Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 209

Thread: A Simple Definition of Ni That Works

  1. #1
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default A Simple Definition of Ni That Works

    In the process of reading a lot of different definitions of Ni and finding them to be lacking, I decided to come up with my own definition that worked better than anything else I've found. It describes the style of communication I've seen in Ni types, and I think works well to see how they think without making Ni into some mysterious, mystical, or possibly even "superior" function.

    Without further introduction, Ni is most simply this: an awareness of the process underlying a string of mental associations.

    Ne, contrarily, is aware of the content of the mental associations themselves.

    Cat, bat, rat, frog, dog, fog, etc.

    That's an example of a chain of mental associations. Ne sees each one of those individually and recognizes them for what they are, their identities as things and concepts in themselves.

    Ni is a process-oriented function that observes such a chain of association as the one I listed above, and it understands why one association often leads to the next. Rather than focusing on associations, it focuses on the process of how people make associations. This awareness of how people make associations often results for many Ni-oriented writers in what's called a stream of consciousness style, the king of which was James Joyce. (Read Finnegan's Wake or Ulysses to understand Ni. Remember that it's Ni + Fe. Jose Saramago will give you the Ni + Te version.)

    Any definition that says that Ni predicts the future is wrong. Ni is not about predicting the future or about time. Time is just an analogy for the abstractness of Ni, because Ni is the most abstract function that exists. People who define Ni as an understanding of time or the passage thereof have gotten lost in the analogy. Each function has predictive ability depending on its dimensionality, but this predictive ability comes only from past experience and is dependent on that.

    The process I used to obtain this definition is generalizable. That is, all introverted functions are processes that operate on their respective extroverted counterparts, which are discrete things that have content of some kind. Fe is feeling, Fi the process of feeling itself. Te is about facts, Ti how we arrive at those facts, Se is about sensations and the most concrete aspects of thought (the signs that refer to the symbols), and Si is about the process of sensation itself and an awareness of how people sense things.

    So there you go folks. No more mystery.
    Last edited by Aramas; 11-21-2017 at 04:55 PM.

  2. #2
    meme hotline Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    ethic 3
    Posts
    9,083
    Mentioned
    716 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nice! I like what you've written.

    Ohhh. That's why intuitives love rhyming and chiming. Chu~

    to me is plain linearity. Just like is a web, for instance. So of course can only work with flowing active elements, and . I do say it predicts more easily than other elements given that it extrapolates and "aims" skillfully, and after all it is intuition i.e. conceptual and event-based. I call it the bow and arrow of the IMs. Pull back, then go forward. Or a broken record, that's also an image that came to mind.

    Joyce is horrible to read for me. I understand practically nothing I'd rather watch Dwayne Johnson running through a forest screaming: "ORANGES!!!" for no apparent reason.

    And uh! I'm envious! is more abstract than ? Scandal. I'm offended.


  3. #3
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    no offense but you've reduced out all the complexity of how an Ni ego experiences the world and then framed it in terms of solving the mystery. you "solved" it by declaring it not to exist.

    Ni is definitely related to time just like base functions have a time component to them. it has to do with how all things are in motion in time on a definite trajectory. Ni perceives this and tends to place bets on it. its not predicting the future because that mixes analogies and presumes them to have a deeper concept of casuation when its more like they have a deeper perception with the same general concepts of causation that everyone else has.

    no one knows the future, but some people are perceptive of more of the factors that go into it and can make more accurate gambles. this is precisely the basis for how NiTe egos can create technology and laws that capture the unknown, because they reach forward in time and account for events yet to occur--technology is a byproduct of imagining a solution that has yet to manifest in time and giving it a concrete form. "I didn't know I needed that, but now I can't live without it" its solving problems for future-you. NiFe does the same thing by progressing ethical feelings, its the basis for so-called "moral progress"... IEE doesn't progress in time so much as contextualize the problem away.. as we see here

  4. #4
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm reminded of my favorite Ni analogy given by an ILI here who said something like if you're a cashier and a customer comes to you with three objects and by putting them together you're able to discern what their plans with them are. That one really clicked with me.

  5. #5
    Stellafera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Southern USA
    TIM
    IEI-Fe
    Posts
    458
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    no offense but you've reduced out all the complexity of how an Ni ego experiences the world and then framed it in terms of solving the mystery. you "solved" it by declaring it not to exist.

    Ni is definitely related to time just like base functions have a time component to them. it has to do with how all things are in motion in time on a definite trajectory. Ni perceives this and tends to place bets on it. its not predicting the future because that mixes analogies and presumes them to have a deeper concept of casuation when its more like they have a deeper perception with the same general concepts of causation that everyone else has.

    no one knows the future, but some people are perceptive of more of the factors that go into it and can make more accurate gambles. this is precisely the basis for how NiTe egos can create technology and laws that capture the unknown, because they reach forward in time and account for events yet to occur--technology is a byproduct of imagining a solution that has yet to manifest in time and giving it a concrete form. "I didn't know I needed that, but now I can't live without it" its solving problems for future-you. NiFe does the same thing by progressing ethical feelings, its the basis for so-called "moral progress"... IEE doesn't progress in time so much as contextualize the problem away.. as we see here
    But that's OP's argument, no? Ni has a time sense because it has a very strong sense of extrapolation and recursion, causes and effects, behaviors and outcomes, etc. The process in between here and now.
    Phobic So/Sp 6w7 3w2 9w1
    Bit of a comic books nerd, bit of a fashion nerd, a lot of a generalized nerd

  6. #6
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yes but I don't think you realize that "time" captures it better not worse, so to do away with it and replace it with this paltry description actually harms people's understanding not improves it. if you can see events occuring across 5 dimensions x,y,z coordinates + T (4d) + the collective unconscious (5d), your understanding is enriched. this thread's way of understanding actually understates it. its the same problem all functions have when being written by people without a complete understanding of them. there's this idea that IEE wants to honor everyone's experience. this is not doing that. its reducing out the complexity of the functions on both the Ti and Ni planes, which is sort of antithetical to what socionics exists to do, which is to promote human understanding and extend oneself, not simply lower the bar. anyone can do that all on their own

    the bottom line is not that this isn't cognizable in someone's mind-- its that its inaccurate compared to other descriptions. IEE can imagine any context wherein whatever they say is perfect. in pointing out one possible interpretation that is valid you have not established that it is the one worth striving toward. inasmuch as it announces mission accomplished, it is wrong

    if it was "Ni may be conceptualized as time, but if you have a hard time with that think of it as... ...this is not the most robust definition but it may fill the void with something rather than nothing" that would be a more honest portrayal of the way in which it "works." maybe a line about how we could all stand to deepen our understanding and to continue trying to improve would be merited

    Ni is not about predicting the future or about time.
    is just straight up wrong and misleading, at least to the second part

    Ni has a time sense because it has a very strong sense of extrapolation and recursion, causes and effects, behaviors and outcomes, etc. The process in between here and now.
    its just stupid because the more you flesh it out the more you just define time while explicitly trying to exclude it. so its like you can continue to read into all the ways in which it doesn't fail with respect to time, until you've brought them together again. its like why bother. keep them separate, you lose something. bring them together, it was pure duplication of effort with nothing added

    we've got the Thinking-polr-ception going
    Last edited by Bertrand; 11-20-2017 at 10:24 PM.

  7. #7
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    4,396
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lump View Post
    I'm reminded of my favorite Ni analogy given by an ILI here who said something like if you're a cashier and a customer comes to you with three objects and by putting them together you're able to discern what their plans with them are. That one really clicked with me.
    that can also be ti

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  9. #9
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    that can also be ti
    Yeah the analogy is imperfect and can be taken out of context, like any analogy.

  10. #10
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    fuckin Ne, man

  11. #11
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    4,396
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lump View Post
    Yeah the analogy is imperfect and can be taken out of context, like any analogy.
    im not taking it out of context, just saying logic can do the same thing, ti is deductive logic, capable of deducing the most likely result from an action

  12. #12
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    im not taking it out of context, just saying logic can do the same thing, ti is deductive logic, capable of deducing the most likely result from an action
    Any human being can do the same thing. Fi could deduce implicit information from 3 things. Si could track the likely behavior of 3 things on an explicit path. But that's not what the analogy was for unless you take it out of context. Quit being a turdbucket.

  13. #13
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti models the underlying picture, so anything Ni has pictured Ti can eventually rubricize, except the actual Ni process itself, which is like the pipe dream of true AI

    so its true you could easily deduce whats going on with someone by learning all sorts of logical techniques of detectivery and so on, but the game of cops and robbers never really ends because the underlying picture continues to develop. Ti deserves a lot of respect though because it structures intuitions in a way that are definite and transmissible and thus applicable by people other than the individual who dreamed them

    there is a context shift involved tho, by going from what lungs was talking about which was specifically Ni in that example and Ti in the same example. perhaps it needed clarifying though because people who use Ti in such a situation may not be clued in to how that helps because they miss the Ni interpretation and default to their own preferred one, possibly missing lungs' point. I don't think 9 meant to shift so much as clarify

  14. #14
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    4,396
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lump View Post
    Any human being can do the same thing. Fi could deduce implicit information from 3 things. Si could track the likely behavior of 3 things on an explicit path. But that's not what the analogy was for unless you take it out of context. Quit being a turdbucket.
    yeah so maybe ur example was bad xd

  15. #15
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    yeah so maybe ur example was bad xd
    It was as good as any analogy rooted in simple concrete terms can be but it has to be viewed in context of how Ni can extrapolate into the future in order to work. Maybe you should come up with better content instead of spending all your time provoking quadra rivalries and shitting pettiness everywhere.

    It's also an analogy, not an "example"

  16. #16

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That was neither simple nor un-mysterious.

    Simple and un-mysterious definitions are clear and precise. Also, it's limiting rather than broad or vague, such as using words like "except..." "and not..." etc. to limit the terms and definitions. Un-mysterious explanations also explains its precise mechanisms. If it can be explained, then it becomes less mysterious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    no one knows the future, but some people are perceptive of more of the factors that go into it and can make more accurate gambles.
    That's called "intuition" in the cognitive sense of the word, brah. They're called heuristics, a probabilistic assessment of the most efficient way of arriving at a conclusion and making a decision. It can be described in ways of algorithms, and it can be mathematized. In fact, that's exactly what the AI programmers had done, because they needed to "program a brain", and they have found out that in order for a program to make a decision, it needed to be done in terms of probabilistic assessments. This gave hints to the psychologists and the cognitive scientists in how people think and how people come at making a decision, which is why there has been a renewed interest in these "heuristics" and how we arrive at making everyday decisions, in the last few decades.

    this is precisely the basis for how NiTe egos can create technology and laws that capture the unknown, because they reach forward in time and account for events yet to occur--technology is a byproduct of imagining a solution that has yet to manifest in time and giving it a concrete form.
    Obviously, but one does not simply "imagine" a future and lo! There magically appears technology. Technology is a mix of the result of creativity and deep understanding of nature. There could not have been technology without understanding of physics, which spawned many useful things like engineering and computer science.

    Quote Originally Posted by lump View Post
    I'm reminded of my favorite Ni analogy given by an ILI here who said something like if you're a cashier and a customer comes to you with three objects and by putting them together you're able to discern what their plans with them are. That one really clicked with me.
    I think that's more just a probabilistic assessment. There's a chance that there's some plan that goes along with, or there's another chance that those items are completely random and have no relations whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    wall of bullshit
    Here comes another one of Bertrand's "wall-of-bullshit"... with your convoluted sentence structure and a whole lot of nonsense. You write like Jacques Lacan, who is a well known intellectual charlatan.

    It's like WTF is this bullshit??:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    if you can see events occuring across 5 dimensions x,y,z coordinates + T (4d) + the collective unconscious (5d), your understanding is enriched.
    what does it even mean.

    inb4 "but u just don't understand the deepness of my thoughts!"
    Last edited by Singu; 11-20-2017 at 11:38 PM.

  17. #17
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    alright thanks Singu, always good to hear from you

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  19. #19
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    4,396
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lump View Post
    It was as good as any analogy rooted in simple concrete terms can be but it has to be viewed in context of how Ni can extrapolate into the future in order to work. Maybe you should come up with better content instead of spending all your time provoking quadra rivalries and shitting pettiness everywhere.
    dat fe

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Immediately my mind carried on with that list in opener to other things....

    When predicting, it’s just what’s likely. Never is anything set.
    However it is easy to reach the most likely outcome/s.
    Putting the ‘story’ together in the shortest timeframe. Speedily connecting the dots down to most likely.

    It’s like this, then this, then that...

    I constantly reevaluate, replay things in my mind, think things over.

    For example a real life event which occurred this past weekend which may be relevant to this thread:

    Husband and I showered in the early morn on a hot day. Went out for a couple of hours between 2 and 4 pm.
    At 8:30-9:00pm I entered the bathroom to view the floor still had much water on it, then looked at shower which was wet, went into shower and saw much water on the tiles and grate.
    So unless husband showered this evening/afternoon which I didn’t think so, someone has broken in and used it. Windows were shut tight, no one can enter front door due to extra security so only way in is through the backdoor where carpenter recently changed lock but asked workmate to change front door lock to be matching so both use the same key so therefore one of those two likely, as they had possible time on the day of work to cut a key and perhaps used the shower if something was not going well in life and they need access to one, versus neighbour scenario who is an apparent criminal but I don’t know what for yet, just that the neighbourhood talks scared like about him and he’s indirectly threatened our carpenter, myself and pets after a police raid on his property where we saw him emerge from hiding after.
    Why would he do this but to make a point.
    Those are the most likely options I say to husband as he looks at me dumbfounded and seems confused.

    Wet floor - shower- shower very wet - not I so husband or another - if another then how/window? - no - other windows? - no - door? - not front only rear is possible - key-who has? - carpenter - oh forgot, his assistant also - why? - must be in dire straights and need to clean? - unless door picked? - only person who might do that is neighbour as a scare tactic which seems to be his pattern - reminder to physically check for options - other options not likely though - 3 options only - check option 1 with husband first.

    All this and probably more takes place internally within 1-2 seconds.

    And then occurs reevaution, rethinking, and replaying scenario (it’s probably already started).
    Also ‘what next’ type thoughts occur.

    So Ni or Ti...


    *Left it in long sentences to assist in conveying the speed with which links occur.
    Last edited by Hays; 11-21-2017 at 01:05 AM.

  21. #21
    A fox who wants to play, that's me Playing With Fire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    Beta ST 3w4-8w7-7w8
    Posts
    494
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ego tries to "desmystify" ...by reducing it to a fraction of its existence. I wonder why basically every thread made in name of "simplifying" is made by a NOT Ego...kidding.

    And yes, that's precisely what I'm trying to figure out at the moment: or ?

  22. #22
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    4,396
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lump View Post
    It was as good as any analogy rooted in simple concrete terms can be but it has to be viewed in context of how Ni can extrapolate into the future in order to work. Maybe you should come up with better content instead of spending all your time provoking quadra rivalries and shitting pettiness everywhere.

    It's also an analogy, not an "example"
    it was an example get your facts straight, anyway dont get mad when ur spreading ambiguous information and people call u out on it dumbass

  23. #23
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    it was an example get your facts straight, anyway dont get mad when ur spreading ambiguous information and people call u out on it dumbass
    Its not an example just because you said it was. That's not how facts work.

    http://wikidiff.com/example/analogy

  24. #24
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    4,396
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lump View Post
    Its not an example just because you said it was. That's not how facts work.

    http://wikidiff.com/example/analogy
    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/example

  25. #25
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    Right, exactly.

    This was a good thread and I helped participate in turning it into more petty bullshit. Sorry ppl. Keep talking about Ni.

  26. #26
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    4,396
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lump View Post
    Right, exactly.

    This was a good thread and I helped participate in turning it into more petty bullshit. Sorry ppl. Keep talking about Ni.
    glad u agree

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,331
    Mentioned
    1265 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ni - imagination not directed on a seen object
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  28. #28
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I feel like talking about definitions just leads to giving dickholes the opportunity to argue about definitions. Is this Ni or Ti or Fi or Se or Ne or Te or Fe or Si or your mom or your dad or your brother or your dog or

  29. #29
    meme hotline Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    ethic 3
    Posts
    9,083
    Mentioned
    716 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    The definition of to me is embodied by Steve Aoki He even uses the triangle intuition symbol.






  30. #30
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,563
    Mentioned
    321 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dynamic kinectic perception removed from present consisting already absorbed connections. ?
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.

  31. #31
    A fox who wants to play, that's me Playing With Fire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    Beta ST 3w4-8w7-7w8
    Posts
    494
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    Dynamic kinectic perception removed from present consisting already absorbed connections. ?
    I think this is perfect.

  32. #32
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    no offense but you've reduced out all the complexity of how an Ni ego experiences the world and then framed it in terms of solving the mystery. you "solved" it by declaring it not to exist.

    Ni is definitely related to time just like base functions have a time component to them. it has to do with how all things are in motion in time on a definite trajectory. Ni perceives this and tends to place bets on it. its not predicting the future because that mixes analogies and presumes them to have a deeper concept of casuation when its more like they have a deeper perception with the same general concepts of causation that everyone else has.

    no one knows the future, but some people are perceptive of more of the factors that go into it and can make more accurate gambles. this is precisely the basis for how NiTe egos can create technology and laws that capture the unknown, because they reach forward in time and account for events yet to occur--technology is a byproduct of imagining a solution that has yet to manifest in time and giving it a concrete form. "I didn't know I needed that, but now I can't live without it" its solving problems for future-you. NiFe does the same thing by progressing ethical feelings, its the basis for so-called "moral progress"... IEE doesn't progress in time so much as contextualize the problem away.. as we see here
    On the contrary, I've just explained the foundation of how Ni works at its most basic level. Is it hard to understand how complexity could arise from simplicity? For example, we see lots of different things around us, but all these things are composed of these little objects called atoms. We don't think of nature as debased because of its composition based on atoms. Why should the experience of Ni dominant types be demeaned simply because we know how Ni actually works? Just because someone's experience of a certain psychological function (some people prefer the term "information element") is very complex, varied, and deep, doesn't mean that the psychological process at question cannot be at its foundation very simple. I would argue that, in order for there to be such variation, depth, and complexity, a simple foundation is almost required. So, I am not denying the existence of a deep experience to Ni or Ni dominant types, I am just explaining where that experience comes from. Oftentimes I think people miss out on the meaning of my posts because they don't take time to think about what I'm saying and try to follow all the possible implications of the statements I make. If they did that, they might see less to disagree on.

    Your second paragraph is a bit unclear. I still maintain that Ni as a function has nothing to do with time, the future, predicting the future, or making good gambles about it. I think that Ni can have predictive ability within its domain, just like all the other functions. But there is nothing particularly special about Ni that gives it a predictive capacity that isn't present in other functions. All functions have predictive capacity in their respective domains. This is apparent if you look at the dimensional model of functions (e.g. 4D Ne, 4D Ti, etc. 4D is always the "time" dimension).

    I think people interpret Ni as having future-predictive capacity because some Ni types choose to look at societal-level associations that people are making, and often make predictions about how those social chains of association will lead people to certain beliefs and attitudes. These beliefs and attitudes might cause people to act in certain ways, thus making history, but it isn't the same as reading the future. It's more or less just reading the social chain of cognitive associations and seeing how that might develop with their dominant function. This assumes that people are the ones who make history, though, and it often ignores how nature influences history (no Si, perhaps?). But the other functions do this too in different ways. Rather than looking at social-level chains of association that exist in some collective mind, the other functions do similar tasks in different domains.

    One reason I decided to make this post, though, is that I got the feeling that, with some of the more abstruse definitions of Ni that have been waved around the forum, people were not making those definitions up to try to help other people understand how Ni actually worked. Instead, they were simply trying to make Ni out to be something special, unique, and beyond the other functions in its depth or complexity. Or, they were simply trying to make themselves feel more important so that they could repair their lack of self-confidence--which is okay sometimes, but not all the time. Ni is not special or better than any other function, nor is it any less than other functions. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

    I don't think that people made these terrible descriptions of Ni intentionally in all cases, though. Ni has been pretty tough to describe, I think, because people were relying on prior descriptions that also didn't really do a good job of explaining how Ni works. When you're working with garbage, you tend to get more garbage. Ni is indeed the most abstract of the functions, I believe, and even though this doesn't make it better, there's a tendency for people to think of it as hard to understand. The purpose of my definition is to make Ni more understandable to anyone who wants to learn Socionics.
    Last edited by Aramas; 11-21-2017 at 04:47 PM.

  33. #33
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    the world is made up of x, therefore i've explained everything about the world because "ive explained the foundation of how it works at its most basic level"

    no, you actually haven't explained anything. you've just reduced out all meaning, apparently, without realizing it

    can you actually make anything out of atoms? in the same way, you purport to solve the problem you haven't even begun to work. its like show me what you can do with your definition, its like saying knowing the world is made up of atoms means you can build a bridge specifically with that knowledge. the bottom line is you can define the world as made up anything and declare victory and move on, it needs to be judged in light of something more to make it worth adopting: that criterion is what it functions to do. you can imagine a context wherein that definition is extremely helpful, but it is just imaginary until you actually realize it. that's the problem with context shifting to meet a goal, its not real until you can put it to use, and your definition fails in its ability to be useful in the context of reality. to make it useful you have to posit a different reality and that's a substantial hurdle... you're basically just asking people to get onboard with this conception while providing no reason to do so other than if they do it will work. its like yeah, thats true about any sort of redefinition but it has structural implications across the board apparently you don't realize that make that a dumb idea
    Last edited by Bertrand; 11-21-2017 at 05:22 PM.

  34. #34
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    the world is made up of x, therefore i've explained everything about the world because "ive explained the foundation of how it works at its most basic level"

    no, you actually haven't explained anything. you've just reduced out all meaning, apparently, without realizing it

    can you actually make anything out of atoms? in the same way, you purport to solve the problem you haven't even begun to work. its like show me what you can do with your definition, its like saying knowing the world is made up of atoms means you can build a bridge specifically with that knowledge.
    I never claimed to know everything there was to know about Ni.

    I also never said I was making something out of atoms, so to speak. I was just saying, metaphorically, "Hey. Here's the atom. Have you seen this before?" I also mentioned one of the ways in which my definition was useful for understanding Ni in practice in my last post. You should read that post again.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think you two are talking about separate things.

    On one hand, you're saying "Well reducing things into atoms is pointless, because you can't do anything with it!" (well that's not true, it has spawned things like chemistry, but that's besides the point). On the other hand, you're saying that "Well all this has produced so much complexity, we can't possibly track all of them all, so let's simplify it a little bit and see what all of this is rooted in". Obviously, there's nothing wrong with either reducing things to the most fundamental level, or talking about "emergent phenomena" that these fundamental properties produce when they're interacting in complex ways. So you would need to study both as a matter of practicality.

    It's like how quantum mechanics and classical physics are totally different, because when trillions of atom bunch up together, it makes completely different physics. It's just a matter of practicality to use either Newtonian or Einsteinian physics when we need to calculate the physics of non-atomic scale classical objects, because you can't possibly calculate the physics of each one of the trillions of atoms.

    So this is just a kind of pointless Te vs Ti quadra warz, to say that which one is "superior", when in reality, you would need both. This is what I mainly disagree about Socionics, because it creates these pointless conflicts by rigidly categorizing things, and saying that you "value" one thing or the other, which I don't think even matches reality.

    Anyway still, the real problem is that things like "Ni" are too vague to even understand what the hell is it that it's supposed to be or mean.

  36. #36
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,776
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    In the process of reading a lot... blablabla...
    Typically IEE to reinvent the wheel. You must feel as proud as I was when I reinvented it ;-)
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  37. #37
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I think you two are talking about separate things.

    On one hand, you're saying "Well reducing things into atoms is pointless, because you can't do anything with it!" (well that's not true, it has spawned things like chemistry, but that's besides the point). On the other hand, you're saying that "Well all this has produced so much complexity, we can't possibly track all of them all, so let's simplify it a little bit and see what all of this is rooted in". Obviously, there's nothing wrong with either reducing things to the most fundamental level, or talking about "emergent phenomena" that these fundamental properties produce when they're interacting in complex ways. So you would need to study both as a matter of practicality.

    It's like how quantum mechanics and classical physics are totally different, because when trillions of atom bunch up together, it makes completely different physics. It's just a matter of practicality to use either Newtonian or Einsteinian physics when we need to calculate the physics of non-atomic scale classical objects, because you can't possibly calculate the physics of each one of the trillions of atoms.

    So this is just a kind of pointless Te vs Ti quadra warz, to say that which one is "superior", when in reality, you would need both. This is what I mainly disagree about Socionics, because it creates these pointless conflicts by rigidly categorizing things, and saying that you "value" one thing or the other, which I don't think even matches reality.

    Anyway still, the real problem is that things like "Ni" are too vague to even understand what the hell is it that it's supposed to be or mean.
    this might be an appropriate recapitulation if the "ti definition" even added anything new, its not like we got down to brass tacks here, it offers less than what we began with, on top of not being able to do anything with it

    the deal with "atoms" being useless is you can't say you've mastered anything by positing their most fundamental unit until that you've managed to show how it can be applied. otherwise its a simple declaration in the air. i can say anything is at the bottom at x, if it doesn't function to do anything, and do something better than the pre existing definition its worse

    atoms are actually a highly useful concept in of themselves, but only in certain contexts. the point is shifting context to fit the concept makes more work out of a settled issue, like consentingadult said, reinventing the wheel. its like why. <-- that is where the Te comes in

    i can say monads are at the bottom of everything but that doesn't convey any real meaning unless there's a meaningful demonstration of what it can function to do. its like saying "I know everything there is to know, because I've seen the reason behind it all, so I can do anything" when if the reality is you can't do anything, its %100 illusory and thus so is the reason behind it all

    literally anyone can come in here and offer their definition of Ni if the onus is on everyone else to find a context in which it "works" and its the best definition evar. the point is such an exercise is a waste of time except as a demonstration of a waste of time and a clarification of what the actual best definition is and why
    Last edited by Bertrand; 11-21-2017 at 06:55 PM.

  38. #38
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    Typically IEE to reinvent the wheel. You must feel as proud as I was when I reinvented it ;-)
    When did you reinvent the wheel? And yes, I prefer modern wheels over wagon wheels. I wouldn't want to get on the interstate with a car that has wagon wheels on it. Reinventing the wheel can be very useful.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Atoms are useful. Emergent phenomena like classical physics are useful. Cognitive science is useful. Emergent phenomena like sociology and psychology are useful. You can't claim "victory" over the other, because for one, they're kind of separate subjects. And two, they're not contradictory to each other, as they're both dependent on each other for it to work. You would need both.

    What's not useful are these vague definitions that we can't make much out of anything.

  40. #40
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    im not claiming victory over atoms, thats my point, the point is this wasn't equivalent to discovering the atom, it was equivalent of coming up with a shittier definition of atom after atoms have already been discovered; and saying, in effect: "i've posited the most fundamental unit and therefore explained everything that relies on this unit (which is everything, because its the most basic)". which is really delusional

    the whole thing is stupid for at least 2 reasons, 1) because defining the basic constituent part doesn't confer any sort of real knowledge absent utility and 2) there's already a better definition in place, so this is a pure regression even if you don't believe 1

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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