Time estimation and planning

[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]

[golden]

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?

I have a good memory for some things, and not for others. I tend to remember concepts and feelings, and these are probably best driven in if there's a touch or listening component. I remember gestalts, and if I need to remember details, I have to work at it. I'm in the habit of disremembering things that seem extraneous. Because of the nature of my work, a tremendous amount of information flows into my life most days, and to get a fresh outlook, and/or think more efficiently, I have to let most of it go.

So I don't think it's as simple as remembering past events specifically. If I have to guess, I'm going to say that it's more that I abstract something from events and information. There's some meta-organization to the whole thing, maybe.

I will remember a detail (like someone mentioning a potential funding problem, from my earlier) if it pings for me as important, or in response to something a detail like that might suddenly flash back into my mind. Or if it happens to fit into a set of concerns that already occupy my mind, something I'm weighing.

Sigh. Not sure this is clear, sorry.

[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.