actually experience it. I edited the post, cause I saw how the wording could be confusing.

Now you're projecting your own motivations onto me. That is what is "transparent as fuck".

I'm not projecting motivations. What you're doing is blatantly obvious, and you're trying to elude being called out on it.

How so? That's a bit paranoid.

Maybe because it's happened multiple times in the past.

[strrrng]

Just on this again for the moment.

When I try to describe a thought or an idea I have in my mind, I try to think of how I can make other people understand it, particularly an unsympathetic party. That's the rule of communication. So part of it is describing the same thing from several angles, shading closer or from a different slant each other. Different people will connect with different descriptions. Then I try to decompose it - take it apart and explain what going on. Then I try to give an example. The emphasis is on trying to communicate it.

Concreteness is good. You should always imagine yourself talking to your conflictor. If they can understand you, chances are anyone can.

This doesn't matter. You still use your functions to describe things, and that description didn't reflect the presence of Ni IMO.

[unefille]

This doesn't matter. You still use your functions to describe things, and that description didn't reflect the presence of Ni IMO.

Right. I thought I included a question in there, but I must have forgotten: how would you describe Ni?

[aka-kitsune]

I relate to your description of , unefille. And I'm most definitely IEI.

[strrrng]

Right. I thought I included a question in there, but I must have forgotten: how would you describe Ni?

I described it in the pm to you, didn't I? If I have to, I can describe it again here, but I'd rather not. My whole point was that I think an Ni person would describe Ni more compactly and dynamically, instead of talking about things branching out and forming clusters. Ni is holistic.

[strrrng]

I relate to your description of , unefille. And I'm most definitely IEI.

lol

[Expat]

I don't claim that my understanding of Ni is the end all. Jesus christ. I do however know how to spot it, and sorry, just don't see it in you. And since I am just one person - one who you think doesn't understand socionics - why does my simple observation seem annoy you so much?

Your observation, in itself, does not annoy me at all. Haven't I known for long that you don't agree on my type? If something annoys me, is rather when you attribute to me motivations and reactions that simply aren't there. But I can see that that is a dead-end, since:

I'm not projecting motivations. What you're doing is blatantly obvious, and you're trying to elude being called out on it.

You are simply wrong, but since you are so certain of your ability to read my motivations no matter what I say to the contrary, it is all rather pointless. It becomes an Abbot & Costello routine, or Monty Python, with you saying "you are" and I say "no I am not" etc.

I can see how my phrasing "you will never understand socionics etc" was annoying, in itself.

[unefille]

I described it in the pm to you, didn't I? If I have to, I can describe it again here, but I'd rather not. My whole point was that I think an Ni person would describe Ni more compactly and dynamically, instead of talking about things branching out and forming clusters. Ni is holistic.

I just checked my PMs and we discussed function strengths within a quadra and Se, mostly. I was just looking for a comparison, but if you'd rather not that's cool as well.

[strrrng]

Your observation, in itself, does not annoy me at all. Haven't I known for long that you don't agree on my type? If something annoys me, is rather when you attribute to me motivations and reactions that simply aren't there. But I can see that that is a dead-end, since:

You are simply wrong, but since you are so certain of your ability to read my motivations no matter what I say to the contrary, it is all rather pointless. It becomes an Abbot & Costello routine, or Monty Python, with you saying "you are" and I say "no I am not" etc.

I can see how my phrasing "you will never understand socionics etc" was annoying, in itself.

I'm not blindly certain of my ability to read your motivations; this isn't even about that. I'm more certain of the fact that I see no Ni in the way you describe things. The claims about your motivations weren't attacks, but rather, observations about how I saw you responding to my initial statement. If I was wrong, whatever. Either way, my intent wasn't to get into a psychological battle, but rather, express my opinion - that I thought your metaphor was too concrete for an Ni type. You then gave me some worn-out argument about function blocks which I've heard over and over and dismissed my opinion in a patronizing manner, so it's not as if I was making these inductions out of nowhere.

[unefille]

Hmm. I do have to admit I don't see Ni as holistic. It's very much something I 'have a handle' on, something I'm more than capable to standing away from, contemplating and trying to break down.

On the other hand, I do see Fe as 'holistic' in the sense that if asked to describe Fe I would be somewhat at a loss. Where to start? Fe is everything. If I tried to 'put my arms around' Fe, I wouldn't be able to encapsulate it. It's not a discrete thing. It's pervasive and everywhere, amorphous and never located.

[strrrng]

Hmm. I do have to admit I don't see Ni as holistic. It's very much something I 'have a handle' on, something I'm more than capable to standing away from, contemplating and trying to break down.

Which is why I don't think you're ENFj.

[Expat]

I'm not blindly certain of my ability to read your motivations; this isn't even about that. I'm more certain of the fact that I see no Ni in the way you describe things. The claims about your motivations weren't attacks, but rather, observations about how I saw you responding to my initial statement. If I was wrong, whatever. Either way, my intent wasn't to get into a psychological battle, but rather, express my opinion - that I thought your metaphor was too concrete for an Ni type. You then gave me some worn-out argument about function blocks which I've heard over and over and dismissed my opinion in a patronizing manner, so it's not as if I was making these inductions out of nowhere.

Ok.

Not to get into a psychological battle myself, but isn't it fair to say that saying "those are worn-out arguments" in order to invalidate them is equally dismissive in a patronizing way? Why are they "worn-out"? Because you know they are wrong because you know that Ni is just the way you see it etc. And we're back where we started.

[strrrng]

I'm annoyed that the focus was diverted from the main point of my initial post. Expat, my position stands: I believe that metaphor was too concrete for an Ni type. It actually reminded me of the way Steve describes things - in dynamic processes that relate to something physical. Why don't you stop telling me that I'm just unable to recognize NiTe and actually explain how you think that metaphor was or wasn't Ni? As far as I'm concerned, it was a concrete representation of a dynamic process. This is not what Ni is about. And why is it that whenever I have questioned your type/usage of Ni, you always turn it into some criticism on me and the debate becomes political?

So, the point stands: I don't think Expat uses Ni. Period. I'm not placing the burden of truth on anyone here, but I wouldn't mind hearing any personal anecdotes from Expat regarding his personal experience with Ni, and not some theoretical description.

But whatever.

[strrrng]

Not to get into a psychological battle myself, but isn't it fair to say that saying "those are worn-out arguments" in order to invalidate them is equally dismissive in a patronizing way? Why are they "worn-out"? Because you know they are wrong because you know that Ni is just the way you see it etc. And we're back where we started.

They're worn out because they're used as some rationalization more than an actual explanation or counter-argument to my points on Ni. It's a common tactic I see people using, and it's annoying. I'd rather have them address my point directly, without reverting to some other idea, and telling me that I don't understand it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Concreteness is good. You should always imagine yourself talking to your conflictor. If they can understand you, chances are anyone can.

To a point. You have to be careful not to sound so flippant otherwise people might not understand the why or just how it really is important. True though, concrete language is better than flowery shit. To me it's the basic principal of 'Dude, it's a rock. If I throw it at your skull it will actually harm you.'

I'm just saying that much of the time, concrete language can lack tact, and although you don't want to baby people or coddle them (or like you're taking their intelligence for granted) - you also don't want to scare people away from what you're trying to teach by appearing smug.

People have a built-in sense of 'Hey! I'm not a math problem here' so how you do take that into consideration? To me the best way to speak to somebody is a mixture of both worlds, with a sense that you understand what real emotional pain is- not just happy bullshit you coo over with your friends while watching the new 90210 show together. I know if somebody isn't respecting my basic emotions, we're going to have some issues.

Look at how Diana speaks. She frequently does it your way, but she sometimes becomes misunderstood as nobody is ever fully concrete. However, when she realizes that Fe is a bit different from totally cutting off your humanity, she seems to get along better. *shrug*

I sometimes laugh at the um poetic way people used to speak. But still, I'm not sure I'd like to read a book that had nothing but strong, concrete language. I wouldn't automatically assume the author was trying to be my friend either.

Of course you tend to be misunderstood either way so what's the point? The whole point is that people have biases about people based on who they like. We have systems to deal with this shit, and they are far from perfect... but I couldn't think of anything better.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Also it's easy to say 'whee I gotta be concrete' when you're okay with your life and can safely type behind the computer screen.

But if humans are emotionally tortured (I'm talking about real emotional abuse and psychological humiliation none of this 'I was made fun of' crap), they do tend to need lots of grandmotherly coddling. It doesn't mean *you* have to be the one that gives it to them, but you know, you're usually capable of it no matter what functions you prefer. And I hope if did come down to it, you could heal up a person back to health the *right way* as easily as you could tear somebody down. Hmm?

I don't know though. Empathy is different in everybody. I've been in immense pain (I was in a cult before where they abused me, long story - don't ask) and have had people laugh in my face, thought that I was being a baby and making shit up, when I really wasn't. It was so bizarre. Other people, if I was not comfortable in the slightest they would go out of their way to make me happier. You'd think I would like the latter better, but we all have that weirdness to us. Sometimes people can be superficially charming, but when you're actually weak they take advantage of you in your weakened state. You wouldn't know this until you actually were a victim, that's what makes other people so scary to us. And why it's always better to be cautious about who you trust about stuff. Just trust your own gut lol.

[Expat]

I'm annoyed that the focus was diverted from the main point of my initial post. Expat, my position stands: I believe that metaphor was too concrete for an Ni type. It actually reminded me of the way Steve describes things - in dynamic processes that relate to something physical. Why don't you stop telling me that I'm just unable to recognize NiTe and actually explain how you think that metaphor was or wasn't Ni? As far as I'm concerned, it was a concrete representation of a dynamic process. This is not what Ni is about. And why is it that whenever I have questioned your type/usage of Ni, you always turn it into some criticism on me and the debate becomes political?

Perhaps this is more your view of it. Is it so difficult to take what I say at face value ()? If I say you are wrong, it means simply this: I think you are wrong. It does not mean "aha I will say strrrng is wrong in order to belittle him publicly *rubs his hands and says 'excellent' like Mr. Burns*." (I am trying to be light but not to belittle you). In socionics terms, it may mean that my comments on your understanding come from a 7th function hitting a 6th (whether we call it conflict or supervision makes little difference).

Also, how can I say how that metaphor was or was not Ni? We've been there. You say it is "too concrete" because I am referring to supposed "concrete things", "details" etc. I say it's Te+Ni because I am using an image that isn't real in any way for the purpose of communicating information using an example (Te). The example is a fictitious one, even if "concrete". From that point of view, no writer of fiction who describes fictitious events in a concrete way (Jack London, Gore Vidal, etc) could be Ni, then. From my point of view, it is a manifestation of Te rather than Si, but it is a natural PoLR view to simply see anything Te as of little value.

So, the point stands: I don't think Expat uses Ni. Period. I'm not placing the burden of truth on anyone here, but I wouldn't mind hearing any personal anecdotes from Expat regarding his personal experience with Ni, and not some theoretical description.

And I think you have a narrow view of how one experiences, and uses, Ni. Period. (and we're back to the Abbot & Costello routine).

As for personal experiences, I wrote in my blog in the Workshop (you have to log in to read it) a very lengthy personal experience of matters involving me recently. You are welcome to read it, if you haven't already. I don't see it as a "experience of Ni", but I do see it as a "real-life example of LIE experience" that is mainly Te+Ni. If you read it and see it as evidence of Si and no Ni, fine. The disagreement will continue. Not the end of the world.

(My ENTj description of the car etc could also serve as a "personal experience" since I've often thought of that).

Something to consider, though: a TeNi would use Ni mainly as a tool of Te. Te is "concrete" by definition - external dynamics of objects. I think it will be difficult to find any description, or definition, of Te that is not "concrete". If Ni is acting at the service of Te, I think Ni will still be relatively concrete.

[strrrng]

My reaction has nothing to do with Fe. What you were doing was there, regardless of functions. And yeah, I guess the debate will get nowhere, so whatever.