Ne types vs Ni types and memory

[Ave]

It seems to me that types have much worse memory than types, who actually have excellent memory. Im not sure why this is, but in my observations of the two types they seem that way. I remember an ENFp friend as a teenager telling me he didnt remember most things. Ive always had excellent memory except for most events though not trying to brag though now I feel my memory has gotten weaker maybe because of all the pot I smoked, lol. Seriously though what are your thoughts on this? True or false?

PS: To all the types out there Im sorry if im turning into Hugo making seem like you are inferior somehow, that is not the case you guys just suck at remembering things, Im sure you're good at plenty of other stuff though.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Well your analysis is true for me. Because I have a super de duper uber good memory. I can't just let things go and go with the flow like alphas/deltas want me to though. So it's not all sunshine and lollipops either. But I can't help it as it's just the way my brain functions.

[Ave]

Because I have a super de duper uber good memory. I can't just let things go and go with the flow like alphas/deltas want me to though. So it's not all sunshine and lollipops either. But I can't help it as it's just the way my brain functions.

Yeah, I know what you're saying the whole "just relax" thing is a stress to my POLR. The more they tell me to relax, the more it makes me paranoid. I dont wanna derail this thread I just relate to what you're saying(trying to make use of my 7th function you see).

[blankblank]

LOL Yeah, my memory isn't the greatest. Things kinda run together or I just plain forget them altogether...not useful when I'm trying to introspect.

[xerx]

In a sense I agree with the OP. Why remember a ton of facts about a problem when you can build your own creative solution in the process of confronting it, cleverly inducting it from the available materials, like a game of wits? Plus remembering a huge swathe of details about something sui generis distracts from the ability to generalize it to a more abstract and encompassing classification.

[CILi]

My memory's pretty solid, but I'm not sure recall is necessarily "worse" than . Maybe just different.

In my potentially REALLY off-base view, 's like teleporting directly from NOW to MEMORY, in the fastest possible straight line; whereas zig-zags all over the place, bouncing from point-to-point in 3-D space 'til it eventually hits that same MEMORY. One path's a heck of a lot more efficient, but the other makes some pretty interesting stops along the way. Both trains have the same destination, but might be more likely to get lost on some crazy tangent and never bother getting to where it was headed in the first place.

[Azeroffs]

Depends on what memories you're talking about. types will remember things within the realm of , and will remember things with the realm of .

Like in general intuitive types will remember their impression of something more than explicit details of things.

[Ave]

Depends on what memories you're talking about. types will remember things within the realm of , and will remember things with the realm of .

I meant more memories related to events/experiences

[xerx]

Never memorize something that you can look up. --Einstein.

[Creepy-male]

Depends on what memories you're talking about. types will remember things within the realm of , and will remember things with the realm of .

And Ne bases will be able to construct new Ne information from remembered Ne, etc.

Makes me wonder if there's some sort of link between I/E and how memory-intensive elements are. Because humans obviously have limited storage space, right? Eventually you run out of space. I would think different elements leave less or more unused space.

[Azeroffs]

Hey Azer, didn't you say before that you had really bad memory?

Yeah I do.

[Azeroffs]

I meant more memories related to events/experiences

well, as I first reaction, I'd say that's related to Si meaning that ENxx would have the worst memory when it comes to this, with INxx next.

[Logos]

Thank you.

[Azeroffs]

Interesting. Do you tend to have bad episodic memory (recall of events/experiences—what Typhon is apparently referring to), bad semantic memory (recall of learned facts/information), or both?

I have a strangely good memory of information. I recently took a class with someone. They were always pissed about how I wouldn't study and often did just as well or better than them when they studied their ass off. In the right context I often recall random facts that I've heard somewhere. I don't always remember the source. I think I told you about how I don't remember my childhood very well. I do remember facts that my dad has told me about math and physics when I was a child every now and then. He used to give me logic problems to solve when I was kid, and he'd give me general facts to help me solve them when I couldn't figure them out.

[Skeptic]

I've read somewhere that we use a very tiny fraction of our brains. So yeah, it may be finite, but we certainly don't/will not use it all and may not know what it's to be used for.

I've also read that information your brain deems unimportant will be 'thrown out'. One once described it to me as a warehouse where sacks of memory are strewn about, and the seemingly useless sacks will be thrown out to make way for new ones by the janitors.

That would imply a socionics correlation to memory if a type with undervalued Te throws out real life facts it subconciously deems as unimportant or detrimental to Fe related memories which it would preserve in favor of the Te related information.

Socionics already claims that this already happens to an extent (undervalued Te, valued Fe); whether it's related to memory or not is not within socionic's means to say at this time.

I honestly can't remember the circumstances I was told told these things and can't account for their credibility, but I trust my memory

[Mattie]

I have an excellent memory when it comes to past events, peoples' preferences, faces, maps, directions, and smell. I have horrible 5-second memory, it's possible that if you ask me to repeat something I wasn't planning on remembering just after I said it, I would have completely forgot it. Read the above.

[Azeroffs]

I've read somewhere that we use a very tiny fraction of our brains.

I read somewhere that that's a myth.

[MatthewZ]

I read somewhere that that's a myth.

I read the same.

[Aiss]

It seems we usually memorize mostly what we pay attention to, so I suppose IEs probably have influence on that.

Gulenko mentions memory in Forms of Thinking, but I'm not sure how it's supposed to work - probably only as far as the kinds of information we're attuned to or not are concerned, too. The difference he makes is between static and dynamic types.

1.1. Intellectual level.
Here the statics is to the dynamics as thinking fragmentary - analytical - is to thinking associative - synthetic.
Analysis, as it they treat in the majority of sources, this separation of whole into the fragments, clearly delimited from each other. Sense of analytical activity in the laying out of boundaries. However, synthesis akin to the associative property, by which are understood associativity, T. e. the association of two or several concepts by the illegible, but high speed service, when one of them, after appearing, immediately causes in the consciousness others. Integral synthetic means with the effaced internal boundaries as a result is formed.
The absolutization of the dynamic pole of thinking became the basis of the explanation of nature of mental processes in the theory of [assotsianizma]. First Aristotle advanced idea about the fact that the spontaneous means of consciousness can so tightly converge between themselves that form on the basis of contiguity, similarity or contrast the plural associations. Then J. Locke asserted that the ideas of any degree of complexity appear in the process of the association of simple sensations. In this case the association of ideas it contradicted against the purely semantic connections, which, in his opinion, were second.
And really [eydetika] it proved that with the aid of the visual associations it is possible to connect in the mind everything, anything. Here some of the eidetic the technician of memorization. They entered into the use even in the antiquity.
Ancient-Roman speaker Cicero for rote learning of his speeches by heart used the method “of tying to the locality”. It mentally spread information on the angles of its room, and then so mentally it returned to one or other angle or another and was extracted that required. Medieval monks - Dominicans, being trained to rhetoric, used the same method. They took familiar by it to the trifles road and mentally passed on it, consecutively spreading by means of the assertions, which should have been then presented before the audience. Coming out, they again mentally dispatch by this method, “raising” the decomposed there previously key concepts.
To the dynamic pole of human thinking skillfully beats contemporary advertisement. It is predominantly built on the mechanism of associations according to the contiguity (courageous cowboy next to the bundle cigarette) or to contrast (usual washing powder and advertised). In view of this in statics, if we judge by the criterion of motive to the purchase, advertisement influences much less than on the dynamic loudspeakers. Memorization in statics is more effective when material is structured by more rigid semantic connections. In this case each concept is fixed in its storage cell as in the computer.
Thus, the dynamics are more strong in the operation of synthesis (not simple connection, but confluence through the mixing), and the statics - analysis (not any separation, but stable - clear delimitation). The known pair of oppositions discretion/continuality is more connected precisely with the polarity statics/dynamics, than with the the customary rationality/irrationality. But if this is so, what is then the specific character of last dichotomy? Irrationality indicates situationality (predominance of context above the installation), and the rationality - regularity (predominance of the installation above the context).

[1981slater]

It seems we usually memorize mostly what we pay attention to, so I suppose IEs probably have influence on that.

Exactly!

In my opinion, ET types tend to have good memory. On the other hand, ethicals complain they forget things but aparently they do not even try to remember them!

[Pa3s]

If the OP's theory would be correct to some degree then I'm definitely -valuing. As I said in my typing thread, I can remember facts I learned if I was interested in learning them, but I tend to forget obvious events or facts. Things the most people would remember. I can't always tell what happened when if I think back.

[Skeptic]

I read somewhere that that's a myth.

I read the same.

Nah. That's a pop-psych old wives tale.

Overkill guys . However it is true in that while processes do occur in these parts of the brains, we have no direct ability to affect them. However, it's been shown that once we become aware of certain body processes we can regulate it, i.e. listening to a heart beat allows the otherwise unaware individual to speed it up or slow it down without moving. How far reaching this goes is uncertain and hasn't been tested, but it could mean that the brain has potential to be used a lot more. <- Example of wooo

Right.



I think I agree with you… but then I suppose I'm not quite sure where you're coming from when you say this, so maybe I should hold off.

My conflict with this would be whether one regards IE-relevant information as something which exists 'out there'—i.e. as objective properties inherent to the natural world—or 'in here' as something which only meaningfully 'exists' in the context of a human mind to parse, interpret, and/or synthesize it ('metabolize' it). In which case then, so-called information would only be that produced (directly or indirectly) by a valuing mind, and likewise for information. I personally prefer the latter view. From there, yes, suffice to say I think an valuer would of course deemphasize and/or reinterpret -produced information in favor of something more nuanced to . I'll think further on how to clarify this later maybe.

Well given that the IEs have often been described as a lens to see reality it would follow that the world is a mix of subjective IEs. Whether or not it is us who are the subjective ones and not nature (if nature perpetuates the subjective IEs as objective values) is kind of ambiguous; I don't know if we could prove or explain it in favor of either one.

[Jarno]

I've read somewhere in a type description that ILI's have the best memory.

Which seems plausible.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[squark]

If you see, say, and write something you're more likely to remember it than if you do one of those things in isolation. The more senses that are involved - the better the storage. Even though people are often better at one sort of memory storage than another, ie better visual than auditory, they are still more likely to remember that visual input with the added auditory input associated. They help each other. It's like when you run and jump you can get a pretty good jump, and if you jump off of a trampoline you can too, but if you run to the trampoline and then jump off of it, it's better than either in isolation, even if one of those methods by itself yields better results for you normally than the other.

It's like when someone tells you an address, and you write or type it down while repeating it to them, later on, hours and even days later you can easily recall the address from the picture on the screen/paper that's in your head and the sound of it in your ears. But, you can look at an address written down, get distracted by something else, and five minutes later have to check it again because it's gone.

It seems we usually memorize mostly what we pay attention to, so I suppose IEs probably have influence on that.

Gulenko mentions memory in Forms of Thinking, but I'm not sure how it's supposed to work - probably only as far as the kinds of information we're attuned to or not are concerned, too.

Possibly. I have a good memory for numbers, unless they're years. For some reason dates in history don't have any meaning for me (although that probably has very little to do with socionics.) House and building layouts are easy to recall, and I can close my eyes and see various buildings and houses I've visited only once and walk through them in my mind, even if more than 10 or 15 years have passed. I'm not trying to remember any of it when I walk in, and it's not particularly important information, so I don't know why I remember it.

[silverchris9]

...not type related.

[tiny_dancer]

I remember things I need to remember and forget things I don't give a shit about.

[Beautiful sky]

I wish I could remember detailed and S type of information like my dual can, but in the mean while, I remember interesting ideas and sources where interesting ideas and new/novel solutions can be found. I also remember more Si stuff now then ever.

[Blaze]

It seems to me that types have much worse memory than types, who actually have excellent memory. Im not sure why this is, but in my observations of the two types they seem that way. I remember an ENFp friend as a teenager telling me he didnt remember most things. Ive always had excellent memory except for most events though not trying to brag though now I feel my memory has gotten weaker maybe because of all the pot I smoked, lol. Seriously though what are your thoughts on this? True or false?

PS: To all the types out there Im sorry if im turning into Hugo making seem like you are inferior somehow, that is not the case you guys just suck at remembering things, Im sure you're good at plenty of other stuff though.

i can remember salient facts from every year of my 46 that i've been alive. i remember what i feel is important though. and what i feel is important may be different than what other people feel is important. my family members frequently remind me of things that happened in the past that i can't...but i do keep a timeline in my mind...all the time.

[redbaron]

i can remember salient facts from every year of my 46 that i've been alive. i remember what i feel is important though. and what i feel is important may be different than what other people feel is important.

yeah, same here. it's weird getting together with my brother and sharing memories cause we each remember some completely different things!

[Beautiful sky]

Thank you.

It is type related because I've noticed that my mom, who is a Ni base, and my father, who is Ni role, can both remember a lot of stuff, whereas I can not. These things they remember are things in Time/event line. My memory is in processes, things in evolution.

[crazymaisy]

I have memories from when I was Two years old or even before, for certain at two years, and clear detail of anything. I recall things I did, places went, lived, went to school, teachers, classes, groups, friends ... we moved to another region when I was 7, then to a totally different State when I was 13, then a few more times after that in a basic area in that State & I can recall everything about everything ... then there's all the stuff since I grew up, I'm 44 now and add more and more and more info all the time. Practically nothing ever really filters, always able to call it up if some reason something triggers the thoughts, or sometimes for no reason at all.

That's just real life stuff. Now then there's the ILI inner imaginary worlds ... detail upon detail from many mind journeys available at will.

My SEE hubby has a terrible memory. I pump him for information and it's the most horrible job to get him to remember anything. Often he only remembers something because I show him pictures of him as a child, and piece it with something his father told me about him ... and "remember his childhood" for him. Sometimes he'll come up with something out of the blue and it's really weird. The thing is, it's in his mind, just doesn't come to the front of his conscious very often or easily. It usually takes much priming and pumping before it comes out. I share tons of things from my life with our children, and he's mostly silent. It's not a "guy thing" vs a "girl thing" it's his lack of reflection mostly, I'd say, thinking not being his strong suit, neither is intuition.

Of my experiences in life, hardly anyone else I've ever met seems to have had such a good memory as I did. I can recall things my pastor has said and then another time he says something quite contradictorily, and when it's something that is talk-able to him about he totally will reject that he ever said the previous thing, personal conversations or in his sermons even.

I've come to understand that what I mean by "I feel" is totally different by what he means by "I feel" or "emotion" means something different to him than me, like how very few movies can make me cry, but one does every time I see it, and he calls me "emotional" and I say, "no, I'm just emotive about that movie" which for me is a tissue sobbing affair that has to do with the circumstances of the story, which makes me think deeply about the circumstances and "feel what they feel through the movie" but it's so much more than that. I'm just a quiet crier in this case, not sobbing loudly, sniffling yes, have to blow my nose and blot my eyes, yes. It's contained though.

"Emotional" to me means what happens when someone lets their insides out for all to see. That's not me, ever. I'm always more reserved than not, even when I'm really outgoing when the circumstances dictate.

I'm going into this because I have the ILI's Ni & Te excellent memory and he has not. He's a SEE and would go through life chatting on the phone for work or pleasure, surfing sports sites, watching girly movies (I mean girl movies, like I don't like at all, I prefer Classic movies, action, adventure, fantasy, sci-fi, some horror, drama, black comedies, some comedies, but not many.) Like one movie I tease him about, he'd rather watch 27 Dresses, and I couldn't stand it the one time I had to watch it with him, and have had to see parts of it again ... ugh. He really does like it, and other movies I'd put in a similar category. Blech.

So then the movie I cry about is an American remake of a French Film, it's Sommersby. The love and honor and deceit are just so well depicted, but HE doesn't like it, not like I do, has no reaction to it at all. I'm not stating this so someone can tell me how terrible Sommersby is compared to the French movie. I'm speaking to the issue of the movie as a stand alone which is a nice period piece of post-Civil War Tennessee & I like the treatment of the story, it's plausible. So if ... draws me in.

Also watching TV shows, I'll laugh at something, and 30 seconds later he laughs at the same thing, but it's like it takes the full thing to play out before it's funny to him, whereas I see where it's going and get the funny before it's played out. I'm not saying it's "memory" but it's something nearly tangible but hard to put into words ... it's more a picture or a template of that, and it's "just like" memory stuff him and me. FWIW

[Ave]

...not type related.

Not a rule, just a trend.

[Brilliand]

Type-related, but rather subjective. I'll go with the theory that the type of information that's remembered is IE-related. Memory of events, especially events with dates, would be most suited for Gamma NTs. On the other hand, we know what Alpha NTs like to discuss... and that's also what we'll remember: theoretical constructs. Whether someone has a "good memory" will depend on what they're asked to remember.

[Suz]

Never memorize something that you can look up. --Einstein.

That's my mantra

[1981slater]

ETj you probably mean. Sadly for you, ILE is one of the most forgetful types, if not the most.

I have a good memory but I don't think that's the most important thing in life (creativity is probably more useful than a set of meaningless data); is this another fact that goes against my ILE self-typing?

[Simon Ssmall]

I have terrible memory, especially for dates, heck I dont even know when the major holidays are or when is my brothers/mothers birthday...

On the other hand I do remember quite a lot of details of certain events, what I usually dont remember is WHEN it happened, I can be off by months of the actual event, or I can even mix up two related events. For example one birthday party was at the age of 23 and another at the age of 24, I can mix up which exact birthday it was, but will remember in detail what was actually happening. Somehow such data just doesnt register for me.

Same with directions, I dont remember street names, or house numbers or the like, BUT I do remember near what it was, like a certain shop or a interesting looking tree or where I met my friend or something like that. Somehow I find it easier to asociate to things like that than street names, heck I dont know the names of major street names in my hometown but I know every corner of it.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[1981slater]

The fact that you hold a politically correct "ILE testimony" is.

What you think (at least declare) is not important, but what you are. Your epiphany about creativity does not change the fact that ILEs are different. Traits can't compensate each other, they have different natures and this is the basis of typing.

Choose: a or b

a (supervision)

These relations are also asymmetrical as are relations of Benefit. One partner, called the Supervisor, is always in a more favourable position in respect to the other partner who is known as Supervisee.

Relations of Supervision can give the impression that Supervisor is constantly watching every step of the Supervisee. The latter usually feels this control even if the Supervisor does not say or do anything. The explanation for this is that the Supervisee weak point is defenceless against the Supervisor's strong point. This makes the Supervisee nervous and expect the worse.

Although the Supervisor can seem self-satisfied, petty, faultfinding and narrative, the Supervisee pays attention to their actions and considers the Supervisor as consequential. The Supervisee normally wants to gain recognition and commendation from the Supervisor. However, it may seem like the Supervisor always undervalues the abilities of the Supervisee. This stimulates the Supervisee into proving their own worthiness with various actions, yet there is little chance that they will succeed.

The Supervisor sees the Supervisee as quite interesting and capable, but incomplete and therefore in need of some help and advice. The Supervisee does not respond to this aid as expected and this will often increase the Supervisor's attempts to change the Supervisee. Because the Supervisee naturally does not understand what it is that the Supervisor wants from them, this may irritate the Supervisor, who thinks that the Supervisee simply does not want to understand.

In relations of Supervision it may also appear as if the Supervisor patronises the Supervisee, which can be quite obtrusive for the latter. When there are more than two people present, the Supervisee often attempts to release themselves from the control of the Supervisor by starting arguments for the sake of it or by attempting to manoeuvre themselves into the commanding position. Unfortunately, these attempts lead nowhere. The Supervisor may think instead that the Supervisee simply requires more attention.

Supervision partners often look like good friends. The reason for this is that in these relations both partners can sense their social value: the Supervisor as a "guardian angel", without whom the Supervisee will get into trouble, and the Supervisee as the object of attention.

b) illusionary

These are relations of growing laziness. There are no other intertype relations that can deactivate partners so much as Illusionary relations. Illusionary partners find it comfortable being relaxed together, discussing different subjects. What one partner is talking about is always interesting, but in order to understand the partner better the other partner needs to force themselves. This difficulty in making an effort also makes achieving goals together almost impossible.

Mutual business or other activity is complicated, because Illusionary partners do not understand the reasons and motives of each other's actions. Whatever one partner tries to achieve usually appears insufficient and worthless to the other. Because partners expect different kinds of activity from each other, they become negative and may criticise each other's intentions and objectives. For an observer, this misunderstanding between partners can appear to be humorous.

The introvert partner usually tries to free themselves from the attempts of the extrovert partner to impose their opinions. The introverts seek independence. The extrovert partner wants to make their introvert partner into what they consider to be a "normal person". Both partners are distrustful of each other abilities.

Disagreements in these relations are usually short because partners are drawn to each other. From time to time Illusionary relations become really warm and caring. It normally happens when partners work together but not on the same task. Partners may feel inspired with the result of a successfully finished project, however when they try to start a new project, they again meet the same difficulties in co-operation.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request