this thread is retarted.
Ni picks up on the underlying meanings/dynamics of an event, object, etc. and connects it with the internal flow of the subject (making it a field). Ne looks at the event, object, etc. and tries to connect it with other external things (restricting it to objects).
Last edited by strrrng; 05-31-2008 at 10:33 PM.
Question: are we talking about Ni the element, or Ni the aspect? There is a difference.Originally Posted by strrrng
I would prefer to stick to the information element. If we get into the aspect, this thread will become even more convoluted with stupid reifications.
yes, i am looking into it more seriously from a few angles recently. thanks.
Maybe I'm just not smart enough, but whenever people try to explain the functions in terms of the information aspects, it often sounds like a load of hand waving nonsense.
LII
I thought "fields" were connections between any objects?
I want to know if others agree with this explanation of Ni and Ne.
LOL. First you split hairs over semantics, then search for some consensus to reassure yourself.
If it helps to put it this way: If you want to see Ni in action, watch some of Tom Petty and the Heartbreaker's music videos. Case in point:
You Tube search "Runnin' Down A Dream"
In fact, I get the feeling the guy (Tom Petty) is an IEI.
There is also a more serious component to Ni as well. Maybe the best way to explain it is it being realistic and beneficial, as imagination with a purpose.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
don't worry. people just don't describe them accurately.
Wrong, I don't care whether I am right or wrong. I just want to better my understanding, and to do that I need to know how accurate your explanations are.
What strrrng wrote is accurate.
The explanations of his that I've skimmed in this thread so far (as in, I haven't carefully examined his posts and probably haven't even read them all, but have read a number of them) have been accurate, but it seems his use of the word "things" was mistaken by you to mean "objects" when he meant it in a broader sense.
yeah I'm already aware that I took that word too literally. What I'm more interested about is this specifically:
specifically, he talks about connections with other external things as if this isn't what "fields" refer to. Unless I have mistaken the meaning of "connect" (possible)? Also, when he says subject does he mean an observer? If so, does this mean that "field" refers only to a connection between an observer and something else? Can it not refer to a connection observed between two "things" outside of the observer?
Sorry if I am sounding really pedantic and I just don't get it. It's just that terms like "fields" and "objects" seem to be the foundations of socionics and it is frustrating when seemingly inconsistent definitions and examples of the terms get thrown around. I want some clarity.
I doubt you'll get any
LII
I still have hope.I doubt you'll get any
Hmmm... aspects vs. elements are sort of confusing things here to some extent.
Ne as an aspect is never about connections.
As an element, it cannot be used in and of itself, and once you're using it with introverted information elements the combination of the two can make connections.
I'll describe the difference I've noticed between the metaphors that Steve and I give when discussing something. Typically what he will do is look at something, get a sort of personal feel for it (remember, Si and Ne work together in a feedback loop) and proceed to connect it with something in a different context, albeit on a similar plane (Si = external field) based on the internal qualities his Ne sensed. The key here is that Ne and Si are always somewhat limited to external context, but make more accurate metaphors, in the sense that the other person can see how they were made. What I will do is examine something as it is, independent of context (Se = external static objects, i.e., this is how it is without any context) then develop an internal feeling of it and connect it with something that typically has nothing to do with the same context but is only based on the inherent patterns of the idea. This is what makes it a field. Ni becomes unintelligible sometimes because it goes past the qualities of objects to the underlying patterns that are expressed in a highly subjective way. So, my metaphors will have a more randomness to them, but can typically be picked apart to be understood.
very cool description. your patience in taking the time to explain the difference is appreciated.
can you give examples of each to help some of see what each way of creating a metaphor "looks" like? thanks!
Ne/Si peoples' metaphors always seem to be within a given context, and have more of a direct correlation to the idea at hand. Ni/Se peoples' metaphors are typically more context-independent, and simply refer to the essence of whatever the idea is. As for the actual process, with Ne/Si people, I feel like Si generates some physical feeling tied to memory and Ne branches out to connect it with something. With Ni/Se, Se takes the raw data in - no externally-defined context - and Ni sifts through the undercurrents to generate the raw essence of the idea, making it applicable to any context.
you silly goose, that's not an example but just explaining it again.
is it hard to give an example of each because you prefer Ti over Te? not as a put down if it is. just clarifying my understanding.
here is an example of what my sis and i determined were the ways we differ between us in our own metaphors or symbology:
a tree:
she goes on and on about the connections to the earth, the ancient wisdom, the history of the origins, the cultural aspects of the type of tree, the magic of the energy in the roots connected to the earth, the soil, the sun etc.....also, how tree reminds her of her childhood and the things she did with, in, around trees that felt magical to her.
i say the tree represents an individual's growth and development as a person's "roots" take hold in their life and the leaves represent the different paths that the person "branches" out into in their life, the magic of the tree to me is the energy and symbology it has in a person's life at any given moment. and the symbology for one is different than it is for another. the energy of tree that symbolizes a particular "thing" can change paradigms and ultimately a person...
which example is Ne? Ni? or are each the same but manifest in different areas?
That's something that's always fascinated me about Ni. How things Ni people observe are applicable to any context on such an overriding level. Strrrng can you think of any metaphors you and I have described recently? Maybe that'd help Kelly Jo. I'll try and think of some.
lolz, sorry I Ti'd it to death. Your sis's perception seems more Ni, as it stretches beyond the immediate context to the underlying, universal patterns. Yours actually seems Ne, as you are describing static qualities (a person's potential, "branching out," etc.). Again, it's hard to ascribe specific behaviors to functions.
yeah, I'll try to think of some.
that was what i thought after rereading what i wrote. LOL!
my sis and i thought that each of our ways of doing it were the opposite because her way sees other "things" related to tree. where my way the tree is a symbol of "something". those were our understandings of the difference between Ni and Ne. Ni=symbolic meaning Ne=connections to other things
she is GREAT at brainstorming! GREAT!
where i see a deeper meaning that goes beyond what can be seen or heard or known in a conscious, literal, outside of yourself way. the connections i easily make are within a person's or a "thing's" being. i'm not so good at brainstorming, i just go **zoooop** right to the heart of the meaning.
If you're going to define the elements, you'd best break them down into + vs -.
+ elements try to be accepted by the object; - elements try to maintain themselves against it until the object accepts them.
+Ne says, "I have my own pet hypothesis, but I need to test it to make sure it can really happen." The +Ne element takes +Ne hypotheses, and tests them against reality. Nor does it just test one such hypothesis, but many of them one after the other and all the time. This "explosion" of possibilities gradually wind themselves down into a concrete set of proven hypotheses. This is an account of strong +Ne's functionality, which is capable of concrete apprehension. I think weak +Ne would be more like to test an abstract modeling against existing models.
-Ne says, "People don't think this can happen, but I know that it can". -Ne's strategy is to maintain itself in the face of people's doubts that something is possible, such as an ideal. It refines its own explanation for believing such until finally, the -Ne objective sense of possibility understands the hypothesis and relents. Inconcrete -Ne defends an existing model of reality against other models that purport to disprove it. (consider the defense of socionics against the Fourier effect as an example).
+Ni says, "I would like to proceed thus, but will people follow along with me? I must adjust my planning to that which can actually happen." I'll leave it to Gamma to explain this in more detail.
-Ni says, "I am going this way and I am convinced my path is true, but how can I convince you to follow after me?" Beta, take it.
@strrng: mind if I comment that Ni need not be universal to be valid? Cultural ritual is not universal, but it is still Ni. Valid Ni respects the relationships between both cultural patterns and universal patterns; anything else is only a part of the full Ni experience.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 06-01-2008 at 10:34 PM.
I know, I was just trying to convey the timeless aspect of it, how it stretches beyond immediate context.
Right, but it's the contextual vs permanent connection which I think is what people mean by the "deeper meanings" associated with Ni. I personally find the study of such connections nihillistic and all but pointless, except when dealt with for the purpose of actually changing the relationship of say, culture to natural processes beyond cultural control. Blind acceptance of fate isn't normal behavior for humans.
I suppose. Granted, this is coming from an INTj.
@dbmmama: I've kind of settled on IEI.
@those who said my post was mainly about Si:
(Warning: This will sound vastly different compared to some of the recent posts.)
I was sort of afraid of that. Perhaps I didn't emphasise the intuition part enough. In all the things I mentioned there's never any kind of physical sensation involved. What I'm trying to get at are clear examples of Ni in action and to show where it is getting its information from. To me, Ni is not just focused on imagination or off in its own world. It's intuition much like Ne in the sense that they both entertain possibilities based on a body of past experiences. Ne (static) deals with possible characteristics within something. Ni (dynamic) deals with possible scenarios within some situation leading to certain outcomes. I say it is based on past experiences rather than imagination because only when there's been past experience of a situation similar enough to the current one, can Ne/Ni give accurate intuitive insights. Here's a quote from the wiki that in my opinion gets this wrong:
While there may be a lack of direct (external) data or direct experience, there's no lack of past (internal) data or experience to get an intuitive feel of the current situation and of what is going to happen. The information comes from that and not through imagination. Imagination is something all types have, just like everyone has 5 senses. It has little to do with Ni imo. An Ni type going over more and more possible scenarios again and again in his imagination is not an example of good, wowing Ni use. He's actually showing lack of experience to get accurate on the spot intuitive insights in that particular situation.Because the individual gets his/her primary information about the world through imagination, a person with base Introverted Intuition may be able to thrive in situations where data are scarce, or where he/she lacks the usual prerequisite experience.
The reason intuition can work eventhough someone has little or no experience in a particular domain is because often different domains are still based on the same principles and mechanisms. And that's what intuition in general tries to exploit.
Anyway, what I wanted to say here is that practical, purposeful Ni does not equal Si, but I admit that my post didn't really clarify that distinction.
Also, I do replay scenarios in my head, like conversations for instance. And then I also imagine saying things differently and try to figure out how that person would respond. But that is just mental exercise. There's little or no information there about the other person besides what I already know of him.
Where you say the field characteristic comes from is wrong in my opinion, but I might be misinterpreting you.
For me it's easier to see where the field appears with Ti/Fi and then find an analogue field for Ni/Si. Ti/Fi deal with rational constructs. Change something or leave something out of the construct and it affects everything around it. As in a field from physics (where I believe the term comes from). If you move something in an electrical field or gravitational field other places in the field are affected by it.
Ni/Si are irrational. They are about what actually happens in the world or how the world is experienced (not about human created rational interpretations). And so, copying from rational fields, you could say everything in the world is connected such that if you move or change something in the world it affects everything around it. That's where the field is. And Ni/Si are about these aspects of the world (actually any world including imaginary ones and entirely abstract worlds like those in which computer programs run, worlds defined by finate state machines, worlds in which ideas move around from one person to another, worlds of emotions, music... In all these worlds you can have actual (Si,Se) and intuitive (Ni,Ne) experiences. (note: I don't actually think of separate worlds, that's a rational interpretation, but they sort of feel like different realms.) (I think that should give someone an idea about how irrational information metabolism works. There's a somewhat similar distinction made in statistics where you have parametric and non-parametric models. With parametric models the parameters have some preconceived meaning and when you fit such a model to statistical data, it gives you information about the data in those rational preconceived concepts. Non-parametric models try to find information in the data itself, like averages, certain groups that exist in the data like clusters or patterns. That imo is the kind of information irrational types deal with (at a low level).)).
You really sound like an IEI here, but the field you're seeing is a Ti field imo. You're rationalising your use of Ni and then passing off the rational field, the rational structure, as the Ni field. As I said above Ni/Si are about fields because, like Ti/Fi, they observe field-like aspects.
double m
Last edited by mm; 06-02-2008 at 06:48 PM.
yeah, I know that Ni observes fields in and of themselves. I guess what I was referring to was the definition of what makes a field or something
that may be because Ni and Ti work together very much, at least with me.
whatever i have going on, whatever you have going on, to me, seems the same. i don't *know* things in my body or in any physical way. even though i take a LOT of actions with my body, my knowing is not in it. i've "known" things from the time of being little. for me it revolves around people and their "needs," not just physical, mostly everything else.
when i say i *know* someone's vibe, to me, it's their soul i'm talking about. i know what they need on a soul level in human terms to be the best them they can be. and those things i take action on, more as i've matured. is that Ni with Se or Si with Ne? i don't know THAT.
what i do is walk into a room, meet someone for the first time or even see someone in the grocery store, anywhere, anytime. an instant knowing comes over me (not physically, but kind of more mental awareness) of everything about them, their desires, their motivations, their needs, the whys of their behaviors, their upbringing and how it affected them, the "gist" of their personality (not a label for it like in socionics), the energy flow within them, the rhythm of their internal clock, the way all of those things affect them in the present moment and how all of those thing will affect them for the rest of their lives. and all of that and more (including their own soul) *whispers* to me about what is needed right then and there for me TO DO with them. it might be this, it might be that, it might be something that others perceive as "good" or others perceive as "bad." but i trust that whatever is whispered to me is the "right" thing, right then. and it usually works, if i do what is whispered to me in all of that knowingness of stuff about them. when i say "works" i mean i can feel the energy shift in them and their soul thanking me. this happens in many synchronistic events happening in my life.
what is *painful* is seeing and knowing SO MUCH about a person and seeing and knowing that i can not be everything and everything to each person i come in contact with to fill the void of all of the things that i "see" that are needed within them, so that their soul smiles and feels free to BE themselves on all levels.
this "thing" is what has made me very fearful of being around people most of my life. i "know" too much and am only one person that can't "save" and/or "help" everyone i come in contact with. it's a scary "place" to be in, one where i instantly know the nature of a person's soul and what has been "missing" all of their lives for them to be the best and authentic them and being happy with knowing they were good enough being themselves.
this was a big reason i have wanted to be a mom my whole life. to take my knowing and use it with my own kids. it has been my "job", my "purpose." and has been what i have coached and helped others with. when i help others with this stuff, it helps me even more. i learned that more people will open up and respond to me and what i have to "give" when i am more outgoing and extraverted and Fe like.
and because of that scary feeling of knowing "too much" about people, i HAD to make myself "strong" in many ways, physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually. if i wasn't strong, the knowingness of people's inner sadness would drive me to kill myself. when i have "let" it happen, i have spiraled too close to that. NO, my will is strong enough to strengthen myself to "protect" myself from all of the "sad" energy in people and the world! I am strong so that i may live my own life not from my own sad soul place anymore. and I am strong so that I may objectively see what is going on with others to be able to give them what is *whispered* to me as I come in contact with others.
oh my, i really went off there. i needed to get it out though because i really want to know how this kind of knowing is labeled in socionics terms. i usually feel very lonely in my knowing of stuff because most people don't do this. if i had a label for it, it would seem like i might be normal somehow and there might be others out there that are like me. unfortunately, i have felt that most people were stupid most of my life because i didn't understand why they didn't "know" what i know. it's because of things like socionics that have helped me lighten up and understand that others really don't know what i know because their cognitive processes really are different than mine and that is ok, which then helps me in helping them even more.
having other people call you their "guru" is a nice stroke to the ego but it doesn't make friends and it doesn't endear you in a way that you seem like an average joe that others can just hang out with, which i would love to have more people i could do that with in my life. just hang out and cuss and talk ball and yell at the tv when someone scores and still be myself through it all.
i'm sorry if i shared too much or you don't really care, but, it's what's going on with me. is this kind of knowing Ni or Ne or what? this would clear up so much for me on this.
Si (or Se for that matter) doesn't necessarily have to be physical. More abstractly it has to do with the balance between people and things and their surroundings (and circumstances), and how space is filled with an all-permeating, continuous flow of matter. Fe+ and Te- are the two ways of regulating that flow.
I didn't really see it as practical or purposeful; rather, it was about spatial flow as opposed to temporal flow.
+10 (not being sarcastic this time).
but I would say that the main point of divergence between it and Ni is its focus more on the physical flow of things.
@dbmmama: I'll get back to your post later, but as a quick response, I know what you're talking about. I'm not the kind of person to talk about souls though, but it's very much about the core of who I am.
Yes, with me too. You remind me a lot of myself btw, just a few years younger I think. (I'm in my mid-twenties almost.)
Right, and Ni is the intuitive version of that. It learns to pick up on the subtle patterns in there that can tell you what might have been in the past, what could be now that we aren't seeing yet or where things in the flow might end up in the future. That all-permeating, continuous flow of matter is the field that both Si and Ni deal with.
I don't see any difference between that. What flows through space flows through time as well.
hm.. well that may be but one can put greater emphasis on one aspect rather than the other. fwiw i agree with THA
i look forward to what you have to say mm. we do seem to have something going on, similarly.
and it's very funny that you say strnnng reminds you of him but younger. he does me as well. and i'm much older than you both. 38.
i agree with what you say about Ni here as well. subtle, it's subtle energy stuff that i pick up on just as you describe.
however we are manifesting Ni, in whatever position, i believe it's the same for us. no one else here has been on the same wavelength of describing the way you and i are though. so, i wasn't sure what was going on with it. strnnng has been the closest...
Yep, which is why if Si is conscious Ni is too.I don't see any difference between that. What flows through space flows through time as well.
I don't think that either or those have anything to do with matter proper, because matter is a distinct concept. Mass is certainly Se because it is a property of matter; but matter isn't.
If anything, I'd call matter "external field" because it is an abstract consideration of a the substance of something physical.
"Matter" was just a way of saying that the flow happens in/to anything with spatial extension.
I'll take your word for that, and see where it leads.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
