Stop being a meany. I will respond to you :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
Don't you dare cut me off like that.
Printable View
Stop being a meany. I will respond to you :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazedratsghost
Don't you dare cut me off like that.
Ni - What will
Ne - What does
____
Less than 5 words.
Ni isnt difficult to describe. It is difficult to understand. However, as with all introverted functions, the understanding of it begins with the fact that it has to do with relationships. In this case, its an infinite, dynamic abstraction of internal perception. Obviously, as with all functions, it can be contrasted to what it specifically is not -- Si. This is why Ni types appreciate Se -- they want to be able to feel something because Ni has them so inside their own being that Se is useful in bringing Ni types out. Ni has a lot of relation to both time and holism, but there is more to it than that. Its just as complex in explanation as other introverted functions are. What makes it especially difficult to understand is that few are Ni types, with Si types out numbering them. In contrast, have a hard time fathoming Si, despite my knowledge of it, because its exactly what is the most difficult to see in myself being both an Ni auxillary type, as well as a 7. Both are fairly adverse to Si so that may also give an understanding of Ni and why 7s include all extroverts except the Si extroverts, ESTj and ESFj. Understanding 7s in a non-pop culture way makes understanding Ni easier. Unfortunately, theyre shotgun-effected into a misconstrued typecast.
On Ni as base: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=7343 (you need to scroll past acc-Si and acc-Ne).
As has been previously said, :Ni: is a perceiving function and only takes in raw information. The content of the objects imposed upon our sense perception are not things readily accessible to experience. The experience in question only drives :Ni: to understand the cause or the origin of the experience, it's future implications, the direction it's headed. This is where the time factor comes in, :Ni: can follow this process forward or backwards in time.
However, there is major defect that must be elucidated due to the overvaluation of this function which is a commonplace. Because :Ni: does not rely on sense-perception itself but merely follows the implications imposed upon the conscious through sense-perception it may very well lead itself into a incorrect postulate for the very reason that it abstracts from reality rather than relying on it directly. For example; a girl decides to walk down main street at 11 at night. The :Ni: user says "This cannot end well...." only to find that she made it home just fine. :Ni: is inherently consequential, all too well can it accurately predict direct consequences proceeding an action, it is true (it is for this reason it is attributed a prophetic character) but because of it's introverted nature it excludes possible alternatives ( as opposed to :Ne:) and thereby limits it's own vision.
^^^^ says a guy whose Ni is in his superego.
Perfect example of role Ni.Quote:
The user says "This cannot end well...." only to find that she made it home just fine.
Im pretty sure he was just giving a simple example for the sake of putting in an example to demonstrate how Ni can be wrong. I have made errors such as the one he described and it is due to ignoring Ne. Though I would say when I have made those errors it has been due to mental laziness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reuben
The hard thing about describing Ni is that when you try to get more specific than "Indirect Internal dynamics of fields" or "evolution of abstract processes over time" you start to lose some of the substance of what the IE does.
I was wondering about that. When you read about IEs at the beginning of your interest in socionics, are the ones you value easier to understand and 'feel" (what they are about, what they mean)? or maybe the ones that are first 4th functions since they are part of the ego because they are a part of your consciousness?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
The easiest way to get someone to understand a concept is by relating it to something they can taste, see, touch, feel, or hear. And that's what Ni isn't.
3 words: Ni perceives relations.
I see objects (these can be ideas [arguments, philosophies] or physical objects [watersheds, wooden blocks]) out of focus in my field of internal vision, and at the fore of my interest, very emphasized in my vision, is the relation/effect they have on each other. It's like being able to sense gravitational/psychological relationships.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...877#post806877
Could you explain this more? Without context, it almost sounds like a description of Fi.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanashi
Fi isnt a perception, but it does judge relations. All introverted functions either perceive or judge relations, whether close or sparse. Fi is also far less mobile, volatile, than Ni. Fi and Ti, despite being dichotomies, have something in common, which is that they are rather difficult to unlock once locked, so to speak.
Yeah, I know. I just wanted nanashi to explain what she meant in more detail, because it's not very clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by JadaeTheSupremePizza
Ah, I see. Its gonna vary on which 4 Ni it filters through. I like to think of socionics as an internal crystal diode.
It still didn't sound at all like abstract Ni, much less with concrete Te. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by JadaeTheSupremePizza
Ni sees patterns that aren't there.
Ni sees patterns that aren't there....to anyone who has not seen before the initial image.Quote:
Originally Posted by labocat
One must know the archetype before one can see it.
more drivel about non-extant patterns.
I've succeeded in realizing Ni. It has two parts, the actual progression of acts ("time"), and the use of the visual-spatial sketchpad (ie imagination) to sequence chains of event before they happen. Gamma Ni is the sketchpad sequencing, and beta Ni is time. In general, alpha Ne is any use of the visual spatial sketchpad without respect to the immediate situation (that is, independent of any temporal reference frame), and gamma Ni is every other use of it.
IEI thought progression begins with Te. IEI locks onto those aspects of Te which appear to be beyond the IEI's control, and uses that to forecast the popular reaction to scarcity (or abundance as the case may be). There are two scenarios, scarcity and abundance, and each carries with it both positive and negative repercussions for the mood of the people important to the IEI. Depending on the political type of the IEI, the function will be used differently (especially in macrosocial contexts). The idea is then to preserve the moods of important actors, or to change them as the situation warrants. If the IEI is successful, the course of history will be changed (or preserved). Generally the shift of the mood is made on basis of some kind of ethical appeal, often by "whistleblowing". As you might figure, to keep the mood steady, you keep things under wraps....
Now for ILI, you're in the position of dealing with the effect IEI has wrought. The trend is in motion and the question is, what can you make of it? Obviously you want to be able to get on the bandwagon and "live" this new fantasy. And you may even have your own visions for the future in its context. So you need money and other resources, and you need a way to get it so that your vision comes to pass. All these things come from Te. If your vision is somewhat... abhorrent, then there is a possibility someone might try to thwart it, and your failure will be the dawn of a new era. The cycle continues.
The implication is that Si and Ni are also about relations. However, they both are, despite being dichotimies, highly mobile in their intake. This is very much unlike Ti and Fi. This is a major mistake, especially with Ni dominant types, to not realize that they are caught *in* it, which is much unlike other types, even the creative Ni types. So my overall point is that one cannot be that absolute over what Ni is. There are too many other factors at play. One would have to be far more finite and specific to get a clearer answer, but I do believe that few will agree with even those specific answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by AissIt still didn't sound at all like abstract Ni, much less with concrete Te. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by JadaeTheSupremePizza
Jesus at least he tries...Quote:
Originally Posted by AshtonGo away.Quote:
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Ni itself doesn't exist in a purity objective construct. It's a Field , and it's a relationship like another poster said. A relationship is about two things or more joining, and so it cannot be defined by any terms except for the emotional influence the phenomena gives off to each other. (I see a lot of people confuse Ni and Fi for this reason. well as Si with Ti.)
Like all the field functions, Ni doesn't know of itself without being in a relation to something else, those things that it are related to all vary. Every extrovert dual-seeks an introverted function that makes them less narcissistic. Every introvert dual-seeks an extroverted function that makes them feel alive and 'manly.' (eww kinda ignore this part because it's more complicated than that but I don't really wanna go into that now, back to the main point)
Ni can't be described in the first place. It's like asking a wife to objectify the relationship she has with her husband. She just cannot do that- you cannot objectify the matters of the heart. Why does he mean so much to her? To you he's just another person, another object and you can't quite get what she sees in them but she loves him. So that's why Ni is related to romantic poems.
Your mind and ego won't let you grasp on what Ni is, because Ni- like all the field functions are about a relationship. They only play themselves out during the drama with other people and their own silly subjective quirks. Even then you're not seeing Ni in a pure light.
Ni can be understood by getting two people together, and having them be truly honest about how that person makes them feel. But that isn't a very good idea in reality I don't think lol. People just can't take that honesty and it would cause too much conflicts. It might be interesting in the artistic sense, or the animalistic way Nick/strrrng was talking about but people would have to be man enough to accept honesty, and brave enough to dish it out. A bit of sincerity is deadly, a great deal of it- is absolutely fatal. (Narcissistic know it all Oscar Wilde!)
See that's the thing. You just cannot understand Ni in a public sense, because everybody is wearing a mask.
Ni is deceptively similar to Fi. That's probably one of the best explanations anybody can give you. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just hope my self-confidence about socionics is infectious. One is about internal dynamics of fields. (Ni) the other is internal statics of fields (Fi) What does internal dynamics of fields mean exactly?
Exactly like it says it means. Internal (everything that is in the internal nature. So both your introverted thoughts and feelings) being dynamic (moving, being alive).... within a field (relationship).
So Ni is a lot of things. You can't describe it because you are trying to make it one thing but it's....lots of things. Ni isn't so easily defined like Te and Se are. The definition of Ni is purposefully vague and a lot of things could be that, but that's exactly what Ni is. Why do you think INFps are so ambivalent and 'misty' and have a hard time figuring themselves out? lol
Ni needs something stable. Se is stable. (dynamic needing static) but for the infps inner landscape everything is really chaotic and intense. Dynamic, remember? Like their mirrors. They see the world in the same way but their behaviors are different. INFps let these chaotic thoughts sulk them and become too negative, ENFjs let this turn them into a drama queen....
A misconception of infps is they need somebody to push them. Ew, that's Te. More like they're just looking for something to hold onto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsandDoves
This entire post is horse shit for the sake of quibbling. Seriously dude, what the fuck are you talking about?
Ni is the most subjective complement to direct reality or something.
I'm talking about socionics. On a socionics forum.
Any ideas why ILIs tend to share that misconception too, then? :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
the push is different. Ni-dominants need their energy condensed in relation to a changing environment, which is not what Te aims for. Se provides nodes of input that Ni assimilates over time. there is no real 'force' in this, only the variables at hand and one's reactions.
I like how the title of this thread is "Is Ni really so hard to describe?" and its been two pages and noone has even begun to really explain it. I guess he got his answer. I dont even think I could adequately explain it. I experience it but I couldnt give a pure description without giving some of the definition of Te in with it.
Okay, you describe it and I'll separate the Te from the Ni.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumer1an
Ni is also about knowing how to act.
subliminating with others, tuning into their mood.
making up fantasies and stories.
Sounds like Fe :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
yes I thought so too at first. but it was written by Reinin. And I have to say I tend to copy people when I'm interacting with them, and find it easy to imagine whats going on in them. I guess Fe is more outward emotion, facial expressions, and Ni more what the person is thinking and experiencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by poliSounds like Fe :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
you're still implying Fe-valuing. also, I copy/reflect people a lot in interaction. it's about feeling their energy and responding in a way that builds on it. focusing on the immediate details of their expression just makes it quicker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarnoyes I thought so too at first. but it was written by Reinin. And I have to say I tend to copy people when I'm interacting with them, and find it easy to imagine whats going on in them. I guess Fe is more outward emotion, facial expressions, and Ni more what the person is thinking and experiencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by poli
look at the difference of ISTP vs INTP.
The ISTP can't tune into the other person as much as the INTP. They read your face, they look at what's happening at the surface. Ni looks deeper into the person. It has nothing to do with Fe.
Fe and Fi are for dealing with people. If you're going to "look deeper into the person" you need to use at least one of those. (Unless you're literally examining their guts.) SLIs and ILIs have Fe and Fi in the exact same positions, so I don't understand how you can point that out as a major difference between them. I don't claim to understand Ni, but by very definition it's intuitive, and isn't that more a way of thinking than looking at people?
^ actually I wouldn't say so. Even Jung's original descriptions of what we call Si and Ni mention something like this. I'll post a relevant quote later. It's perception though, not judgment, so I agree with objections.
I agree with you. We can sort of indirectly manipulate people by saying certain things to them. It has to do with that whole conception that ILIs can model others' behavior. Due to the fact that we can model someone else's thought process and behavior we can also act on that information. Its just a dom Ni thing. Nothing to do with Fe. If it had to do with indirectly affecting others emotional states then it would probably be considered Ni paired with Fe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
Reinins description is enlightening considering it includes information that you really cant find in any other description. I agree with you on this as well. I usually mimic whoever Im around unless its a dom Fe type then Im pretty much paralyzed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarnoyes I thought so too at first. but it was written by Reinin. And I have to say I tend to copy people when I'm interacting with them, and find it easy to imagine whats going on in them. I guess Fe is more outward emotion, facial expressions, and Ni more what the person is thinking and experiencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by poli
Sumer1an, I learned something. Once an INTP friend told me that the way to fit in was to do what they do, dress how they dress, talk like they talk, etc. And that's pretty much what she does, a chameleon in no uncertain terms.
I have never proactively taken on the idea of doing as others do in order to fit in. In fact, I try to stand out from others in the way I dress, think, and act. I try to be original in as many ways as possible while also remaining as normal as possible. I hate the idea of copying off of others to fit in. The mimicry I was talking about is more of an organic process which is pretty much out of my control. If Im around someone who is super outgoing then chances are I will be more outgoing, If im around someone who is quiet then I will probably be quiet. I attune myself to whoever Im around. And if Im around a lot of people I dont know really well then I will act as my type is expected to act, quiet and unemotional.Quote:
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
If that's the case, I'd say its more Ne. ILEs do this, much more than ILIs do. Ne is based on reactive intuition, grasping signals "in the moment," and acting on and performing with them, being a kind of chameleon to what they sense is under the surface. This is just one aspect of it. While Fe does this too, Ne is more about seeing "through" to the deeper meaning in others more than it is seeing what they value, feel or what they expect in people. It is not a judgment function. So Ne can be very round-about in getting to the point and surprising people, making them think they're much closer to them mentally and behaviorally.
This is why INFjs make good psychologists, because they "take in" the values and moods of others, progressively, without a need for response, but using Ne they provide lots of intuitive feedback that allows for others to become inspired or let them know they're on the same page, and this, unlike with ISFjs, is their method for building meaningful relationships. I think the forum member by the name of maritsa33 makes for a pretty fine example of this type, where as Beta NFs act in the complete opposite manner.
ILIs are supposed to ignore Ne, so while they can and do easily do this, Ni will prefer to not assume acting in any way consciously, and will instead be very careful and progressive in their assumptions about what they're seeing under the surface in people. So ILIs won't demonstrate any kind of obvious likeness, being opposed to making a spectacle in this sense, and this why often Ni dominants are enneagram 4s, or 5w4. This is not to say their Ne will not come through when they don't want it to and they won't receive these shrewd signals. They will act on them if they feel its right.
In introverts, the most and oftentimes the only obvious extroverted function will be their creative function. Where as they're known historically in dealing more with all four introverted functions (just quoting how people talk about it on here, from their experience.) As an introvert, I pretty much relate to every introverted function description more or less, as long as its talking about something purely introverted and doesn't get carried away by quadra bias. There is no way to get around the hue of introversion, as Jung speaks of introversion as a whole attitude.
So the kind of temperament you speak of when you say "knowing how to act" and "subliminating with others" is an extroverted mindset.