Ne and Ni: User definitions

[Logos]

Si doesn't involve Se... I know exactly the implications of what I'm saying. They work in the same field but don't involve each other, just like both types of intuition logic and ethics.

Si involves Se through a strong recognition of the static properties of objects that operate in the dynamic unfolding of the physical environment. The difference in types lies in focus on dynamic physicality versus static physicality.

Cause and effect is directly related to making predictions. Making predictions is reliant on an understanding of cause and effect.

Cause and effect is as much directly related to making prediction as recognizing the potential of objects related to recognizing possibilities. That is the point I am trying to make. Claiming that Ne's relationship to possibilities is indirect whereas Ni's relationship to prediction is direct is simply false with no substantial factual or argumentative backing whatsoever.

I'm not down playing Ne. I'm correcting a misunderstanding. Simply put Ne is not in the same playing field. If you're implying that I'm making Ni sound better than Ne, it's simply because Ni is more capable than Ne imo. But they are within completely different fields. You might as well compare Ne to Fi. Comparing Ne and Ni is like comparing apples to oranges. The fact is that Ni has more in common with Si than it does with Ne.

The only misunderstanding in need of correction is your own. Telling me to compare Ne to Fi is a strawman. There is valid value in comparing Ne to Ni. It is hardly a stretch. You can see in this thread that there is a great deal of confusion over the two IE. This provides a clear demonstration as to why such comparisons and clarifications are needed.

But what do you mean that Ni is more capable than Ne? More capable in a general sense or are you talking about a specific issue. You are not entirely clear here.

Besides, where have read that Ne is related to generating possibilities besides in MBTI?

Try the two of the first sentences of the Ne page on Wikisocion:

It is also called Ne, I, intuition of possibilities, or black intuition. Extroverted intuition is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others.

Wikipedia:

Ne is responsible for understanding the essence (permanent traits) of a thing, estimating opportunities and possibilities for people and things, and visualizing potential outcomes of events. It is responsible for the sense of interest or boredom. Ne will speculate as to why an event occurs, but sees the specific event as static and unalterable.

Socionika.net on Ne:

Contents: Feeling of potential capabilities, possibilities, understanding persistence or potential troubles of objects and phenomena. Evolutional approach to events (not just in Darwin's sense but in the broadest sense of the word 'evolution'). Manifestation: speculations on possibilities and capabilities, comparison, "if I were you..."; understanding the essence without the need of redundant details. "General human values". Reading between the lines. Dedication. Intellectual independence.

You do not have to look hard in Socionics to find the existence of the clear relationship between Ne and generating possibilities.

[Azeroffs]

Si involves Se through a strong recognition of the static properties of objects that operate in the dynamic unfolding of the physical environment. The difference in types lies in focus on dynamic physicality versus static physicality.

The difference is dynamic fields and static objects. An example of how they're so different is Si perceives motion or non-motion and the changing or non-changing of one's surroundings . Si is basically physical awareness. Se draws information from a singular objects that is completely separate from other things around it. Se perceives physical characteristics like size, shape, color, etc.

Cause and effect is as much directly related to making prediction as recognizing the potential of objects related to recognizing possibilities. That is the point I am trying to make. Claiming that Ne's relationship to possibilities is indirect whereas Ni's relationship to prediction is direct is simply false with no substantial factual or argumentative backing whatsoever.

Just as Si is physical awareness of events, Ni is non-physical awareness of events. Ni has more generalized idea of whats going on around itself. Ni can be thought of as an awareness of whats going on beneath the details. So it really understands generalized events. Ni is basically synonymous with the flow of events, and so is synonymous with understanding of what will happen in the future.

Just as Se is about physical characteristics, Ne is non-physical characteristics. These are completely reliant on the specific object and has nothing to do with what is going on around the object. Ne can be thought of as a perception of as something's or someone's personality, intelligence, or any other kind of mental/unapparent skill/characteristic. Ne can then say what that person/thing could become as a result of that.

It has the ability to perceive the potential in an object.
It does not have the ability to say that an even might occur unless it is off the bases that something has the ability to become something else.
This is what Si is for, to materialize this potential, or to make it happen through an understanding of physical cause and effect.

The only misunderstanding in need of correction is your own. Telling me to compare Ne to Fi is a strawman. There is valid value in comparing Ne to Ni. It is hardly a stretch. You can see in this thread that there is a great deal of confusion over the two IE. This provides a clear demonstration as to why such comparisons and clarifications are needed.

Sure there is value in it, but not much more than comparing Ne to Fi. The only reason for the confusion is that they are both labeled intuition.

But what do you mean that Ni is more capable than Ne? More capable in a general sense or are you talking about a specific issue. You are not entirely clear here.

I meant that Ni is, i general, more useful than Ne. But, of course there are things that Ne can do that Ni cannot.
In my opinion introverted IE's are more useful than extroverted ones, this is a really loose view because the functions are all dependent on each other, so I could understand arguments against it.

Try the two of the first sentences of the Ne page on Wikisocion:
Wikipedia:
Socionika.net on Ne:
You do not have to look hard in Socionics to find the existence of the clear relationship between Ne and generating possibilities.

You are correct. It is plastered all over the place, and that's why I edited my post, but this is a skewed view of Ne because you could extrapolate possibilities from any IE. In fact, there would be no point in any of the functions if they couldn't come up with possibilities. Ne is only more associated with coming up with possibilities because in a sense it does understand the possibilities of objects. It is limited to just that however, possibilities of objects. It cannot predict what will or could happen in terms of events. Only what something has the ability to become.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Hitta]

@ Ephemeris

NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!

[Hitta]

This entire thread is a logical fallacy. You should all be gang raped by Klingon.

[krieger]

Ne sees understanding as something that can be broken down into fundamentals. Ni sees understanding as something fundamental of it's own that can only be pieced together with other fundamentals to form composites (which the Ne types in turn try to break down again). This is why Ne as a Static function is called analytical, whereas Ni as a Dynamic function is called synthetical.

This is related to my post on how Ne can only be pin-pointed by Rational types. Irrational Ne types don't break down the Ne, but do use it in some way. It's as if they speak about the things without fully undestanding them; just quickly alluding to them without going into their specifications. This is why I tend to think of the INxj types as having a better grasp of Ne than the ENxp types. The opposite can be said about Ti.

For more information on this, look into the Limiting/Empowering dichotomy (or PM me about it).

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[discojoe]

You should all be gang raped by Klingon.

ROFL

[ArchonAlarion]

.

.

<3

[Krig the Viking]

I was thinking about replying to this thread, and then Azeroffs went and said everything I would have said. Excellent analysis, Azeroffs!

The only thing I have to contribute to the discussion is this:

I meant that Ni is, i general, more useful than Ne. But, of course there are things that Ne can do that Ni cannot.

Interestingly, as an Ne Ego type, I agree with this. From an LIE perspective, yes, Ni is much more useful and practical. Of course, from my LII perspective, useful and practical are irrelevant. What is important is how Ne helps us understand the true nature of things, not what we can do with them.

[strrrng]

The main point is that Ne find clues in existing things, situations, momentum, but Ni finds it in activities, actions, happenings. If you have better terms, be my guest.

Nope. "Things, situations, momentum" are not mutually exclusive from "activities, actions, happenings" -- quite similar, in fact; and I'd be hard-pressed to find a legitimate differentiation between them, that shed any light on the respective natures of Ne and Ni. Now, I have no clue what the hell you mean by "clues," but will hazard a guess that it has to do with finding intrinsic potential in objects; fine. Realize that the word 'objects' is the most important qualifier here, as it determines the exact limitations of Ne.

And how does anything of what you said discount the portion of my post you quoted?

Judging functions don't deal with observation, so I don't understand your statement that any can "predict". Maybe you mean that all the functions can be used by a person in prediction, although this has nothing to do with the topic - single IEs, specifically Intuition.

Judging functions don't deal with observation? The human mind deals with observation. Functions are intrinsic to cognitive and behavioral processes. To delineate P and J functions by such simplistic and banal criteria, is foolish.

Even more so, why would the ability to predict things be so tied to observation? Is one observing things when they make an abstract connection between events separated in space in time, in order to form a prediction about the development behind them? Nope.

And the fact that prediction can be performed by any function, in differing ways, very much IS relevant to the topic, because it undermines the bullshit premises people have been purporting here, which state that prediction and discovery are things exclusively intrinsic to Ne and Ni.

[Logos]

The difference is dynamic fields and static objects. An example of how they're so different is Si perceives motion or non-motion and the changing or non-changing of one's surroundings . Si is basically physical awareness. Se draws information from a singular objects that is completely separate from other things around it. Se perceives physical characteristics like size, shape, color, etc.

Just as Si is physical awareness of events, Ni is non-physical awareness of events. Ni has more generalized idea of whats going on around itself. Ni can be thought of as an awareness of whats going on beneath the details. So it really understands generalized events. Ni is basically synonymous with the flow of events, and so is synonymous with understanding of what will happen in the future.

Just as Se is about physical characteristics, Ne is non-physical characteristics. These are completely reliant on the specific object and has nothing to do with what is going on around the object. Ne can be thought of as a perception of as something's or someone's personality, intelligence, or any other kind of mental/unapparent skill/characteristic. Ne can then say what that person/thing could become as a result of that.

It has the ability to perceive the potential in an object.
It does not have the ability to say that an even might occur unless it is off the bases that something has the ability to become something else.
This is what Si is for, to materialize this potential, or to make it happen through an understanding of physical cause and effect.

On the contrary, Ne has the ability to extrapolate the possibility of events through an understanding of the unchanging static elements that are present in a given point in time. As you say above, Ni is more concerned with what will likely happen in the future, whereas Ne proposes a more conditional (if not speculative) view of what could happen in the future with the base elements that are present.

Sure there is value in it, but not much more than comparing Ne to Fi. The only reason for the confusion is that they are both labeled intuition.

There is quite a bit of value in comparing Ne to Ni, much as there is in comparing Fe to Fi. Understanding the manifestation of Fe helps to understand the underlying phenomenon present in Fi, how it operates, and vice versa. The same is true with Ne and Ni.

I meant that Ni is, i general, more useful than Ne. But, of course there are things that Ne can do that Ni cannot.
In my opinion introverted IE's are more useful than extroverted ones, this is a really loose view because the functions are all dependent on each other, so I could understand arguments against it.

Okay, so just a subjective value statement.

You are correct. It is plastered all over the place, and that's why I edited my post, but this is a skewed view of Ne because you could extrapolate possibilities from any IE. In fact, there would be no point in any of the functions if they couldn't come up with possibilities. Ne is only more associated with coming up with possibilities because in a sense it does understand the possibilities of objects. It is limited to just that however, possibilities of objects. It cannot predict what will or could happen in terms of events. Only what something has the ability to become.

It is only skewered in that Ne entails more than simply possibilities. Once more, you are falsely underemphasizing Ne's association of possibilities. While other IEs can be used to generate possibilities, Ne remains as the IE that is most closely related to the Socionics understanding of possibilities. Furthermore, it can just as easily be argued that other IEs apart from Ni can also be used to make predictions. Ni is only more associated with predicting because in a sense it does understand the unfolding of events. See what I did there?

[Azeroffs]

On the contrary, Ne has the ability to extrapolate the possibility of events through an understanding of the unchanging static elements that are present in a given point in time. As you say above, Ni is more concerned with what will likely happen in the future, whereas Ne proposes a more conditional (if not speculative) view of what could happen in the future with the base elements that are present.

There is quite a bit of value in comparing Ne to Ni, much as there is in comparing Fe to Fi. Understanding the manifestation of Fe helps to understand the underlying phenomenon present in Fi, how it operates, and vice versa. The same is true with Ne and Ni.

Okay, so just a subjective value statement.

It is only skewered in that Ne entails more than simply possibilities. Once more, you are falsely underemphasizing Ne's association of possibilities. While other IEs can be used to generate possibilities, Ne remains as the IE that is most closely related to the Socionics understanding of possibilities. Furthermore, it can just as easily be argued that other IEs apart from Ni can also be used to make predictions. Ni is only more associated with predicting because in a sense it does understand the unfolding of events. See what I did there?

You don't seem to understand the nature of the IEs. Both Se and Ne and also Fe and Te for that matter are focused entirely on specific objects. That means that if you took a single object (person, rock, etc..) away from it's context, and extroverted IE could be used to identify properties associated with that object.

Take a single person for example. Se would perceive things like strength, hair color, etc (external characteristics). Ne perceives thing like intelligence, personality, skills etc (internal characteristics). Te perceives external dynamics of that object, so what the object is doing and how well they are doing it. Fe perceives internal dynamics or how the person is feeling and well they are feeling. Notice that Pe things typically don't change easily while Je things change from moment to moment. Notice also that all four of these IEs are only involving the singular object. These things are the basis of what these IEs are about and although they lead to other behaviors and abilities, they are all indirect and so not necessarily part of the IE. So types with these in their ego will be proficient at perceiving/judging these things and not necessarily anything else.

According to the dimensionality of functions the 1st and 8th function can make predictions or create possible scenarios related to these these things. 2nd and 7th have the ability to fill in holes in situations which haven't been experienced before. 3rd and 6th can be adapted to after being exposed to these elements, and the 4th and 5th can only be experienced.

@ Pinocchio: this is why I say the Id is sometimes more visible than the super-id in the other thread. Even though the super-Id is the preferred mode, it imply isn't skilled enough to be in constant use.

[munenori2]

Alpha NT



Maybe Gamma/Delta?

I teach you the Overman! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind?

All beings so far have created something beyond themselves. Do you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and revert back to the beast rather than overcome mankind? What is the ape to a man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just so shall a man be to the Overman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

Even the wisest among you is only a confusion and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I ask you to become phantoms or plants?

Behold, I teach you the Overman! The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beg of you my brothers, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and those blasphemers died along with him. Now to blaspheme against the earth is the greatest sin, and to rank love for the Unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!

Once the soul looked contemptuously upon the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing: -- the soul wished the body lean, monstrous, and famished. Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth. But that soul was itself lean, monstrous, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of this soul! So my brothers, tell me: What does your body say about your soul? Is not your soul poverty and filth and wretched contentment?

In truth, man is a polluted river. One must be a sea to receive a polluted river without becoming defiled. I teach you the Overman! He is that sea; in him your great contempt can go under.

What is the greatest thing you can experience? It is the hour of your greatest contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becomes loathsome to you, and so also your reason and virtue.

The hour when you say: What good is my happiness? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment. But my happiness should justify existence itself!

The hour when you say: What good is my reason? Does it long for knowledge as the lion for his prey? It is poverty and filth and wretched contentment!

The hour when you say: What good is my virtue? It has not yet driven me mad! How weary I am of my good and my evil! It is all poverty and filth and wretched contentment!

The hour when you say: What good is my justice? I do not see that I am filled with fire and burning coals. But the just are filled with fire and burning coals!

The hour when you say: What good is my pity? Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loves man? But my pity is no crucifixion!

Have you ever spoken like this? Have you ever cried like this? Ah! If only I had heard you cry this way!

It is not your sin -- it is your moderation that cries to heaven; your very sparingness in sin cries to heaven!

Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the madness with which you should be cleansed?

Behold, I teach you the Overman! He is that lightning, he is that madness!

[krieger]

I don't think anyone ever really has a problem telling Ne apart from Ni. It's only when people start using theoretical jargon about it that people begin to confuse the two.

[strrrng]

I don't think anyone ever really has a problem telling Ne apart from Ni. It's only when people start using theoretical jargon about it that people begin to confuse the two.

Yes, I agree, when Pinnochio starts talking about it, the ideas are muddied.

[Krig the Viking]

You don't seem to understand the nature of the IEs. Both Se and Ne and also Fe and Te for that matter are focused entirely on specific objects. That means that if you took a single object (person, rock, etc..) away from it's context, and extroverted IE could be used to identify properties associated with that object.

Take a single person for example. Se would perceive things like strength, hair color, etc (external characteristics). Ne perceives thing like intelligence, personality, skills etc (internal characteristics). Te perceives external dynamics of that object, so what the object is doing and how well they are doing it. Fe perceives internal dynamics or how the person is feeling and well they are feeling. Notice that Pe things typically don't change easily while Je things change from moment to moment. Notice also that all four of these IEs are only involving the singular object. These things are the basis of what these IEs are about and although they lead to other behaviors and abilities, they are all indirect and so not necessarily part of the IE. So types with these in their ego will proficient be at perceiving/judging these things and not necessarily anything else.

According to the dimensionality of functions the 1st and 8th function can make predictions or create possible scenarios related to these these things. 2nd and 7th have the ability to fill in holes in situations which haven't been experienced before. 3rd and 6th can be adapted to after being exposed to these elements, and the 4th and 5th can only be experienced.

@ Pinocchio: this is why I say the Id is sometimes more visible than the super-id in the other thread. Even though the super-Id is the preferred mode, it imply isn't skilled enough to be in constant use.

Exactly. Extraverted functions (object functions) deal with objects in isolation. It's the introverted functions (field functions) that provide context, how that object relates to other objects, etc. That's why each block pairs an extraverted function with an introverted function.

Ne looks at a person, sees his good reflexes and his mechanical aptitude, and says "You have the potential to be a racecar driver". That's a statement of possibility about an individual object. But in order to say something like "You have the potential to win the Indianapolis 500", you would have to combine that Ne with an introverted function, like Ti (comparing the "racecar driver potential" in this person with the "racecar driver potential" of all the other drivers).

(Technically, "You have the potential to be a racecar driver" has traces of Ti in it as well, as determining the quality of someone's driving ability would involve comparisons to other people.)

I think it's more helpful to think of the functions in blocks like this, as isolated functions do not occur in nature.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

Edit: a function with such step needs assistance to be able to deal with the environment (which is defined).

Could you clarify this? Why should anyone use anything other than ?

Did he say that when he was trying to discredit quantum theory? Because... we all know how well that turned out.

While he was being reactionist about it, I think he saw real problems with quantum theory... and I think I've seen those problems resolved. (There are no fundamental units of matter - matter is composed of interacting, continuous energy fields.)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request