Printable View
I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN GONE OVER A MILLION TIMES, AND I APOLOGIZE IF THAT BOTHERS YOU. HOW MUCH CAN BE SAID ABOUT SOCIONICS ANYWAY, SHOULD I MAKE UP A NEW SUBTYPE SYSTEM? BAH
Just curious what will be said by the forum as it stands in the current climate. I also find it to be an interesting topic.
I request that you go forth. An objective and detached description, a life story, whatever.
Ni is a projection into the future of patterns of your past and present experiences, with the various scenarios evaluated from the standpoint of some internal objective.
"What can I do with this?"
"Where is this going?"
For comparison, Ne is exactly the same thing, except the evaluation is not biased in favor of a single, desired, or most probable outcome. So Ni converges on one projection or use, and Ne never concludes in projecting outcomes or uses.
Ne is pretty impartial, while Ni is more biased. This is why ILE's are endlessly inventive and LII's are endlessly investigative, while ILI's are planning for their own best future, and LIE's are planning for the group's best future.
Event 1 -> Event 2
Event 3 -> Event 4
1->2. You are in 3->4 Extract the trajectories from the first and compare similarities and you have a prognosis.
Insisting others accept your self-serving "truths" without evidence, then acting smug when they're dismissed without evidence instead of trying to actually argue them, because that would require thinking in natural language and that's too pleb for you.
Whenever @Aylen talks about it, I feel like I have aphantasia.
The closest I can come to describing a very pure and disconnected form of Ni is the sensation I get when ruminating over dreams that I had at night. They can usually get very weird but interesting, and they touch or speak to me in ways that no event, experience or spoken word in the real world could. Since I don't experience Ni as a flowing film, but rather as a series of very, very fast snapshots put together, I can't say much :(
Actually, I'll chat about the bf (I mention him constantly lately and prob seem preoccupied, but we just moved in together and stuff, ok?)
But, if you're curious, an outsider view:
I used to type him IEI cuz of "victim" style behavior and beta vibe and Fe but no Si.. basically going around the Ni thing, cuz it was an element that I perceived as invisible (and still kinda do). But one actual thing that could be it is that he'll say things "as though" they're true, and I'm like, oh, that's a funny angle/incorrect statement, and then over time I chew on it, and I'm like OHH. It was real/true even if not immediately perceptible. Once or twice though (and to be fair, they were things I disliked), he seemed to be just living in an alternative world with no basis and it was entirely subjective and self-serving, but a fiction he actually believed was non-fiction, conveniently. (Which to me, goes to show the subjective nature of this introverted perception element, even if it's often onto something.)
I have just had more time on earth to think about these things and how they inform my worldview. In my teens I wouldn't have said a word about it to those not like minded so you are braver than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baboooshka
Seeing patterns from observation. My mother is INTP and she said “I haven’t been able to influence you what makes you think I can have any influence over your sister?” Lol long time observance of her directions on us. Time has a big factor in No too because it is so locked in with Se the function that determines immediate senses and immediate action
Some sources site is like they feel the passage of time. Well, I think if you collect patterns and attach to them all sorts of things you begin to raise above the time - ̣it becomes timeless.
Some have said I live outside of my body (Ne). A doctor measured my blood-flow it was abnormally large due to bodily anxiety but I had no clue of it.
Hey, look at that, now we have any other function (in isolation).Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendel
:cool:
So, any introverted function.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
Yes yes yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
So glad somebody gets it. :)
Indescribable~
Ni a shit
How do you do that? You don't have to touch it, right?
being high in Ni means you don't touch anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by ashlesha
ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｌ ｄｙｎａｍｉｃｓ ｏｆ ｆｉｅｌｄｓ
Its magic
This statement itself has no evidence, so it's smugly dismissing it without evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendel
The point is, is "evidence" the deciding factor for what is considered to be "truth" or not, and the answer is no. Because then even that proposition has no evidence, so it's self-contradictory.
Indeed, it’s ironic how it’s labeled “time”, when Ni seems to transcend any bounds, and time is the greatest one. If Se opposes it, it’s exactly because Se is “the right time”, which is the only time there is. Dual elements complement each other, if you have something, anything, then its opposite is missing, neti-neti law, but socionists like to twist things, as in calling the timeless function “time”. Btw.
Yes, I agree it’s about recognizing pattern. Aylen’s analysis was poignant and it made me feel Ni’s essence pretty well, but I’d translate (poorly) what I grasped from her words just like that, “recognizing patterns”, because if you can delve deep and grasp the underlying structure of something (a function that Jung associates to Ni, but that socionics associates to Ti!) so much so to recognize how things will develop, then yes, you could say that Ni elaborates and recognizes, looks for, studies the patterns and the structure of whatever is crossing their mind.
To do this you need a lot of “meditating”, not in the spiritual sense or any new age bs, but just a lot of time spent alone in your own head, pondering things, playing them over and over, dreaming of other possibilities, and especially, looking for the source of things… this process is characteristic of Ni, and probably why it got the label of “time”, since it likes to reconstruct things from the scratch, just to have an idea of how, and why, they work. These processes are indispensable to be able to develop any insight in the world.
There are aspects in common with all of the other introverted functions: Ni looks peaceful outside, like Si, while actually it often hides an internal turmoil; it looks like Fi, in that it doesn’t express its internal turmoils, but chances are that Fi has no “real” internal turmoil at all (:P); and it looks like Ti for its will to understand the world, but with the difference that Ni doesn’t advance a strict vision to anything, while Ti are overly categorical.
Rule of thumb: something that claims to be evidenced by something that's arguably demonstrated somewhere else, is still slightly more substantial than something that takes divorce from reference to anything else but itself, including its own inherent traits as a "thing" to be self-referenced, as a starting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singu
Basically screw infinite recursion. Miss me with that.
Ni is basically what youd describe as "my intuition" or "my guts/gut feelings" in the everyday sense of the word. Its also why Ni egos are gut types, (except EIE but EIE is 2w1 so almost)
And that "somewhere else" is an extra step required that will produce more errors. And that has to be "proven" somehow. Yes, infinite recursion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendel
It may be "corroboration", but corroboration doesn't actually mean anything. I'd suppose people won't tire of pointing of how Newton's theory has been corroborated millions of times, but it's still wrong.
It's actually not a self-reference, because it's not referencing anything. It has no basis, no proof, no foundation. But it doesn't need to. People start asking the completely wrong question when they start searching for the ultimate foundation for something, when there actually is no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendel
A non-Socionics definition :content:: "N" refers to input that has a predominantly relativistic perspective on information while "i" refers to a process of continually comparing input to a central reference that is comprised of a body of knowledge having an N-perspective. The reference is information that has been validated by the ego (as being true) even though some of it may not be entirely accurate. "N" and "i" are independent of one another; "i" refers to how "N" is configured in an information control system.
a.k.a. I/O
clearing the mind, being ready for thoughts but not thinking them
This sounds like meditation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Antimattter
the way most meditation teachers speak about it, as an activity that has be learned and practiced with intense focus and subjected to a set of ordered rituals that takes the training of an expert to remember let alone comprehend
no, kinda the opposite.
Ni means being so vile that you are keen to play dumb while being purposely slow so you can force others to be proactive and take actions and decisions for you so you can blame them later and play as a victim when things go wrong (and they will for sure at some time or another with such attitude...e-e).
Not Ni. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ragdoll Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
Describe Ni in your own words!
Also you can read Strat on IEI. :muaha:
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragdoll Cat
I read it. It's still not "Ni". She describes behavior > cognition and she is extremely biased. I don't disagree with some of her work but she is exaggerating it to the point many IEI won't even identify with the IEI description and will choose EII instead. I have already said I could relate to some of it. Your post seems kind of Fe or F polr in general. Any type can behave that way. See it here all the time. Not just F types. I have seen it expressed in one form or another in all 16 types just on this forum over the years. :)
I don't know, she sounds pretty convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
No, not any type can behave that way. But all types can behave wrongly in their own way for sure.. I've seen what I wrote in Ni ppl a lot. Also its fine if Ni ppl disagree with my description.Quote:
Your post seems kind of Fe or F polr in general. Any type can behave that way. See it here all the time. Not just F types. I have seen it expressed in one form or another in all 16 types just on this forum over the years. :)
Abstraction of external dynamic processes.
One liner and you're welcome.
@ashlesha, most Ni-descriptions on the internet sound like esoteric rubbish. And what I'm reading here doesn't help either. When descriptions involve words like dynamic, internal, process, patterns, abstract ... they sound like they mean something but they don't. It's: blabla I don't know either, let me use some pretty words.
Ni-ego types...
* what can you and your Ni do that other types cannot?
* what can you not do? What limitations does Ni pose that other types have not?
There's no fundamental limitation to what other people can possibly think of, that you can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spencer
If this "Ni" or whatever claims that their thinking is so special that it cannot be understood or comprehended by others, then yeah, it's bullshit.
If that were so, then it would violate Turing principle and Turing completeness, which there would be... no computers. And we have computers, not mysticism.
When Ni people are Ni-ing, I feel like there is a cloud of derpiness that engulfs them. Their eyes go like
<o >_< o>
and if you sprinkled something on their head they probably wouldn’t notice. They have disappeared into their spiritual realm.
autism
lol, I had to. But it might be if it captures you entirely and no one kicks your ass as they get benefits from rightly applied force aka structure to make you remain productive/creative/dandy/whatever.
You still describe pattern lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
Also socionics theorists are psychologists and sociologists. Psychology is the study of the mind and behavior, sociology is the study of society, its patterns of social relations, interactions, culture etc.
All those words will be found frequently in socionics theory. Not just in relation to Ni either. In order to understand them in context you have to just read the theory and the descriptions of what those mean in socionics-speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spencer
As to your questions:
1. Nothing to brag about really. In this thread we are talking about a function in isolation after all. Not special talents, skills or knowledge a person has learned, cultivated, or was born with. I can't sing at all but other Ni egos can. As I have mentioned I can fix my own computer but some Te and Ti egos can't and they get so frustrated trying.
I am sure that thinkers can also be at a loss for words when explaining how they think. How does a sensor sense in their own words that makes it sound any different from any other human being? How do you explain it to someone who doesn't see the world the same and already has a bias or skepticism? It is others who make Ni out to be magical or mystical. Interest in magic or the mystical can be found in any type. That is why there are so many religions and billions of believers.
It is clear that human brains are infinitely more complex than a computer or any theory out there that tries to describe how the mind operates. Look into Piaget's theory for some ideas. Most children should be capable of basic intuition and abstract thinking past a certain age unless they have learning disabilities. Abstract thinking doesn't really develop until age 12+ according to his theory, before that children are more concrete thinkers, even though intuition and the ability to think symbolically starts to develop between the ages of 2-7, I believe.
I only had a few minutes to check forum so I didn't check the facts but it is a well known theory. Before age 2 it is all about the senses. There are many other theories on cognition as well. It could be that even though most intelligent human are capable of processing information using any of the functions they still develop a preference for one over the others. Some theories say that cognition is not set until 25-30 too.
2. Throw a ball straight. I really suck at that. I can hit a target with a bow and arrow though so that's something.
Just wanted to comment on this since someone reminded me that I was going to earlier.Quote:
[Carl Jung on: “Abstraction.”]
A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, similar to the process of differentiation. (Compare empathy.)
Abstraction is an activity pertaining to the psychological functions in general.
There is an abstract thinking, just as there is abstract feeling, sensation, and intuition.
Abstract thinking singles out the rational, logical qualities of a given content from its intellectually irrelevant components.
Abstract feeling does the same with a content characterized by its feeling-values . . . . Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as opposed to sensuous sensation, and abstract intuition would be symbolic as opposed to fantastic intuition.[“Definitions,” CW 6, par. 678.]
Jung related abstraction to introversion (analogous to empathy and extraversion).
I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content.
For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido.[Ibid., par. 679.]
To the extent that its purpose is to break the object’s hold on the subject, abstraction is an attempt to rise above the primitive state of participation mystique.
http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/a/
*Keep in mind Singu wants to be AI when he grows up. He is talking about thinking when intuition, introverted or extroverted, is not thinking.
Well the very principle of the computer or the smartphone that you're using depends on the fact that whatever that can possibly be physically computed, can be computed by a computer.
This means that say, whatever task a mathematician can possibly come up with, he can potentially program it onto a computer and do the exact same task that he does with no difference.
This means that there's not ever going to be a "brick wall" that you're going hit when you realize, "Well, this can't be programmed onto a computer". That has never happened.
This means that if there really is such a thing as "Ni", or whatever other "functions", then it can potentially be programmed onto a computer. And if we can program it, then why wouldn't we be able to understand and think about it? Just as we're able to think about whatever things that we've never personally experienced, and potentially never will, such as the fourth and higher dimensions.
And if you think that this is all just nonsense, then keep in mind that we're physical objects that are performing physical calculations in the brain, via the very physical neurons.
Anyway, I don't doubt that people have "intuitions" where they don't personally know how it works or "can't explain it". But it just means that they can't, yet, and haven't put into words or ideas. But there's no fundamental limitation to what people can think about.