Ne vs Ni: Inter & Intra-Systems Thinking

[Logos]

While thinking of and , it occurred to me that the differences and common themes of forum discourse of and may best be best grasped when conceptualized in terms of a systems approach. A system in this case is just the structure of a series of related concepts. You can visualize this in your head however is easiest for you: a library of books or 3D-modular spheres (Lawnmower Man). And when we talk about a systems approach it is how we disseminate and process concepts and ideas through either a preference of or in all types, not necessarily those with either of these two functions in their primary two functions. Because functions should not just be understood by how they are used, but also by how they are received, and even those who do not regularly use these functions still prefer one over the other. And even then, much of the discourse on Nx is almost entirely in the context of Alpha and Gamma NT, which does a disservice to functional understanding.

: Intra-Systems Thinking (Linear Process Intuition)
Introverted Intuition is a form of intra-systems thinking. is used to submerse the individual within the actual system itself. This is the subjective quality of the function. Picture a point-of-view shot in a tunnel that is constantly moving forward. But it is constantly moving forward in a linear fashion. allows the individual to traverse the system of ideas or concepts along a subjectively linear pathway such that they can test the structural integrity of the system through the use of either or . In the case of , is used to internally examine the external systems of relations and people. This is why Beta NF is sometimes associated with the ability to be social climbers, because they have examined the internal system of people through . In the case of , is used to examine the external systems of fact. And it traverses this tunnel to check the structural integrity of a system through facts as a form of truth. This is also why Gamma NT is associated with critics and business, because is a valuable tool in exploring the internal workings of an idea or concept. This can be seen as top-down in that it is seeing the idea and then diving into the idea itself. For either, the path () is determined by how they understand the external quality of either people or facts, which means that the direction of the path may vary or changed based upon this external understanding of the external rational function. Of course then one comes to question, if is linear process thinking that acts within a system, how then does related to ? seeks to be a part of the external form of the system which seeks to understand.

: Inter-Systems Thinking (Non-Linear Process Intuition)
Extroverted Intuition is a form of inter-systems thinking. In other words, is used to try and connect the these different concept spheres together. is used to get an overview (generalization) of the these different systems-spheres. Whereas the image of is one of the linear movement within a system, is one in which the individual is standing still to examine systems often by relating one system to another. Another way perhaps to conceptualize is that if every system was perceived as an apple on a tree, would be used to look pick the apples and look at the overview of the surface of the apple. allows the individual to generalize the concept or system to its base parts so that it can be deconstructed to either breakdown, create, or recreate a perceivably better system through or . The reconstruction of a sphere from the base parts of a system is due to the personal subjective qualities of and . For , is used to relate, generalize, and then restructure external spheres (systems) to their personal ethics. In a similar method, uses to relate, generalize, and then restructure external spheres (systems) to their personal logic. And as it was with , this process systems thinking analysis can be used to understand the interrelation of and . In general, these two functions are how about the personal self and form (Si relates to a series of external systems (). provides for the solid ground for standing which allows for one to safely explore the systems around an individual. provides for the process of exploring the different systems for the one which will enhance or protect .

There may be better analogies or ways to conceptualize this, but this is how I have come to understand the difference between and based upon the discourse of these boards. So (coupled with Xe) seeks to understand a system by being a part of (or linearly traversing) the sphere (system), (as coupled with Xi) seeks to ultimately recreate or rework the interrelation and/or structure of the spheres (system).

[ncassidy]

I have to reconcile something to proceed further...

What is a system? Where are its boundaries defined? In your view is it nested inside another system, or is it seen as a discrete structure standing alone?

In the sense you speak of, which of the following are systems?

- Matter (universal, material)
- Thermodynamics (universal, not material)
- All life on earth (exists within defined spatial boundary, material)
- Bird songs (exist within defined spatial boundary, not material)
- A computer (human construct, material)
- Accounting (human construct, not material)

[Jonathan]

I appreciate this effort to be more systemmatic about describing the difference, and I think that is the right approach.

Then again, in your description, it sounds as if then would be somewhat wedded to a given system, tending to become an expert on the given system, leading to the possible limitation of not seeing beyond it...whereas any thought of how things could be different is given totally to .

This has precedent in some Socionics literature, which seems to ascribe any of what might be called "intellectual creativity" to .

However, in terms of observations of actual people who are likely acc- types, this distinction doesn't appear to hold. Most people I know who are probably acc- (both IEI and ILI) are not wedding to systems or "stuck on one thing." On the contrary, they tend to quickly and easily discard one paradigm for another, preferring to start wtih a "blank slate" and re-create everything from the imagination.

Your description of also seems somewhat like a rational type, possibly like which "knows the system" well.

As to IEIs being social climbers....is that really true? Doesn't seem to ring true for me....

[Logos]

I have to reconcile something to proceed further...

What is a system? Where are its boundaries defined? In your view is it nested inside another system, or is it seen as a discrete structure standing alone?

In the sense you speak of, which of the following are systems?

- Matter (universal, material)
- Thermodynamics (universal, not material)
- All life on earth (exists within defined spatial boundary, material)
- Bird songs (exist within defined spatial boundary, not material)
- A computer (human construct, material)
- Accounting (human construct, not material)

A system is a very loose term which applies to a construct of a series of related concept or ideas. The differences between systems are quite arbitrary and fictitious and the boundaries have only been constructed for the purposes of visualization. But all of those could be conceived of as being constructed systems of ideas or concepts. So a system almost represents how a given individual views a given issue or subject topic. This topic may have a series of interrelated ideas which would be a part of the system. Perhaps you can envision a system much like a field of study (departments of study in a university perhaps), which may further imply that there are systems within systems which are further linked and over-crossed with other systems. But it would probably be easier to just visualize them as separate entities. So while chemistry is very closely related to biology, in some regards they are considered separate (though highly interrelated) fields.

="Jonathan"]Then again, in your description, it sounds as if then would be somewhat wedded to a given system, tending to become an expert on the given system, leading to the possible limitation of not seeing beyond it...whereas any thought of how things could be different is given totally to .

I do not think that this means that they are wedded to a given system, but rather this is their approach to a given system. would probably continually flow between systems, but within systems, and constantly viewing systems based upon their and criteria.

However, in terms of observations of actual people who are likely acc- types, this distinction doesn't appear to hold. Most people I know who are probably acc- (both IEI and ILI) are not wedding to systems or "stuck on one thing." On the contrary, they tend to quickly and easily discard one paradigm for another, preferring to start wtih a "blank slate" and re-create everything from the imagination.

So perhaps in the case of acc- they dive into systems, but if it does not meet their or criteria, they disgard it for another system? Again, I do not imagine that is wedded to their system. If anything, I think that and is more wedded to creating their system based upon other systems.

This has precedent in some Socionics literature, which seems to ascribe any of what might be called "intellectual creativity" to .

I attribute the "intellectual creativity" as how the individuals use to link and reconstruct the systems in new creative ways.

As to IEIs being social climbers....is that really true? Doesn't seem to ring true for me....

Perhaps not. But their is a measure of seeking to understand the social system of through exploration. Notice I included both the associated criticism and business views in regards to & , but I was a bit stumped in regards to the terms to associate with and apart from some aspect of social climbing in terms of the beta quadra value of "conquering."

I appreciate this effort to be more systemmatic about describing the difference, and I think that is the right approach.

Although this was your first point I thought it would be best to respond to it at the end. But I would welcome any improvements you may perceive in the analogy.

[UDP]

I just read the title and skimmed the thread, but it sounds good to me

inter/intra
Ne/Ni

[krieger]

Hmm... Ni immerses itself in dynamics much in the same way Si does, but I don't believe it expects a system to be in place. In fact, the lack of a system is what motivates it to bring clarity.

I agree with your analysis of Ne.

[Not A Communist Shill]

makes generalisations about objects in the here-and-now in order to perceive and act on the possibilities seen about these objects, time is seen as a specific entity (i.e. the moment is now). So, works on all objects in a local environment (the immediate surrounds, with little consequence of universal laws).

makes generalisations about universal laws such as time, in order to see the changes in a specific object(s) over time.

can easily replace an object in the here-and-now with an alternative with similar properties (+future potential), would be less able.

on the otherhand, can easily see the consequence of particular actions on objects because of Ni's observations of long-term trends - they know when a particular object is going to be useful, but cannot determine particularly well how any random object can be used in the here-and-now (as with ).

knows which specific object is going to be useful through long-term observation of trends, whereas knows how to substitute an object for one with similar potential in the here-and-now.

In their extremes:
Ne - some possibilities of all objects (in the here-and-now)
Ni - all possibilities of some objects (over a period of time)

So both and work in different time periods and different emphasis on the properties of objects + the details of the environmental context (universal laws), but I don't think you could say one is intra- and the other -inter, because one has an universal understanding of time, and a fleeting understanding of obects in the present, and the other has a good understanding of objects in the present, but a inconsequential view of universal factors such as time (the long-term trends).

But, = inter- for objects in the here-and-now, intra- for time (i.e. only having an understanding in relation to objects that exist now).

and = intra- for long-term trends (and environmental\universal factors - 'the context in which objects change'), inter- for objects in the present.

[marooned]

bump - let's interpretation argue.

[wacey]

This seems wordy but fairly accurate. No argument to this interpretation from me.

[wacey]

Of course then one comes to question, if is linear process thinking that acts within a system, how then does related to ? seeks to be a part of the external form of the system which seeks to understand.

I don't think Se seeks to be part of anything unless coupled with Ti. Se is more immediate raw sensing data about statics and so situationally reacts to input, without or without a system.