Time estimation and planning

[Creepy-Snaps]

People who expect their goals to be realized before they die need much bigger goals IMO.

Moments like this make me feel understood, despite all the haters who say I dream too big or am unrealistic.

Jonathan, regarding the topic, you're thinking too literally for time calculation. Ni is not a matter of estimating how many days to read a book, nor pianosinger is it always an indication of chronic lateness/punctuality, although sometimes it manifests itself as such.

The way you want to think of Ni is a bit more abstract, as the relevant flow of multiple objects/situations/circumstances pulling on someone over time. If Ne is the external realization of potential in people, potential ideas, the realization of possibilities, Ni is the internalized anchor of those ideas, an intrinsic understanding of the relevance of possibilities.

Ni is my POLR. I have a strong tendency to want to help everyone, in every single way possible, without much understanding/grounding internally of which potential ideas are relevant, or important, in the long run. For example, as a moment even as I'm writing this, I realize it's 11:06 pm, and I'm trying to help answer a question on a socionics forum, as opposed to getting sleep for my job tomorrow.

Or I'll go out of my way to feed the dogs, make sure I'm dressed and looking sharp, brush my teeth, even floss, when it might make me late for something. Ne is coming up with all kinds of possible ideas, Ni is more filtering which ideas are important for the long run.

Jonathan, let's go back to your original post. A person with strong Ni, wouldn't necessarily be good at ESTIMATING how long it'd take to read a book. Instead, a person with strong Ni would be good at DETERMINING whether reading that particular book would be a good idea long-term, or worth INVESTING TIME into. Can you see the difference?

Again, lateness and estimation of how long something will take are not necessarily related to Ni. Ni is truly an understanding of the relevance of potential external ideas and an anchor in seeing what will be important long-term.

The stereotypical ESFj profile on socionics.com describes ESFjs rushing around from one thing to another. I'm guilty of this! Weak Ni is not understanding which things are important and trying to do them all! ESTjs with Te base focus on correcting every inefficiency, doing every little thing organizationally, without much understanding for which potential organizational/external categories are important.

INFps and INTps with strong Ni have a good understanding of relevance. They can intuitively understand people very well, because they can see what the person is doing now and how they will change over time. They tend to ignore Ne and the potential for that person to change, but rather focus on the momentum/path a person is on currently, and where they will be in the future based upon their actions.

So again, time estimation + planning DOES NOT = Ni. As I alluded to, sometimes ESEs with weak Ni tend to be chronically late, because we want to do every little thing before leaving. It's not that I don't understand how LONG something will take... I'm quite good at estimating time. Rather it's a weakness/avoidance/reluctance for me to want to prioritize my tasks, figure out which ideas are most important, because it's very hard for me, which results in a strong preference for me to just want to do everything. Accomplish everything. ETC. ETC.

But strong Ni types can be late and weak Ni types can be on time. Certainly a bit against the norm, but not that uncommon.

Hope that helps.

[EyeSeeCold]

The way you want to think of Ni is a bit more abstract, as the relevant flow of multiple objects/situations/circumstances pulling on someone over time.

Nice.

[Beautiful sky]

Rushing around from one thing to another would be more

[EyeSeeCold]

Rushing around from one thing to another would be more

Rushing specifies that someone actually gets involved in "the relevant flow of multiple objects/situations/circumstances pulling on someone over time.". MD never included that, so I take it as observing it all but staying uninvolved. As time progresses, the most "important" processes start to unfold.

[Beautiful sky]

Rushing around from one thing to another would be more

Rushing specifies that someone actually gets involved in "the relevant flow of multiple objects/situations/circumstances pulling on someone over time.". MD never included that, so I take it as observing it all but staying uninvolved. As time progresses, the most "important" processes start to unfold.

I've never seen an with an Rush at anything. You know!!! that conserves energy, relaxes, doesn't rush, observes and internalizes sensory information!!!

[FDG]

Yeah, it's complicated. I don't agree with the interpretation of as a small-scale timing function, either. Partially this type of attitude seems to be related to parenting i.e. if your parents trained you to be a timely person, then you're likely going to pick up this trait. Although the least timely person I know is an ESFp, whose ENFj-ISTj parents are extremely punctual. So perhaps my theory is bollocks, who knows.

[Ozz]

This might be going off topic, but project management teaches a very rigorous method to estimating how long something will take. I think most people can follow it and get a good estimate based on the information available. It is my opinion that blind guesses are usually too optimistic.

[Creepy-Snaps]

The way you want to think of Ni is a bit more abstract, as the relevant flow of multiple objects/situations/circumstances pulling on someone over time.

Nice.

Thanks!

Rushing specifies that someone actually gets involved in "the relevant flow of multiple objects/situations/circumstances pulling on someone over time.". MD never included that, so I take it as observing it all but staying uninvolved. As time progresses, the most "important" processes start to unfold.

I've never seen an with an Rush at anything. You know!!! that conserves energy, relaxes, doesn't rush, observes and internalizes sensory information!!!

You've also said before that 1) ESEs are anti-social, when we're some of the most outgoing people of all, and 2) ESEs don't like strategy games, when yellow82 and I both love chess among so many other games. So no offense Maritsa, but I really don't think you understand much about ESEs, or have much credibility here.

Ni is my POLR. I have a strong tendency to want to help everyone, in every single way possible, without much understanding/grounding internally of which potential ideas are relevant, or important, in the long run. For example, as a moment even as I'm writing this, I realize it's 11:06 pm, and I'm trying to help answer a question on a socionics forum, as opposed to getting sleep for my job tomorrow.

Just like me. But I doubt I'm an ESE.

Ne is coming up with all kinds of possible ideas, Ni is more filtering which ideas are important for the long run.

Jonathan, let's go back to your original post. A person with strong Ni, wouldn't necessarily be good at ESTIMATING how long it'd take to read a book. Instead, a person with strong Ni would be good at DETERMINING whether reading that particular book would be a good idea long-term, or worth INVESTING TIME into. Can you see the difference?

A lot of people have said that on the forum. But it doesn't make any logical sense. If Ne were coming up with ideas and Ni were filtering them or determining which of those ideas are important or valid, then the following would hold:
1) Ni and Ne would typically be used together, because if you come up with a lot of ideas, naturally the next thing you have to do is determine which of them to follow.
2) Ni would be a judging function, because it would be used to make a judgment about different ideas.
3) Ni would not be a form of intuition.
4) People strong in Ne would either use it together with Ni, or value people with strong Ni to help them decide between their ideas.

Now if you want to say that Ni is somehow a more "focused" kind of intuition than Ne, then maybe. However, I would ascribe any narrowing down of ideas in Ni types to their judging function....i.e., Fe or Te combined with Ni to direct it. But Ni as a judging function? Just doesn't make much sense to me.

@Ozz:
Even if it's technically off-topic, maybe it relates.....What resources or books do you recommend for project management?

Some of your assumptions are off, because people don't use Ne and Ni together. While some types are strong at both, they generally ignore one in favor of another.

Intuitively, you could argue/say that Ti helps direct Fe best. And Fi helps direct Te. An INTj complements my leading Fe with his leading Ti, not using Ni directly to compensate for my POLR. In that sense, you're not crossing "perceiving" functions with "judging" functions in terms of being complementary.

[Pa3s]

I suck at time estimation pretty much, that's why I'm always über-punctual since I totally hate it to be too late. Even if I know that my way to school takes about 20 minutes, I'm typically 15 or 20 minutes too soon. I never remember how much time I needed to do something if someone asked me.

[Jonathan]

Some of your assumptions are off, because people don't use Ne and Ni together. While some types are strong at both, they generally ignore one in favor of another.

No, I'm not making any such assumptions. We all know that people don't typically use Ne and Ni together; the way the letters combine is actually the only thing that pretty much all socionists agree on.

What I'm saying is that the way that you're defining Ni and Ne (and others too...you're not the only one) makes it obvious that they would be used together. It's obvious if you think about it that it's so...that if Ni were equivalent to skill in picking the best idea, and Ne were equivalent to coming up with the ideas in the first place, then they would be complementary; they would go hand in hand.

In other words, this statement:

While some types are strong at both, they generally ignore one in favor of another

....which I agree with, contradicts your earlier statement. It wouldn't make sense that people who come up with ideas ignore the need to be able to judge between them. Their ideas would have no coherence and they would get nothing done, if that were the case. And if there weren't any people who are good at judging between ideas (Ni in your system) but who also had ideas to judge in the first place, then we wouldn't have anyone to evaluate ideas, which would of course be a great loss.

...now of course, there are people who focus more on the judging side of things...but typically we call such types rational types, rather than Ni.

Intuitively, you could argue/say that Ti helps direct Fe best. And Fi helps direct Te.

very true...Ti complements Fe, and Fi complements Te. That's just standard Socionics.

In that sense, you're not crossing "perceiving" functions with "judging" functions in terms of being complementary.

But if you define X as judging which of a series of ideas is the best one, or the most relevant, according to some criteria, is that not a judging function? So if X = Ni, then Ni is a judging function (not in reality...just according to how you've defined it).

[Creepy-Snaps]

What I'm saying is that the way that you're defining Ni and Ne (and others too...you're not the only one) makes it obvious that they would be used together. It's obvious if you think about it that it's so...that if Ni were equivalent to skill in picking the best idea, and Ne were equivalent to coming up with the ideas in the first place, then they would be complementary; they would go hand in hand.

I originally contrasted Ni with Ne, so people would better understand Ni in relation to time and relevance of ideas. I didn't mean to imply that they were complementary, sorry.

Some people are good at brainstorming ideas, more Ne, while others are better at understanding the potential ideas and possibilities over time, more Ni. However, theoretically if a person could use both Ne and Ni in their ego block, there wouldn't be any sustainability of process. Yes, both are perceiving functions, and need the work of a Thinking or Feeling judging function to be manipulated appropriately.

[golden]

Skipping all these arguments and back to your OP, Jonathan, I will just explain what I think Ni in myself is like. Maybe this will be relevant to the conversation, maybe not so much.

I see Ni in myself metaphorically as something like an inner warehouse of films, an archive, and these films are constructed both from experience and from numinous sources such as dreams or visions, and from secondhand information. In the moment, I can cut and splice those images together in a variety of ways, with a tendency is to seek out patterns.

The way I see Ni in myself as actually relating to time is that I can construct internally a sense of historical periods--just have a good feeling for them, project myself into them--and also rise above time, by experiencing the timelessness of a place, a geographical feature, a human being, an artwork, and so on.

Now, I am in fact an extremely punctual person and hate lateness in myself and others. I also work in a field that is per-project in structure and deadline-driven. In estimating how long it will take to do something or get somewhere, I do project mentally the amount of time it will take--that's an estimate. It arises instantly and is often pretty accurate. I also build in a buffer. If the time of arrival or completion is not vitally important, I might go with the estimate only and "wing it" with the details. If it is vital, though, I will hold that estimate in mind and construct a path toward that time destination using a more step-by-step approach; this is like double-checking. It might be, for me, more Se/Ti in nature, this second, follow-up step--not sure, but you were wondering about that.

If I lose time in one part of a project, day, whatever, I tend to make it up later automatically; things are not absolutely thrown off. So my management of time could look effortless to someone else, because of these automatic recalculations. It is not necessarily all that effortless, though--just depends on how complex the scenario and how much conscious attention I have paid to it.

This, er, process works on a micro level (a short trip, a project) and on a macro level (projecting a vision of the future several years out and then determining what is needed to make that vision real).

Living with an Ni-PoLR partner for many years was ... interesting. I can only say how it looks from my pov--he might put things differently. He is also normally (not always) punctual. It's something he works very, very hard at. Being on time with him is a matter of pride, where for me it's more of a given.

Without plans, he feels there is no stability. If his plans are not well-laid, he will in fact be late or things will go awry. There doesn't seem to be that instant ability to adjust to or absorb changes. Time is not fluid or flexible, has no plasticity, for him. And if you ask him about long-term future plans, he really cannot seem to see far ahead, and he can even find demands for him to do that threatening. I also have seen him make major decisions that fail to account for all of the variables that will come into play in the future.

He doesn't seem to respond to the same cues I do--such as, oh, months ago a person having mentioned a potential problem with funding of a project. I zero in on that sort of thing and work it into my calculations, whereas for him, if it hasn't happened yet, it's more "I'll deal with that IF it happens" and doesn't really seem to take root in his thinking. If it doesn't fit with the plan, it gets discarded.

Despite that, he seems himself as a very future-oriented person. What IEs he is relying on to deal with the future, though ... I'm not sure of that. It could be Si/Te: concrete operational details of the day-to-day world, and plans concerning those details that give rise to internal homeostasis. To me, he is good at handling things as they arise only by figuring out where they fit into a structure he has created, and he excels at making concrete plans and schedules, and organizing things concerning how to get from point A-Z. But his mastery will be more or less of point A only, then point B only, and so on. And I'm rather the opposite, as my above description may show. I look at the overview, I fill in the skeleton, and there are bits and pieces for things all along the way, with no absolutely stepwise pattern in terms of what gets filled in, when.

[Jonathan]

Maybe this will be relevant to the conversation, maybe not so much.

Very relevant...thanks.

inner warehouse of films, an archive

That sounds like another name for memory. It sounds as if you have a good memory...or that you store memory or access it differently from some other people (e.g., the LSE person you were mentioning).

So do you think Ni, or a large part of it, is simply a matter of remembering events from the past and then being able to use them by being able to recall that (for example) some relevant detail from a few months ago may impact future places?
[/QUOTE]

[Jonathan]

I originally contrasted Ni with Ne, so people would better understand Ni in relation to time and relevance of ideas. I didn't mean to imply that they were complementary, sorry.

Thanks, and sorry I gave you a hard time with that...It sounded as if you were making Ni out to be judging function, so I may have misunderstood you. However, the following is a reasonable definition, at least within some of the mainstream schools of Socionics:

...while others are better at understanding the potential ideas and possibilities over time, more Ni.

[Beautiful sky]

You've also said before that 1) ESEs are anti-social, when we're some of the most outgoing people of all, and 2) ESEs don't like strategy games, when yellow82 and I both love chess among so many other games. So no offense Maritsa, but I really don't think you understand much about ESEs, or have much credibility here.

This is called volitional pressure ahem...Se....

This is why I can't defend my interests against types like yours who use Se on me and why I need my dual right now. But, I shouldn't waste my time and argue with you on any of the above points as you would probably need to see (visually ) more information to be convinced of something than I care to fetch for you.

You hit my polr in the various ways:

1. You are saying to everyone that I don't have credibility to speak therefore I don't have a right, my opinions are very unimportant.
2. You are saying that no matter how much knowledge I have, any defense against your quote, by me, is and should be discarded.
3. You're inviting me to push back harder and if I didn't have my dual next to me I would have tried and gloriously failed, but I don't care. My duals will defend me and my boyfriend is enough pressure gage for me to feel ok and not hurt by what you're writing here about my "credibility"
4. Your statement is inviting me to overreact. I feel defenseless and unprotected.


It's like you choking someone who doesn't like to argue and still wants to have a voice but can't because once you determine you want to have this playing field, you won't let anyone else win...it's a strategic sport and the objective of Se is to WIN.

NO OFFENSE TO YOU BUT YOU NEED TO GET A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE THAN MYSELF TO PROCLAIM YOURSELF AS ANY "AUTHORITY" IN SOCIONICS.

[Creepy-Snaps]

You've also said before that 1) ESEs are anti-social, when we're some of the most outgoing people of all, and 2) ESEs don't like strategy games, when yellow82 and I both love chess among so many other games. So no offense Maritsa, but I really don't think you understand much about ESEs, or have much credibility here.

This is called volitional pressure ahem...Se....

This is why I can't defend my interests against types like yours who use Se on me and why I need my dual right now. But, I shouldn't waste my time and argue with you on any of the above points as you would probably need to see (visually ) more information to be convinced of something than I care to fetch for you.

You hit my polr in the various ways:

1. You are saying to everyone that I don't have credibility to speak therefore I don't have a right, my opinions are very unimportant.
2. You are saying that no matter how much knowledge I have, any defense against your quote, by me, is and should be discarded.
3. You're inviting me to push back harder and if I didn't have my dual next to me I would have tried and gloriously failed, but I don't care. My duals will defend me and my boyfriend is enough pressure gage for me to feel ok and not hurt by what you're writing here about my "credibility"
4. Your statement is inviting me to overreact. I feel defenseless and unprotected.


It's like you choking someone who doesn't like to argue and still wants to have a voice but can't because once you determine you want to have this playing field, you won't let anyone else win...it's a strategic sport and the objective of Se is to WIN.

NO OFFENSE TO YOU BUT YOU NEED TO GET A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE THAN MYSELF TO PROCLAIM YOURSELF AS ANY "AUTHORITY" IN SOCIONICS.

I find this post hilarious. Explaining how I hit your POLR, instead of acknowledging my points. Wasn't it you who once said people need to be themselves more on this forum, so they could be more easily typed, rather than worrying about socionics theory?

And hey... don't put words in my mouth, Maritsa. I never claimed to be an "authority". I just said you're not an authority, ESPECIALLY when it comes to ESEs. You said 1) ESEs don't rush around, ever 2) ESEs are anti-social and 3) ESEs don't like strategy games. Yes, you don't know ESEs very well, are way out of touch with reality, caught up in your theory, modeling and following the advice of an old lady in socionics, alone and unhappy, which is what you will become if you don't change anything.

I would go on more, but you have proven not to listen to anyone. Anyone but the blessed Russians. And yet you tote around your 6 years of studying socionics from the Russians, like it means something, like it justifies your off-base conclusions. And you think this makes you better than everyone else! And yet you actually accuse ME of claiming to be an authority? C'mon, get off your high horse, Maritsa.

You understand the theory, yes, but not people. You have incorporated socionics soooo much into your normal, everyday thinking, that you've become delusional. I'm really sorry for you. And yet I don't mind ripping into you now, for how much you throw other people off. I would've found my true type ESE sooner if I hadn't listened to you. Or was nice to you, or considered what you had to say. Or stuck up for you, looking foolish , when everyone else who had been here longer already knew the damage you cause, and had even warned me. Maybe you don't understand the theory well either. Not nearly as well as you claim.

I'm not LSI, Maritsa. You're not EII, Maritsa. The sooner you can get these things into your brain, and actually consider the viewpoints of other people, the better. Until then, I unfortunately believe you will continue to be a balloon floating up in the clouds, further and further away from the world, and from people, thinking you're the best and most beautiful balloon to ever float the skies, that you're so great because of how long you've been gone, or how much theory you know, until you slowly lose your air, and you wither away, depressed and unhappy, and come crashing back down to earth, maybe into a tree, unable to be found, unable to be used for anything, unable to be of any purpose, ever since you floated away.

COME back down to reality, Maritsa. Tell your socionics mentors, the old ladies, whoever it was who originally typed you as EII, that they're wrong. DO IT. Make the change. The people here on 16types have seen your posts, your behavior, your emotions, your attitude, for YEARS NOW. There's no way we all can be wrong about your type. So many different perspectives, and we all agree. YOU'RE NOT EII. Believing that, listening to others, is the first and most important step in saving yourself.

Please listen.
Sincerely,
Greg, aka Mountain Dew

[Jonathan]

Beautiful analogy with the balloon and all that. But how is it that Socionics gets so personal or that we can be sure of other people's types just from their posts? Everyone has a slightly different version of the definitions anyhow.

People seem to think that type is some absolute fixed thing, and if you don't know your type, you're going to fail in some way.

I think we need to come away from that. Yes, it can be a great revelation to learn something about yourself, which can be done under the rubric of Socionics. But we have to remember that Socionics concepts are just a sort of theory used to organize actual insights about people. It's the actual insights that matter, not the letters we use.

If a person recognizes some way that he/she shares values with someone else, or solves a real-life relationship problem, and assigns this understanding some Socionics letters, then the important thing was that the insight was valuable.

Nobody is going to get ruined by having their type letters "wrong," as long as they refrain from certain Socionics abuses, such as:
* Refraining from learning or doing something because one thinks it's not in one's type (e.g., "I don't do math because I'm an ethical type.")
* Ending a perfectly good relationship because of type theory when there's no real indication of problems in the relationship.
* Acting in a way that's unwanted around someone because your theory tells you that it's wanted (e.g., acting like an LSE when around an IEI because you mis-typed the person EII).

If a person stays away from such abuses, then it doesn't really matter what the person types him/herself as. If the person is "wrong," probably that person is equally wrong about everybody else's type, so the intertype relationships will still come out mostly the same anyway.

[rat1]

You've also said before that 1) ESEs are anti-social, when we're some of the most outgoing people of all, and 2) ESEs don't like strategy games, when yellow82 and I both love chess among so many other games. So no offense Maritsa, but I really don't think you understand much about ESEs, or have much credibility here.

This is called volitional pressure ahem...Se....

This is why I can't defend my interests against types like yours who use Se on me and why I need my dual right now. But, I shouldn't waste my time and argue with you on any of the above points as you would probably need to see (visually ) more information to be convinced of something than I care to fetch for you.

You hit my polr in the various ways:

1. You are saying to everyone that I don't have credibility to speak therefore I don't have a right, my opinions are very unimportant.
2. You are saying that no matter how much knowledge I have, any defense against your quote, by me, is and should be discarded.
3. You're inviting me to push back harder and if I didn't have my dual next to me I would have tried and gloriously failed, but I don't care. My duals will defend me and my boyfriend is enough pressure gage for me to feel ok and not hurt by what you're writing here about my "credibility"
4. Your statement is inviting me to overreact. I feel defenseless and unprotected.


It's like you choking someone who doesn't like to argue and still wants to have a voice but can't because once you determine you want to have this playing field, you won't let anyone else win...it's a strategic sport and the objective of Se is to WIN.

NO OFFENSE TO YOU BUT YOU NEED TO GET A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE THAN MYSELF TO PROCLAIM YOURSELF AS ANY "AUTHORITY" IN SOCIONICS.

Maritsa stop blaming all your fuckin problems on your polr

[Jonathan]

Ni is my POLR. I have a strong tendency to want to help everyone, in every single way possible, without much understanding/grounding internally of which potential ideas are relevant, or important, in the long run. For example, as a moment even as I'm writing this, I realize it's 11:06 pm, and I'm trying to help answer a question on a socionics forum, as opposed to getting sleep for my job tomorrow.

Just like me. But I doubt I'm an ESE.

Ne is coming up with all kinds of possible ideas, Ni is more filtering which ideas are important for the long run.

Jonathan, let's go back to your original post. A person with strong Ni, wouldn't necessarily be good at ESTIMATING how long it'd take to read a book. Instead, a person with strong Ni would be good at DETERMINING whether reading that particular book would be a good idea long-term, or worth INVESTING TIME into. Can you see the difference?

A lot of people have said that on the forum. But it doesn't make any logical sense. If Ne were coming up with ideas and Ni were filtering them or determining which of those ideas are important or valid, then the following would hold:
1) Ni and Ne would typically be used together, because if you come up with a lot of ideas, naturally the next thing you have to do is determine which of them to follow.
2) Ni would be a judging function, because it would be used to make a judgment about different ideas.
3) Ni would not be a form of intuition.
4) People strong in Ne would either use it together with Ni, or value people with strong Ni to help them decide between their ideas.

Now if you want to say that Ni is somehow a more "focused" kind of intuition than Ne, then maybe. However, I would ascribe any narrowing down of ideas in Ni types to their judging function....i.e., Fe or Te combined with Ni to direct it. But Ni as a judging function? Just doesn't make much sense to me.

@Ozz:
Even if it's technically off-topic, maybe it relates.....What resources or books do you recommend for project management?

[Park]

People who expect their goals to be realized before they die need much bigger goals IMO.

Moments like this make me feel understood, despite all the haters who say I dream too big or am unrealistic.

Jonathan, regarding the topic, you're thinking too literally for time calculation. Ni is not a matter of estimating how many days to read a book, nor pianosinger is it always an indication of chronic lateness/punctuality, although sometimes it manifests itself as such.

The way you want to think of Ni is a bit more abstract, as the relevant flow of multiple objects/situations/circumstances pulling on someone over time. If Ne is the external realization of potential in people, potential ideas, the realization of possibilities, Ni is the internalized anchor of those ideas, an intrinsic understanding of the relevance of possibilities.

Ni is my POLR. I have a strong tendency to want to help everyone, in every single way possible, without much understanding/grounding internally of which potential ideas are relevant, or important, in the long run. For example, as a moment even as I'm writing this, I realize it's 11:06 pm, and I'm trying to help answer a question on a socionics forum, as opposed to getting sleep for my job tomorrow.

Or I'll go out of my way to feed the dogs, make sure I'm dressed and looking sharp, brush my teeth, even floss, when it might make me late for something. Ne is coming up with all kinds of possible ideas, Ni is more filtering which ideas are important for the long run.

Jonathan, let's go back to your original post. A person with strong Ni, wouldn't necessarily be good at ESTIMATING how long it'd take to read a book. Instead, a person with strong Ni would be good at DETERMINING whether reading that particular book would be a good idea long-term, or worth INVESTING TIME into. Can you see the difference?

Again, lateness and estimation of how long something will take are not necessarily related to Ni. Ni is truly an understanding of the relevance of potential external ideas and an anchor in seeing what will be important long-term.

The stereotypical ESFj profile on socionics.com describes ESFjs rushing around from one thing to another. I'm guilty of this! Weak Ni is not understanding which things are important and trying to do them all! ESTjs with Te base focus on correcting every inefficiency, doing every little thing organizationally, without much understanding for which potential organizational/external categories are important.

INFps and INTps with strong Ni have a good understanding of relevance. They can intuitively understand people very well, because they can see what the person is doing now and how they will change over time. They tend to ignore Ne and the potential for that person to change, but rather focus on the momentum/path a person is on currently, and where they will be in the future based upon their actions.

So again, time estimation + planning DOES NOT = Ni. As I alluded to, sometimes ESEs with weak Ni tend to be chronically late, because we want to do every little thing before leaving. It's not that I don't understand how LONG something will take... I'm quite good at estimating time. Rather it's a weakness/avoidance/reluctance for me to want to prioritize my tasks, figure out which ideas are most important, because it's very hard for me, which results in a strong preference for me to just want to do everything. Accomplish everything. ETC. ETC.

But strong Ni types can be late and weak Ni types can be on time. Certainly a bit against the norm, but not that uncommon.

Hope that helps.

Fair description of weak Ni, I relate. And I think you may be my Mirror. The way you describe yourself, I'm not sure if I can see you as my Supervisor. You do appear a bit over-the-top and exaggeratedly positive or happy-go-lucky sometimes, but never actually controlling of the emotional atmosphere or showing emotionally manipulative tendencies... more like freely expressive or something, which I also tend to be to a certain degree. Just an observation.

[FDG]

My take on the issue is very similar to what Golden has written, so perhaps there is a real connection between that kind of time-management and .

[Creepy-Snaps]

I would just like to say I may be wrong.

[rat1]

I dont think precise time estimation by a standard measurement like minutes is whats meant by Nis supposed association with time. Ni is aware of how things unfold & one event leads to the next. Thats a relative point of view.