Ni, Ne, and the Future

[xkj220]

Well no... is quite capable of describing reality, it just isn't situational as is. A movement is probably too broad in scope for - though the wonderful idea that starts the movement is not. The movement, before it starts, would be ; the movement foreseen as events that haven't happened yet would be . or might each determine the nature of the movement (yes, there are movements), while the Sensing elements would deal with what might be done to stop, alter or perpetuate the movement.

I kinda like this... I don't think he misunderstood, really. If anything, he expanded a bit what you had said, pointing out that Te can be a movement too (when the movement has already started) and not only Fe, Although this gives the quality of the movement. The actual movement is defined in terms of sensing. Also that the potentiality of a movement before it starts can be expressed/understood in terms of Ni and not only Ne (or something like this).

Ni sees the "end" of things easily using the present information (I really liked that prism analogy octopuslove did). This "long range forecast", has the downside that it is kind of vague-- Ne is much more able to accurately predict how things are going to develop on a shorter term. By interpolating what Ni sees with what Ne sees, you can more or less have an impression of the future. There's sort of a "gray area" though.

[Blaze]

Ni sees the "end" of things easily using the present information (I really liked that prism analogy octopuslove did). This "long range forecast", has the downside that it is kind of vague-- Ne is much more able to accurately predict how things are going to develop on a shorter term. By interpolating what Ni sees with what Ne sees, you can more or less have an impression of the future. There's sort of a "gray area" though.

a potential strength in my relation with infpman. cool!

[Waddlesworth]

I kinda like this... I don't think he misunderstood, really. If anything, he expanded a bit what you had said, pointing out that Te can be a movement too (when the movement has already started) and not only Fe, Although this gives the quality of the movement. The actual movement is defined in terms of sensing. Also that the potentiality of a movement before it starts can be expressed/understood in terms of Ni and not only Ne (or something like this).

Ni sees the "end" of things easily using the present information (I really liked that prism analogy octopuslove did). This "long range forecast", has the downside that it is kind of vague-- Ne is much more able to accurately predict how things are going to develop on a shorter term. By interpolating what Ni sees with what Ne sees, you can more or less have an impression of the future. There's sort of a "gray area" though.

Perception of motion is more intuition than sensing. The location of the movement at a specific time is sensing. The actual motion of the mass as an independent entity is feeling(the kinetic energy). The more gravity the movement accumulates(mass) the more it becomes.

By all appearances I/E is a kind of feeling(a kinetic energy) about whether to get swept up or to break one's consciousness from the circumstances/become separate from the whole. I am not so sure what you mean by seeing the "end" of things. I think a lot of people on this forum have filled in their ignorance of some of these Jungian terms with strange silliness.

When I said 'movements' in politics or science are extraverted, I meant just that. I did not say all movement is extraverted, I said that movements in politics and science are extraverted. If I did not make this clear enough I will say it again in another way:

Political and scientific movements involving more than one person are extraverted.
Is that clear enough?

[Brilliand]

Political and scientific movements involving more than one person are extraverted.
Is that clear enough?

'Fraid not - I don't rightly see how it can be made to work. Really the force of te movement can relay on any element to propagate from person to person - the question I've been dealing with so far is which element is most in its element when thinking about movements, and I think that that's . While would do a very good job of picking out something likely to start a movement, it wouldn't excel at contemplating the movement itself.

Your intuition=motion, sensing=freeze-frame interpretation works for and , but not for and . is dynamic - it deals with tangible processes, not tangible states. is intangible, but that doesn't make it a motion - it deals with intangible states.

(I'm aware that you like to consider Jung the highest authority, but Augusta mucked with Jung's functions a bit, and I wouldn't necessarily expect them to match.)

[Waddlesworth]

'Fraid not - I don't rightly see how it can be made to work. Really the force of te movement can relay on any element to propagate from person to person - the question I've been dealing with so far is which element is most in its element when thinking about movements, and I think that that's . While would do a very good job of picking out something likely to start a movement, it wouldn't excel at contemplating the movement itself.

Your intuition=motion, sensing=freeze-frame interpretation works for and , but not for and . is dynamic - it deals with tangible processes, not tangible states. is intangible, but that doesn't make it a motion - it deals with intangible states.

(I'm aware that you like to consider Jung the highest authority, but Augusta mucked with Jung's functions a bit, and I wouldn't necessarily expect them to match.)

I/E is an attitude. This attitude places you in the situations in which to use your functions. This is the original, definitive description of I/E.

The ESSENTIAL displacement laws, which are fundamental to intertype relations in Socionics, are the same as described by Jung for his psychological types. They don't change with either system. They are compatible.

The added 'fluff' of statics and dynamics and such, and the descriptions of "informational elements", all of this, in my opinion, is just guaranteeing that you, Brilliand, will have a one way ticket to the insane asylum before too long. But hey, what do I know, right? I mean, you are currently God

[Brilliand]

I/E is an attitude. This attitude places you in the situations in which to use your functions. This is the original, definitive description of I/E.

The ESSENTIAL displacement laws, which are fundamental to intertype relations in Socionics, are the same as described by Jung for his psychological types. They don't change with either system. They are compatible.

The added 'fluff' of statics and dynamics and such, and the descriptions of "informational elements", all of this, in my opinion, is just guaranteeing that you, Brilliand, will have a one way ticket to the insane asylum before too long. But hey, what do I know, right? I mean, you are currently God

That makes sense.

[krieger]

I/E is a property of types, not of functions. When applied to functions it means next to nothing.

One thing that must be known before Ni and Ne can be understood properly is that Ne is Limiting in rational types (INTj, INFj), whereas Ni is Limiting in irrational types (INTp, INFp). Ne is something much more conducive to the rational attitude than Ni is. Ne is basically the stuff of dictionary definitions and agreed upon meanings of words; it's what arises when one understands these in terms of their specified properties. Ni is relatively ungraspable compared to it. Ni is also something instantly understood upon being met with (Limiting when Accepting). Ne is understood after the data regarding it has been pieced together (Limiting when Creating).