# Thread: Ni and time

1. ## Ni and time

Whenever I see an Ni description, I always see large parts of the definition set in terms of time - indeed, it's called the intuition OF time. However, perhaps it is the intuition of PATTERNS?

Many patterns have a temporal component (just look at how many physics equations have a t variable), and I think that this might be causing too much importance being given to the temporal element (assuming I'm right in the first part, of course).

An example:
Say you're taking an IQ test and there's this pattern recognition part. Well, Se you go and start looking at the pretty pictures, kick in some T to as you notice similarities and proto-patterns or come up with some possibilities (Ne) to check their validity when suddenly it hits you - a flash of insight - Aha! the pattern! Now how to describe it?

Notice in the last two parts how the recognition of the pattern is a perception, and unlike S, it has no (immediately) identifiable source, so it's an intuition. Further, unlike the Ne part of coming up with possibilities, it doesn't need to be checked (other than just a very quick verification, but..) - you know that's what it is. And then, since it's a perception, you need to pass it off to a judging function (info metabolism pathway, no?) to use that info.

So, what d'ya think? Do you Ni people have an easy time with patterns of various types, not just ones with time as a component? Do you Ni PoLR's and such have a hard time?

This may not just be patterns like on IQ tests and such. When I look at something, eg (and this is what brought this latter part to mind) a sink, I don't just see what it's physically possible to see (the counter, the faucet, etc), but the other elements that, from what I know of sinks and have experienced of them, but I see (mentally, and very much in a perceptive way rather than a judgmentive one) the pipes, the connections of the pipes, etc.. This even applies to elements that I have no idea what their purpose is, or the details of their workings (eg, imagine a circuit board - you may have no idea what all those parts are, or the meanings and purposes of those paths, but you can still imagine them, no?).

2. ## Re: Ni and time

Originally Posted by dreikin
Whenever I see an Ni description, I always see large parts of the definition set in terms of time - indeed, it's called the intuition OF time. However, perhaps it is the intuition of PATTERNS?
I like that suggestion. It might be really good and true. It makes sense, and it is easier for me to identify with than that talk about time.

3. Better really not use IQ tests for examples, me thinks.

4. Originally Posted by FDG
Better really not use IQ tests for examples, me thinks.
Perhaps - that was mostly from my memory of one I was given when I was in approx. 1st-3rd grade to see if I should be put into the gifted classes/track (I wasn't - by 3 points ) and part of this was something like this, where you had to find the symbol that fits. Come to think of it, the way these are designed is to present an unfamiliar situation (eliminating much of the basis for intuition by removing historic context/information/experience which I think might be essential to good intuiting) and force the use of a judging function. For the moment I think I'll leave the example, but if I come up with a better situation (or one of you does), I'll change it to that.

The validity of IQ tests is questionable and another matter entirely.

5. I agree with "intuition of patterns", but I want to point out that these patterns are usually not visual. Somehow a copy machine and a printer have more in common than copy machine and scanner. (copy machine kinda looks like a scanner, but scanner doesn't put ink on A4 paper).

And I usually can't pinpoint why one thing reminds me of something else. When solving a problem, I will suddenly remember, "oh wow, it's just like that situation and that would mean that the solution is ...". And when I tell someone the solution, I should never tell them how I reached the solution. I have to describe the pros and cons of my solution in stead.

The main thing is that the "flashes" usually don't feel like flashes. They are just normal direction of the thoughts and they seem totally logical. Similar to dreaming because in your dreams the weirdest things can seem perfectly logical. You don't realize until later that raining has nothing to do with drinking tea. Or at least it seems impossible to reach a conclusion to one situation using information from totally different thing. The real and strong flashes of problem-solving Ni insight are more rare.

6. I don't think is about pattern recognition at all. I think it has much more to do with .

When I use , it's more along the lines of being able to predict how things will unfold over time...

- If I do this, then this and this are likely to happen.
- If I do that, then that and that will happen.
- If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.
- Oh shit that's not good, so don't do it that way.

When you're talking about a test like that with pattern recognition with objects that have physical shapes and sizes and a location perhaps, I think that's solidly in the domain.

7. Originally Posted by stevENTj
I don't think is about pattern recognition at all. I think it has much more to do with .

When I use , it's more along the lines of being able to predict how things will unfold over time...

- If I do this, then this and this are likely to happen.
- If I do that, then that and that will happen.
- If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.
- Oh shit that's not good, so don't do it that way.

When you're talking about a test like that with pattern recognition with objects that have physical shapes and sizes and a location perhaps, I think that's solidly in the domain.
Yeah, this one is spot on, I think. I can't really do the Ni things listed, especially:

If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.

Instead, I always get almost perfect scores in the tests like dreikin's one

8. I think we're redefining the functions a bit, maybe beyond recognition.

I don't see anything in Socionics that describes as related to pattern recognition in IQ tests. I think that's a bit far out.

As to going through the project-planning possibilities "if I do this, this will happen, if I do that, that will happen," that's not a function either. It's an activity you do; it appears to make use of a few different functions...a lot of to structure the possibilities, and possibly some to imagine what each possibility would be like. But it doesn't follow that this activity you do for advance planning is equivalent to .

9. Originally Posted by Jonathan
As to going through the project-planning possibilities "if I do this, this will happen, if I do that, that will happen," that's not a function either. It's an activity you do; it appears to make use of a few different functions...a lot of to structure the possibilities, and possibly some to imagine what each possibility would be like. But it doesn't follow that this activity you do for advance planning is equivalent to .
It's a function of perception. Perceiving something. If you have a plan and you perceive the different possible outcomes of that plan over time then that's If you don't like what you see, you can use say to restructure to a better perceived outcome.

That's more INTp-ish though.

As an ENTj, maybe you have a group or resources, a system, or a product of some sort represented by . You then creatively perceive what you can do with that over time to get a favorable outcome. Say positive return on investment, generic "success", or whatever. You are manipulating your Te over time with Ni to get what you're after. An INTp sorta does the opposite and manipulates their perceived procession of events over time (Ni) with Te to get a more favorable procession of events.

An ENTj manipulates their Te creatively with Ni over time.
An INTp manipulates their time/event Ni structure creatively with Te.

10. I assumed when I read that about patterns that it meant patterns of events - like what events usually follow what events. Like the old "history repeats itself" axiom. They recognize what events are likely to follow a certain event.

11. I think everyone has the same mental canvas, with the same number of dimensions to work with, the difference is what dimension is assigned to what. you can give up one from space to get one from time.

12. I think the best way to think of Ni is "Intuition of Development."

13. We must ask ourselves... are we interested in the functions hardware or software, cause theres a big difference in desciption of it then. hardware woud describe the dimensions and mechanics, while software will describe what it feels like and does for you and society in human terms.

14. "Intuition of patterns" is more at - which is also known in the world of Socionics as "intuition of potentialities."

The functions merely form the grammar of the psyche - how we put put together and interpret the world around us. They do not portend accuracy or knack, but are merely an accustomed way of dealing with information.

My conception of is "intuition of time on my own terms." This is the ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE of a perception of physical time, which is what often confuses people (and which is actually closer to ). The unit of time for -dominants is best summed up as "moments" - life is made up of moments, and ongoing states of awareness and being, rather than seconds and minutes and hours. And these moments are not set values - a moment can last for days, perhaps years, or less than a second. Furthermore, you can live in multiple moments at the same time on different levels of awareness and preoccupation. He lives on his own pockets of time. Because of this, the physical passing of time is a non-issue for -dominants.

15. Also, by the looks of it, there's a lot of confusing for in this thread...

16. Originally Posted by Baby
The functions merely form the grammar of the psyche - how we put put together and interpret the world around us. They do not portend accuracy or knack, but are merely an accustomed way of dealing with information.
This is exactly how I tend to understand/view socionics.

My conception of is "intuition of time on my own terms." This is the ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE of a perception of physical time, which is what often confuses people (and which is actually closer to ). The unit of time for -dominants is best summed up as "moments" - life is made up of moments, and ongoing states of awareness and being, rather than seconds and minutes and hours. And these moments are not set values - a moment can last for days, perhaps years, or less than a second. Furthermore, you can live in multiple moments at the same time on different levels of awareness and preoccupation. He lives on his own pockets of time. Because of this, the physical passing of time is a non-issue for -dominants.
This description of Ni is palpable to me. Almost makes me want to weep! As a matter of fact, I might just put some of it in my sig. I must give representation to that which resonates within me. This Ni description must shine! hee hee

17. It seems that has been the hardest function for people (including myself) to understand (outside of Ni types) and explain on this forum. I wonder why that is?

18. You know, I just can't help but notice the parallels of how is describes in several segments here and descriptions in my "how I view reality" thread.

Originally Posted by dreikin
Notice in the last two parts how the recognition of the pattern is a perception, and unlike S, it has no (immediately) identifiable source, so it's an intuition. Further, unlike the Ne part of coming up with possibilities, it doesn't need to be checked (other than just a very quick verification, but..) – you know that's what it is
"you know that's what it is" - or in other words you've seen it, you've seen the answer, even if you, for some strange reason, like for instance somebody asking you a question at that very moment, forget the answer, lose your train of thought, that sense of "I've seen it" is still there.

Here it is explained through my methaphore of shapes. As I've stated shapes can be anything. There also exist mathematical-logical shapes.
They exist in a special form, they exist in a "web" of cause and consequence in a "forest" of logic: They are the intersection in the web.
Anyway, navigating in this web is complicated. Each point has a fixed number of paths to other points. You can travel to each point while in Ni mode, imagine that you are floating in space and there is this giant 3D web around you. But the purpose of the exercise is to discover connection in the web. So you try to do that.
A mathematical (logical) problem is when you are given two point in this web and you try to connect them. So you float around, look to which points a point is connected, can that path take you there, you look closely, what about that one, nope, there's got to be a way here somewhere *scratch head* and then it happens. In the corner of your eye, you though you saw a path that connects them, turn, look and there it is, *the path* that connects the two dots. In that very instant the path lights up, as if it is burning as you are traveling on it and a new shape is formed with a beginning in one point and and ending in another, "a flash of insight"

This may not just be patterns like on IQ tests and such. When I look at something, eg (and this is what brought this latter part to mind) a sink, I don't just see what it's physically possible to see (the counter, the faucet, etc), but the other elements that, from what I know of sinks and have experienced of them, but I see (mentally, and very much in a perceptive way rather than a judgmentive one) the pipes, the connections of the pipes, etc.. This even applies to elements that I have no idea what their purpose is, or the details of their workings (eg, imagine a circuit board - you may have no idea what all those parts are, or the meanings and purposes of those paths, but you can still imagine them, no?).
[...]By observing this entity I am observing the phenomenon [...] I will look at it and realize that for instance only that and that part of it is currently displayed. I can see those parts that are not on display[...]

Originally Posted by stevENTj
- If I do this, then this and this are likely to happen.
- If I do that, then that and that will happen.
- If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.
[...]These phenomenons change over time, they are dynamic. Some more then others. Some are totally static. They are also dependent on their interaction with other shapes. Just like real matter we observe, they can collide, fuse and so on[...]

Originally Posted by Baby
The unit of time for -dominants is best summed up as "moments" - life is made up of moments, and ongoing states of awareness and being, rather than seconds and minutes and hours. And these moments are not set values - a moment can last for days, perhaps years, or less than a second. Furthermore, you can live in multiple moments at the same time on different levels of awareness and preoccupation. He lives on his own pockets of time. Because of this, the physical passing of time is a non-issue for -dominants.
That would be more states of being then moments. States of being would have a time frame and it could be used as a reference point (Moment) but without this additional context (Moment of what?) it is void.
And also that would be completely normal.
Or perhaps I am mistaken.

19. Either I'm completely off-base and misinterpreting people here, or a lot of what is being described here is . Let's go back to Jung:

Originally Posted by Jung
Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are [p. 508] represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates.
If you are tracing patterns between object and object, that is extroverted intuition. If you look at the world around you, and are forced to determine to what extent that world reflects your own archetypal associations - "visions" - (subject to object), that is introverted intuition. These associations or "visions", according to Jung, exist before one is actually conscious of them.

As per states of being v. moments, and "moments of what..." - that is exactly it. Not time itself, but an intuitive understanding of sequence. A sequence of thoughts, feelings, shapes, even, but really working from inside out as opposed to object to object.

20. i'm having a hell of a time seeing maca as anything but some and type. she sounds like slava.

intuition of time is intuition of time. i'll add that i agree with gilligan, that "intuition of development" also sounds good.

21. Originally Posted by implied
i'm having a hell of a time seeing maca as anything but some and type. she sounds like slava.
Wait... sneg's a she? I've been saying "he" all this time. Shit..

22. i thought so. i could be doing that thing where i think the avatar is some representation of the person behind the screenname, though.

otherwise, i'll back stevENTj's sentiment -

When I use , it's more along the lines of being able to predict how things will unfold over time...

- If I do this, then this and this are likely to happen.
- If I do that, then that and that will happen.
- If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.
- Oh shit that's not good, so don't do it that way.
it's really no more difficult than that, IMO.

23. Originally Posted by Dynamicism
Originally Posted by implied
When I use , it's more along the lines of being able to predict how things will unfold over time...

- If I do this, then this and this are likely to happen.
- If I do that, then that and that will happen.
- If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.
- Oh shit that's not good, so don't do it that way.
it's really no more difficult than that, IMO.
That's stupid. Every intelligent human being does this!

wouldn't you hope? if that were the case, the darwin awards wouldn't exist.

24. Originally Posted by stevENTj
Originally Posted by Jonathan
As to going through the project-planning possibilities "if I do this, this will happen, if I do that, that will happen," that's not a function either. It's an activity you do; it appears to make use of a few different functions...a lot of to structure the possibilities, and possibly some to imagine what each possibility would be like. But it doesn't follow that this activity you do for advance planning is equivalent to .
It's a function of perception. Perceiving something. If you have a plan and you perceive the different possible outcomes of that plan over time then that's If you don't like what you see, you can use say to restructure to a better perceived outcome.

That's more INTp-ish though.

As an ENTj, maybe you have a group or resources, a system, or a product of some sort represented by . You then creatively perceive what you can do with that over time to get a favorable outcome. Say positive return on investment, generic "success", or whatever. You are manipulating your Te over time with Ni to get what you're after. An INTp sorta does the opposite and manipulates their perceived procession of events over time (Ni) with Te to get a more favorable procession of events.

An ENTj manipulates their Te creatively with Ni over time.
An INTp manipulates their time/event Ni structure creatively with Te.
Just to clarify...I wasn't saying that you weren't using in that example. I was contesting the idea that the activity of doing a worst-case-scenario analysis or planning by considering possible outcomes is equivalent to .

It seems to me that many people use without ever doing the sort of planning activity you're talking about. However, it's entirely possible that helps you do that.

25. Originally Posted by Kristiina
I agree with "intuition of patterns", but I want to point out that these patterns are usually not visual. Somehow a copy machine and a printer have more in common than copy machine and scanner. (copy machine kinda looks like a scanner, but scanner doesn't put ink on A4 paper).

And I usually can't pinpoint why one thing reminds me of something else. When solving a problem, I will suddenly remember, "oh wow, it's just like that situation and that would mean that the solution is ...". And when I tell someone the solution, I should never tell them how I reached the solution. I have to describe the pros and cons of my solution in stead.

The main thing is that the "flashes" usually don't feel like flashes. They are just normal direction of the thoughts and they seem totally logical. Similar to dreaming because in your dreams the weirdest things can seem perfectly logical. You don't realize until later that raining has nothing to do with drinking tea. Or at least it seems impossible to reach a conclusion to one situation using information from totally different thing. The real and strong flashes of problem-solving Ni insight are more rare.
Indeed, if they were solely or even usually visual, it would probably have to be called objective rather than subjective, and thus not Ni. Jung at one point (as I recall) said that intuition would often be described as a sixth sense or a feeling (not emotional).

I think that the flash of insight might be more likely to happen if you're engaging a rational function to do something, and the Ni suddenly interupts to say “here it is..”.

Originally Posted by StevENTj
I don't think is about pattern recognition at all. I think it has much more to do with .

When I use , it's more along the lines of being able to predict how things will unfold over time...

- If I do this, then this and this are likely to happen.
- If I do that, then that and that will happen.
- If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.
- Oh shit that's not good, so don't do it that way.

When you're talking about a test like that with pattern recognition with objects that have physical shapes and sizes and a location perhaps, I think that's solidly in the domain.
I agree with that list, and in many ways it's much more what I meant on the IQ test part (which by this time I will say is a definitely bad example). However, none of these are intrinsically connected to time so much as sequence. I agree that “pattern recognition with objects that have physical shapes and size and location” has a lot to do with Se (and when I tried a few while looking for the linked image, I also found myself using a lot of Te to solve it – more than would be necessary if it were so much a part of Ni).

Originally Posted by FDG
Yeah, this one is spot on, I think. I can't really do the Ni things listed, especially:

If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.

Instead, I always get almost perfect scores in the tests like dreikin's one
Score one more for that list...
Originally Posted by Jonathan
I think we're redefining the functions a bit, maybe beyond recognition.

I don't see anything in Socionics that describes as related to pattern recognition in IQ tests. I think that's a bit far out.

As to going through the project-planning possibilities "if I do this, this will happen, if I do that, that will happen," that's not a function either. It's an activity you do; it appears to make use of a few different functions...a lot of to structure the possibilities, and possibly some to imagine what each possibility would be like. But it doesn't follow that this activity you do for advance planning is equivalent to .
Of course – functions rarely exist in a vacuum. However, you'll notice this is what I described above, in a manner: The Ni perception of some sequence of events is handed off to a rational function for evaluation.

Originally Posted by StevENTj
It's a function of perception. Perceiving something. If you have a plan and you perceive the different possible outcomes of that plan over time then that's If you don't like what you see, you can use say to restructure to a better perceived outcome.

That's more INTp-ish though.

As an ENTj, maybe you have a group or resources, a system, or a product of some sort represented by . You then creatively perceive what you can do with that over time to get a favorable outcome. Say positive return on investment, generic "success", or whatever. You are manipulating your Te over time with Ni to get what you're after. An INTp sorta does the opposite and manipulates their perceived procession of events over time (Ni) with Te to get a more favorable procession of events.

An ENTj manipulates their Te creatively with Ni over time.
An INTp manipulates their time/event Ni structure creatively with Te.
Hmm, I believe you may be very useful to this thread to throw things into a Ni-producing perspective (since I'm pretty sure that whether I'm aware of it or not, I'll be speaking mostly from an Ni-accepting perspective).

Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
I assumed when I read that about patterns that it meant patterns of events - like what events usually follow what events. Like the old "history repeats itself" axiom. They recognize what events are likely to follow a certain event.
Yes, that's a large part of what I meant...
Originally Posted by gilligan87
I think the best way to think of Ni is "Intuition of Development."
...and I should note that I used “pattern” as a way of getting rid of the inherent time dependancy in title, but I think “development” fits much better.
Originally Posted by Baby
"Intuition of patterns" is more at - which is also known in the world of Socionics as "intuition of potentialities."

The functions merely form the grammar of the psyche - how we put put together and interpret the world around us. They do not portend accuracy or knack, but are merely an accustomed way of dealing with information.

My conception of is "intuition of time on my own terms." This is the ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE of a perception of physical time, which is what often confuses people (and which is actually closer to ). The unit of time for -dominants is best summed up as "moments" - life is made up of moments, and ongoing states of awareness and being, rather than seconds and minutes and hours. And these moments are not set values - a moment can last for days, perhaps years, or less than a second. Furthermore, you can live in multiple moments at the same time on different levels of awareness and preoccupation. He lives on his own pockets of time. Because of this, the physical passing of time is a non-issue for -dominants.

Also, by the looks of it, there's a lot of confusing for in this thread...
By now, I think intuition of patterns is too broad a term to put as a function – we've already shown physical/spatial patterns may be Se, and developmental patterns is probably Ni.

“ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE” of a perception of physical time” - ie, subjective rather than objective, which is what an Xi should be. I like your way of putting that, but again, while this SUBJECTIVE inuition of time undoubtedly is very much a part of Ni, it would seem that Ni does not exclusively deal with this subjective time (ie, intuition of subjective time is a subset of Ni, but Ni =/= intuition of subjective time).
Originally Posted by maizemedley
Originally Posted by Baby
The functions merely form the grammar of the psyche - how we put put together and interpret the world around us. They do not portend accuracy or knack, but are merely an accustomed way of dealing with information.
This is exactly how I tend to understand/view socionics.
My conception of is "intuition of time on my own terms." This is the ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE of a perception of physical time, which is what often confuses people (and which is actually closer to ). The unit of time for -dominants is best summed up as "moments" - life is made up of moments, and ongoing states of awareness and being, rather than seconds and minutes and hours. And these moments are not set values - a moment can last for days, perhaps years, or less than a second. Furthermore, you can live in multiple moments at the same time on different levels of awareness and preoccupation. He lives on his own pockets of time. Because of this, the physical passing of time is a non-issue for -dominants.

This description of Ni is palpable to me. Almost makes me want to weep! As a matter of fact, I might just put some of it in my sig. I must give representation to that which resonates within me. This Ni description must shine! hee hee
So, StevENTj's plus Baby's descriptions to keep in mind..
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
You know, I just can't help but notice the parallels of how is describes in several segments here and descriptions in my "how I view reality" thread.
Originally Posted by dreikin
Notice in the last two parts how the recognition of the pattern is a perception, and unlike S, it has no (immediately) identifiable source, so it's an intuition. Further, unlike the Ne part of coming up with possibilities, it doesn't need to be checked (other than just a very quick verification, but..) – you know that's what it is

"you know that's what it is" - or in other words you've seen it, you've seen the answer, even if you, for some strange reason, like for instance somebody asking you a question at that very moment, forget the answer, lose your train of thought, that sense of "I've seen it" is still there.

Here it is explained through my methaphore of shapes. As I've stated shapes can be anything. There also exist mathematical-logical shapes.
They exist in a special form, they exist in a "web" of cause and consequence in a "forest" of logic: They are the intersection in the web.
Anyway, navigating in this web is complicated. Each point has a fixed number of paths to other points. You can travel to each point while in Ni mode, imagine that you are floating in space and there is this giant 3D web around you. But the purpose of the exercise is to discover connection in the web. So you try to do that.
A mathematical (logical) problem is when you are given two point in this web and you try to connect them. So you float around, look to which points a point is connected, can that path take you there, you look closely, what about that one, nope, there's got to be a way here somewhere *scratch head* and then it happens. In the corner of your eye, you though you saw a path that connects them, turn, look and there it is, *the path* that connects the two dots. In that very instant the path lights up, as if it is burning as you are traveling on it and a new shape is formed with a beginning in one point and and ending in another, "a flash of insight"
Very much what I meant in the wonderful visuals of snegledmaca. Since I first wrote this topic, I've been thinking that “intuition of connections” might be (part of) Ni, but so far it has seemed like that might be too broad (eg, relations [connections] between people). However, if we look at the posts here, you may observe that pretty much everything here is put in one form of connection or another. Here, we perceive the connection or sequence of connection between to points. “Intuition of development” would have to deal with the connections as something progresses – how this connects to this, then connects to this. Etc.. The first thing to notice is that these are subjective connections – as befits an Xi function – that they are perceptions – and thus irrational – and that they are mentally perceived – thus intuitions (come to think of it, there could be a wee bit of accepting bias to this. Comments, StevENTj?).

Originally Posted by snegledmaca
This may not just be patterns like on IQ tests and such. When I look at something, eg (and this is what brought this latter part to mind) a sink, I don't just see what it's physically possible to see (the counter, the faucet, etc), but the other elements that, from what I know of sinks and have experienced of them, but I see (mentally, and very much in a perceptive way rather than a judgmentive one) the pipes, the connections of the pipes, etc.. This even applies to elements that I have no idea what their purpose is, or the details of their workings (eg, imagine a circuit board - you may have no idea what all those parts are, or the meanings and purposes of those paths, but you can still imagine them, no?).

[...]By observing this entity I am observing the phenomenon [...] I will look at it and realize that for instance only that and that part of it is currently displayed. I can see those parts that are not on display[...]
Again, well put.
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by stevENTj
- If I do this, then this and this are likely to happen.
- If I do that, then that and that will happen.
- If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.

[...]These phenomenons change over time, they are dynamic. Some more then others. Some are totally static. They are also dependent on their interaction with other shapes. Just like real matter we observe, they can collide, fuse and so on[...]
Originally Posted by Baby
The unit of time for -dominants is best summed up as "moments" - life is made up of moments, and ongoing states of awareness and being, rather than seconds and minutes and hours. And these moments are not set values - a moment can last for days, perhaps years, or less than a second. Furthermore, you can live in multiple moments at the same time on different levels of awareness and preoccupation. He lives on his own pockets of time. Because of this, the physical passing of time is a non-issue for -dominants.

That would be more states of being then moments. States of being would have a time frame and it could be used as a reference point (Moment) but without this additional context (Moment of what?) it is void.
And also that would be completely normal.
Or perhaps I am mistaken.
Would you mind elaborating on these last two parts? I'm not sure that I understand your meaning correctly.
Originally Posted by Baby
Either I'm completely off-base and misinterpreting people here, or a lot of what is being described here is . Let's go back to Jung:
Originally Posted by Jung
Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are [p. 508] represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet. Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates.

If you are tracing patterns between object and object, that is extroverted intuition. If you look at the world around you, and are forced to determine to what extent that world reflects your own archetypal associations - "visions" - (subject to object), that is introverted intuition. These associations or "visions", according to Jung, exist before one is actually conscious of them.

As per states of being v. moments, and "moments of what..." - that is exactly it. Not time itself, but an intuitive understanding of sequence. A sequence of thoughts, feelings, shapes, even, but really working from inside out as opposed to object to object.
Until I learn more about Jung's theory of archetypes, I'm going to be wary of using them for descriptive purposes of functions. I do agree that the intuitions tend to exist before becoming conscious that they exist, and have even seen scientific support of this, however.

..And here we come again to Ni not necessarily having to do with time, and being sequential.
Originally Posted by Dynamicism
needs to be called "fluid intuition." "Intution of time" is only a subset of what does.

Everyone read what snegledmaca wrote and thoroughly digest it if you ever want to have an idea of what is like.

Also, the functions become much clearer when you look at them in terms of information elements, so I strongly reccommend doing this.
“Fluid intution” - I like this one as well, and it fits well with the other definitions come up with here, as well.
---------------------------------------
So, What we have thus far (as I see it):

Ni is the subjective mental perception of sequences. A fluid intuition, easily aware of how a sequence may develop.

Time is not an essential element of the sequence - however, it is a variable that in practice is so often present as to make it an essential element of Ni. But this is a subjective sense of time: not the ticking of the clock, but a sense of "when" more in the form of beats - a person with strong Ni may not be able to tell you how many seconds, minutes or hours something may take, but they can still indicate when it will most likely happen, before it does (eg, tapping their hand as they wait for person to walk to them, 'knowing' that the person is going to start talking to them about when they hit the fifth tap). It is also a sense of order - this before this, but after that - and connection - this to that to those.
-----------------------------------------
As a note, I've been thinking that Ni might be more along the lines of lineal intuition, and Ne more parallel intuition. I also think it might be possible that the other Xi/Xe splits might exhibit a similar dichotomy. One might see Ne as being most able to perceive an exploded diagram of a car engine mentally, while Ne would be most able to perceive the flow of it's workings.

26. That is by FAR the longest post I have ever seen here. Gratz, nigga.

27. nah, I think transigent gets that honor.

28. Originally Posted by Baby
If you are tracing patterns between object and object, that is extroverted intuition. If you look at the world around you, and are forced to determine to what extent that world reflects your own archetypal associations - "visions" - (subject to object), that is introverted intuition. These associations or "visions", according to Jung, exist before one is actually conscious of them.
But what if you are tracing patterns between object and object in accordance to your internal vision? That way the entire process of tracing patterns between objects is a subject to object process (Or projecting in other words).

Originally Posted by implied
i'm having a hell of a time seeing maca as anything but some and type. she sounds like slava.
Does slava have a preconceived image that he presents and tries to make reality match it instead of making his understanding match reality? Cause if he does then he is .

And that's a he.

intuition of time is intuition of time. i'll add that i agree with gilligan, that "intuition of development" also sounds good.
Intuition of development equally covers and as we all have individual methods of dealing with things and thus developing. Perhaps if you narrow it down to what kind of development or methods or something.

Originally Posted by Baby
Wait... sneg's a she? I've been saying "he" all this time. Shit..
No, I'm a he.

Originally Posted by Dynamicism
Originally Posted by implied
wouldn't you hope? if that were the case, the darwin awards wouldn't exist.
True, hence why I added the adjective 'intelligent'. Nevertheless, planning ahead, predicting consequences of one's actions, and adjusting said planning to accommodate for those consequences, is pretty much essential to being human and is not necessarily directly the domain of or any one function at all.
I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by dreikin
Very much what I meant in the wonderful visuals of snegledmaca. Since I first wrote this topic, I've been thinking that “intuition of connections” might be (part of) Ni, but so far it has seemed like that might be too broad (eg, relations [connections] between people). However, if we look at the posts here, you may observe that pretty much everything here is put in one form of connection or another. Here, we perceive the connection or sequence of connection between to points. “Intuition of development” would have to deal with the connections as something progresses – how this connects to this, then connects to this. Etc.. The first thing to notice is that these are subjective connections – as befits an Xi function – that they are perceptions – and thus irrational – and that they are mentally perceived – thus intuitions (come to think of it, there could be a wee bit of accepting bias to this. Comments, StevENTj?).
Actually this

“Intuition of development” would have to deal with the connections as something progresses – how this connects to this, then connects to this

is not Ni. It's more like this:

“Intuition of development” (As ) would deal with the connections as something progresses by making it connect to this, then making it connect to that and in the end fulfilling a vision of how it should look like.

In my example even though Ni is a passive observer it still manages to fulfill a preconceived image of how things should be.
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
Originally Posted by stevENTj
- If I do this, then this and this are likely to happen.
- If I do that, then that and that will happen.
- If I do it like this, then things are likely to unfold this way.

[...]These phenomenons change over time, they are dynamic. Some more then others. Some are totally static. They are also dependent on their interaction with other shapes. Just like real matter we observe, they can collide, fuse and so on[...]
Originally Posted by Baby
The unit of time for -dominants is best summed up as "moments" - life is made up of moments, and ongoing states of awareness and being, rather than seconds and minutes and hours. And these moments are not set values - a moment can last for days, perhaps years, or less than a second. Furthermore, you can live in multiple moments at the same time on different levels of awareness and preoccupation. He lives on his own pockets of time. Because of this, the physical passing of time is a non-issue for -dominants.

That would be more states of being then moments. States of being would have a time frame and it could be used as a reference point (Moment) but without this additional context (Moment of what?) it is void.
And also that would be completely normal.
Or perhaps I am mistaken.
Would you mind elaborating on these last two parts? I'm not sure that I understand your meaning correctly.
With steve I paralleled that just as much if I take a hammer and hit a rock it will break into shrapnel that could poke your eye out so by taking an image and smashing it into another (If I go to the party but she hates me) the same thing happens.
Also just as much as I can take a hammer as see how to properly bust a rock so that no shrapnel can harm anyone I can do the same in my head with scenarios.
An example would be when somebody says "I'm going to go there" then suddenly I perk up, my ears perk up, I get that glare in my eyes "No you can't go" I can see that shrapnel hitting everyone. But the thing is that it's not liner, I don't have to rerun scenarios in my head. The entire event is one entity. If the hammer smashing was shot with a camera I would be able to view every frame at the same time. That's the way I perceive it. I try to remedy the situation and as I change one insignificant detail the entire event changes and I can see it instantly changing precisely of the fact that I can see every frame at the same time. This way I can manipulate events. To quote:

[...]These shapes are independent of space and time. They can simultaneously be in several phenomenons and can simultaneously exist in different states. You can observe them in the past, in the future, in the present, as a part of something, independent, they exist in every state conceivable and any moment conceivable[...]

With baby, pure time references are useless if they have no filling, if nothing is happening in those time intervals.
And also that each and every one of us is experiencing something whose time reference is individualized, subjective ("I have plenty of time to turn the papers in" for example).

Originally Posted by dreikin
nah, I think transigent gets that honor.
I was just about to mention that .

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•