Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
In other words, Ni dom explores for its own sake, Ni creative has a more targeted "vision" they seek to implement, Ni activating is steadily running in the background coming out to play as the situation demands, Ni suggestive gives structure to what would otherwise be a mess...
I don't relate to this definition of Ni activating, or I don't consciously see Ni running in the background all the time, nah. For me it can come up with some conclusions in "flashes" at times in situations, yep, but this can't be done on demand, the process is not enough under conscious control for that. My relation to it is a more tenuous kind of control, I can stop and instead try and focus in a contemplative mode and hope it will work and it actually works better to get some conclusions on data in front of me than I think it would, due to not feeling much control over directing the process. So yeah, it's tenuous on the whole, I don't often try and do this. My relationship to Si for example is a much more reliable kind of control even though that one is also not very conscious. I relate to the Ni suggestive one if your description is taken literally but suggestive doesn't really do this much on its own.


Ni role is just trying to make sense of the world in a way that stays true to "norms" in other words, its not particularly self serving. It has this aspect of being "the voice of the past" (or traditions). In other words Ni role has its own unique structure that can be more or less advanced and what you're seeing here is just a sophisticated expression of Ni role. The misconception is that any sophisticated expression of Ni must be Ni dom or Ni aux, but the reality, as I see it is, Ni in any position can have a sophisticated expression--rather the position informs the overall structure of how that Ni functions from within the organism. And when Ni role turns in on itself in a complex way you get people like Jung and Peterson.
Jung was no SLI. His Ne is way too strong for that.

Anyway. You should define some things more, for example, what you mean by the structure being advanced or not advanced, or your post here isn't going to make much sense.


It may seem that this right here is a wacky theory, but from my point of view its actually in line with very traditional views of human wisdom...
Maybe in line with whatever you read up on in terms of matching some ideas, and you do sound like you read up on a lot, but it isn't adding up for me due to you mixing random bits way too freely.

Actually, I'm going to stop commenting on most of the post, it's pointless for that reason, with you adding MBTI and/or Jung into Socionics. Not a good idea to mix different systems together that are not fully compatible and then deducing conclusions from that.


Just two more comments:

one way to think about Si dom and Ni role is to think how there's an inherent conservatism to it that stays grounded in personal experience and any Ni elocutions are going to reflect that. Whereas Ni egos differ in character, they run ahead in a way that's hard to wrap ones mind around if you're not paying attention but they are iconoclastic and reacting to something (in the case of beta) whereas Si is trying to vindicate the past and is reactive in the sense its trying to stay true to something. So even though Sam Harris' philosophy can be kind of trite, it is radically progressive in the sense that it is not grounded in respect for the past the way say Jung's analytic psychology is. Ni has this ability to detach completely, whereas Si is grounded in a phenomenological and historical experience. Its the difference between banal progress and highly creative traditional approach
Socionics Si is physically grounded, not in "phenomenological and historical experience". This isn't MBTI or Jung, again. Here Sensing information is consistently defined as the directly sensed aspect, Si included.


there's also a presupposition that higher dimensionality Ni is "right" and that "role" Ni could never be better, but that's like saying Kobe Bryant could never beat a SEE at basketball. Nietzsche has this entire passage on how "useful mistakes" are the foundation for our concept of truth--the difference to me between role and ego Ni is that role is not trying to make new mistakes but master the old ones, whereas Ni egos function to provide new ones. in that case they're the ones most likely to be off-base; yet they are also the ones, in sufficient numbers, who occasionally make a useful mistake (this is their evolutionary role--their service to humanity). But if your goal is no mistakes (e1), that is role Ni
Mixing enneagram too into it now... Eh, so, there is no presupposition like that in dimensionality theory. That's completely not about that. It's about how information is processed, by just using normative patterns or by having flexibility on top of that. Specific skills can be learned well, yes, this will not be entirely determined by type precisely for this reason and for other reasons.