# N is pure concept...



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

I have tossed this around a bit on the forums, and maybe this seems obvious to some people, but, risking that possibility, I'll put this forward because I don't think a lot of people are looking at it this way.

I think the biggest problem in the general view of typology is the idea that N is anything but the perception of pure concept.

We see N as focusing on the future, or ideas, or imagination... and I am falling inescapably to the realization that these things are just simplistic shadows of what N actually is. 

N is concept. 

If you can picture it in your mind, it isn't N. At least not directly. Rather, N is the part of what you are picturing that is utterly uncreate, just concept, just idea. Not AN idea or a thousand ideas, but idea itself. I know, deep, right?

For example, 'purity'. This is concept. Pure concept, if you'll forgive my meta. What is 'pure'? Can you draw pure? Can you see it? Could you touch it? We have a word for it, but it isn't anything that ever was or ever could be. We can draw something that evokes the concept, we could touch something we consider pure. But, pure is not something that could ever be. It doesn't happen, it can't affect anything that is real. It is a concept, and N is nothing more or less than concept.

If you look at something and think 'pure', that's N. I don't mean that it is an example of N, or that is something that N does... I mean that N *is *that. 

I think that the distraction from this ultimate truth of typology is a huge derailment of it. I think the failure to get to this brassiest of tacks is the core problem with mistypings and general confusion in Jung-based typology.

I bring this up because we hear so much about what N and S are and are not, but it's all shadows on the wall. This is what they are.

Thoughts? Rebuttals?


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

I agree. Earlier I was talking to my friend and telling her that I worry that Ne and Ni are defined based on the symptoms they cause in people, rather than what they simply _are_. (My discussion was met with rolled eyes and a proclamation of tiredness aka shut up nerd. ^_^) I know I am Ni because I constantly look to strip life down to sets of ineffable truths. I know my friend is Ne because she constantly seeks to learn the breadth of ideas and relate said ideas in a venn-diagram kind of mindset.

I think of the two as attitudes to concepts. Ne will define a concept based on the tangible effects of said concept (as in the way psychological disorders are diagnosed- a set of certain symptoms signifies a concept. No need to go deeper, the effects of an idea speak for themselves).

Ni will define a concept based on the singular premise of what it is, it seeks simplicity (much like many scientific laws' and principles' definitions- they try to strip down an idea to it's core, base truth).

Agree, or do I misinterpret your post?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Moonrise said:


> I agree. Earlier I was talking to my friend and telling her that I worry that Ne and Ni are defined based on the symptoms they cause in people, rather than what they simply _are_. (My discussion was met with rolled eyes and a proclamation of tiredness aka shut up nerd. ^_^) I know I am Ni because I constantly look to strip life down to sets of ineffable truths. I know my friend is Ne because she constantly seeks to learn the breadth of ideas and relate said ideas in a venn-diagram kind of mindset.
> 
> I think of the two as attitudes to concepts. Ne will define a concept based on the tangible effects of said concept (as in the way psychological disorders are diagnosed- a set of certain symptoms signifies a concept. No need to go deeper, the effects of an idea speak for themselves).
> 
> ...


I think you nailed it. In concept, that is. 


...though I don't know how much Ne focuses on the tangible concepts or not. It is still pure concept, pure idea. The specifics mustn't distract from that all-important... er, well, idea!

EDIT: 

I think that Ne is perhaps more interested in reciprocation for their ideas... ideas that resonate, that echo back... that catch on?


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Idea/abstractions _qualia_, which are present in the eighth dimension, superseded by _information as itself_ - fundamental constituents of abstract ideas - which is present in the ninth dimension. Perhaps "information qua information" are the fundamental superstrings of reality itself?

You are treading on shaky ground here.

Heidegger recognized this fundamental problem within metaphysics throughout the history of philosophy, namely: on what _ground_ does the _question_ of the nature of being stand upon? In other words, what is the _authenticity_ of the question [of the nature of being] itself?

I think that there are actually, possibly, several "layers" to the ground/grounds which Heidegger only started to peel, which may be further analyzed and understood from a physical or mathematical perspective. Things such as M-Theory give us a foundation which, although shaky, is a foundation nonetheless.

I just noticed this has almost nothing to do with Ni or Ne anymore. Then again, I don't think functions in-and-of-themselves actually exist, but rather that cognitive function is a subjective categorization of psychological concepts. 

Then again, because it is an abstract idea, even the notion of Ni or Ne may in fact exist as tangible properties of physical reality in higher dimensions.

I need to get back to reading _Being and Time_ in addition to theoretical physics.


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I think you nailed it. In concept, that is.
> 
> 
> ...though I don't know how much Ne focuses on the tangible concepts or not. It is still pure concept, pure idea. The specifics mustn't distract from that all-important... er, well, idea!
> ...


I meant more that Ne is interested in the observable truths that can be observed.

Mathematically, Ne= Ni + environment.

For example, the very premise of this thread is based on the fact that definitions of intuition seem to spring mainly from Ne-style thinking. 
Ni is defined as a set list of ideas- future-oriented, big picture, theme-based, etc etc. It's a view of abstract ideas that _expands.
_
I'm not too sure if that made sense or not. If it was incoherent rambling, I'll try again tomorrow.

Before I go: do you think I'd be correct in saying that introverted perceiving functions are quite timeless, whereas extroverted perceiving is much more present-moment-living? Ni looks for universal consistency of ideas, Ne takes an idea of current working concepts? Si connects concrete data from past and present while projecting it to the future, Se takes a concrete awareness of what is currently happening?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I am still trying to formulate a response; however, a preliminary comment that I wish to make is that this sounds like we're bordering the realm of Thinking (and possibly Feeling to some degree). Especially when we're talking about the "idea." Which Jung had a definition for and was tied to Thinking. There is something about the thought of purity or any other abstract concept that still somehow feels too tangible. Regardless of my indicated type, I believe myself to be intuitive in nature. Seeing the big picture seems like something more than an idea or concept. I like how Jung called it the precursor of ideas. That is somehow more apt, in my opinion.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

As an INTJ I don't care whether concepts are consistent. Then we get into the realm of Ti. Ni simply observes the universally archetype. Anything else beyond that is function contamination caused by other preferences. Personally, I think of intuition as synthetic connectivity because what intuition really does is creating a connection between the sense world and the collective consciousness. 

Intuition is simply not just the awareness of the concept of "pure" but it allows one to experience what purity is in an archetype way. Purity is an archetype concept and it has a specific experience intuitive types can tap into generated by the collective consciousness.

This is also why I don't agree with that intuition is not experiential as if this was limited to sensation only because it isn't. Both sensation and intuition perceive, and in order to perceive we must experience. Any Ni type that has had a very strong Ni experience can tell you this. I feel it when I see a flock of birds taking off into the sky, I feel it when I listen to this type of music, I feel it when I see this particular picture. It cannot put into words because that would simplify the experience itself. It's much too abstract to be done so. It is experiential and it is perceiving because one simply experiences a specific aspect of reality rather than trying to make sense of it. Naturally I live for this experience or it wouldn't be my dominant function. It is beyond reason and I think it is som that must be experienced to be understood. The best way I can put it is that it feels like meeting god though it's only triggered by "normal" events as opposed to supernatural. 

Then there are other cognitive aspects of intuition that can be observed in people's reasoning processes. They are related but not quite the same.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Kant's Theory of Judgment (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Synthetic a priori 2.2.3


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

A concept is a sometimes useful fabrication of the mind.

Intuitive functions tend to be more perceptive in nature.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> As an INTJ I don't care whether concepts are consistent. Then we get into the realm of Ti. Ni simply observes the universally archetype. Anything else beyond that is function contamination caused by other preferences. Personally, I think of intuition as synthetic connectivity because what intuition really does is creating a connection between the sense world and the collective consciousness.
> 
> Intuition is simply not just the awareness of the concept of "pure" but it allows one to experience what purity is in an archetype way. Purity is an archetype concept and it has a specific experience intuitive types can tap into generated by the collective consciousness.
> 
> ...



It sounds like you're talking about phenomenology (which you aren't) rather than psychology (which you are). I just thought that was amusing.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

How is this different from the deriving of pure concept that Ti is known for?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Logics of Worlds said:


> It sounds like you're talking about phenomenology (which you aren't) rather than psychology (which you are). I just thought that was amusing.


There is an aspect where philosophy and psychology overlap. How can we be aware of ourselves and our surroundings if we first cannot experience ourselves and our surroundings? Awareness deals with consciousness, and consciousness suggests the ability to observe and experience.


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

ElectricSparkle said:


> How is this different from the deriving of pure concept that Ti is known for?


Imo, Ti is a judging process. That means two things: it's articulate and it's logical.

Ni is a _*sense*_ of abstract concept, a truth beyond words. It's also more instinctual, it's a process and way of experiencing life that cannot be ignored. It's not necessarily logical, Ni conclusions differ according to an individual's individual connotations and personal history. Ni may be beyond explanation, or make sense to the user only.
Ti is a _*process *_of concept, it is concept articulate. It's conscious, it is something that one _does_, not something one _experiences_. It depends on a personal sense of logic, this can always be explained. Even if the thread of logic becomes tangled, it's a tangible, explainable thing.


----------



## BronyCraft (Oct 19, 2013)

So... is N just about the concept, idea and T is about realizating it, using it (or actually checking if it makes sense at all)?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I have tossed this around a bit on the forums, and maybe this seems obvious to some people, but, risking that possibility, I'll put this forward because I don't think a lot of people are looking at it this way.
> 
> I think the biggest problem in the general view of typology is the idea that N is anything but the perception of pure concept.
> 
> ...


Agreed. 

I think the problem with explaining is in translation from experience itself.

You can easily define and explain what a concept _is_, but to define and explain processing the world _through_ concepts is trickier, because it isn't as tangible.

A concept is a way to define abstract ideas. It's like the idea of numbers: You can't visualize an actual number.

What you _can _do, is to have _a _number of things, and count a certain number, but one is not able to coherently explain what '1' looks like, unless something is there in which to derive it from. 

The best example of this is probably the Ni-dominant, or strong Ni leaners.

They can't explain this... Burst of process! It has no logical step-by-step diagrams, no particular shape or form that could be imagined or seen. It simply is. 

I could see this being particularly irritating to the INTJ, not being able to illustrate this properly with an empirical, easily accessed and efficient definition.

They can explain how they feel about it, and what they think of it, and may try to define this abstract conceptualizing process with more concepts, but, most of the time, it's incredibly confusing for the one who is being told of it. 

It's difficult to visualize a process which appears, for the most part, to be instantaneous and invisible. All they can explain is the result.

So, when a definition is based on results, then we'll see a lot of mistypings, since the results could be reached from other derivations, from any number of cognitive process configurations.

I've seen a few Ni-dominants, though, who actually manage to make a workable analogy. Which is pretty impressive, considering the source material.

I think of it as a computer zeroing in on a target on a radar screen. It takes it all in at first, and then tapers down to a point. I realize this is probably a terrible analogy, but that's one way I may visualize it.

Ne is easier to explain, if only because Ne starts with one concept. That concept triggers more, which in turn trigger even more. The process is easier to explain because it can be compared to actual maps and diagrams and brainstorming charts, something everyone is familiar with.

But, somehow, mistypings can still occur with Ne, because Ne is capable of making connections to Ni that are quite convincing. It's possible that, despite being very different processes, they could be mistaken for each other because of that idea of the perspective of seeing through the use of concept itself. The results are almost always what people see.

An Ni user may believe that they are an Ne user because they're able to come up with many concepts at once. 

But, its in the act of refining those concepts in depth that they may not see.

An Ne user may believe they are an Ni user because they have inspiration! A sudden burst of ideas, and they may actually pick one, eventually. The trick is that the idea is often not explored in depth, but used to move on from, and into more ideas.


----------



## HKitty (Oct 11, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I have tossed this around a bit on the forums, and maybe this seems obvious to some people, but, risking that possibility, I'll put this forward because I don't think a lot of people are looking at it this way.
> 
> I think the biggest problem in the general view of typology is the idea that N is anything but the perception of pure concept.
> 
> ...


Well, N is split into Ne and Ni, which from my understanding aren't the same. With Ne (again from my understanding) it expands outward, it multiplies, it searches for what could be. I think Ni (esp. when coupled with Te) cuts out the unnecessary, "the noise", if you will. I think of Ni as related to time in that it concerns itself with what was, what is, and what will be. 

I have Ne as my creative function. I use it to search for alternative reasons why someone or some situation is the way it is/ or was. It is looking outside, at something tangible, combing through possibilities. And it doesn't stop when it's hit upon one possibility. Because there _could be_ another possibility. Facts help to reduce possibilities, but I'm always willing to accept new facts/information, so the possibilities can also multiply again. With Ne, as certain as I can seem sometimes, deep down at my innermost core I'm never quite sure that I am right. It's very much a "maybe this or maybe that or _hey, maybe that's it_". 

I use Ne in other ways as well.

I don't use it to predict, which I've read Ni types do, and that INTp's have some eerie accuracy with.

So, personally, I don't relate to N as concept. Perhaps that is what Ni is? Dealing with the abstract and such.


To define N, I think you need to clarify, _which_ N you are speaking of.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I think the problem with explaining is in translation from experience itself.
> 
> ...


I kind of agreed with you until you began writing that we can only know and study results. Such an extroverted way of understanding the situation to begin with. I don't see results, I see causes of results.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I kind of agreed with you until you began writing that we can only know and study results. Such an extroverted way of understanding the situation to begin with. I don't see results, I see causes of results.


That isn't what I meant, though. 

What I meant was that results are often what is explained and defined, leading to confusion and mistypings.

We _can _and _should _study the process, _before _the results, if not exclusively.

As I said: 'The results are almost always what people see.' Based upon how it is explained.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

HKitty said:


> Well, N is split into Ne and Ni, which from my understanding aren't the same. With Ne (again from my understanding) it expands outward, it multiplies, it searches for what could be. I think Ni (esp. when coupled with Te) cuts out the unnecessary, "the noise", if you will. I think of Ni as related to time in that it concerns itself with what was, what is, and what will be.
> 
> I have Ne as my creative function. I use it to search for alternative reasons why someone or some situation is the way it is/ or was. It is looking outside, at something tangible, combing through possibilities. And it doesn't stop when it's hit upon one possibility. Because there _could be_ another possibility. Facts help to reduce possibilities, but I'm always willing to accept new facts/information, so the possibilities can also multiply again. With Ne, as certain as I can seem sometimes, deep down at my innermost core I'm never quite sure that I am right. It's very much a "maybe this or maybe that or _hey, maybe that's it_".
> 
> ...


It might help if you use the MBTI letter code here because I think when you write INTP most people will think INTP as in TiNe which of course makes no sense given this discussion because they are Ne types. With that said, yes I like to reduce options so I can see that which is everlasting, but I am not sure INFJs operate the same because of VS cognition.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> That isn't what I meant, though.
> 
> What I meant was that results are often what is explained and defined, leading to confusion and mistypings.
> 
> We _can _and _should _study the process, _before _the results, if not exclusively.


And good typers know how to look for processes.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> And good typers know how to look for processes.


Yep.

It's too bad that there are very few good typers. :kitteh:


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Yep.
> 
> It's too bad that there are very few good typers. :kitteh:


I'm at 80 wpm. Is that good?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I'm at 80 wpm. Is that good?


Psht. 111 wpm. :wink:


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

So?


----------



## HKitty (Oct 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> It might help if you use the MBTI letter code here because I think when you write INTP most people will think INTP as in TiNe which of course makes no sense given this discussion because they are Ne types. With that said, yes I like to reduce options so I can see that which is everlasting, but I am not sure INFJs operate the same because of VS cognition.


Well, I come from a socionics background/ and if I'm correct, the Introverted types don't correspond the same way. Also, sometimes I read posts from INTPs or INTJs, etc. and it seems like INTPs have both INTps and INTjs typing themselves as such and vice versa. 
I was hoping that people would know that by putting the last letter as lowercase, I meant the socionics INTp which is NiTe. In the future I'll simply add the leading function at the end so its clearer as to which type I'm referring to.
Perdóname!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

HKitty said:


> Well, I come from a socionics background/ and if I'm correct, the Introverted types don't correspond the same way. Also, sometimes I read posts from INTPs or INTJs, etc. and it seems like INTPs have both INTps and INTjs typing themselves as such and vice versa.
> I was hoping that people would know that by putting the last letter as lowercase, I meant the socionics INTp which is NiTe. In the future I'll simply add the leading function at the end so its clearer as to which type I'm referring to.
> Perdóname!


I know. Just pointing out that others may not and it can cause a lot of confusion. As for people typing across systems I think that if you are Ne you are Ne in both, but it's my opinion.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Moonrise said:


> I meant more that Ne is interested in the observable truths that can be observed.
> 
> Mathematically, Ne= Ni + environment.
> 
> ...


I think that Ne is timeless because concept is timeless... however, since we bond fast with a concept but are unwilling to marry her, when talk of marriage comes up, we start to get fidgety.... we like to keep our options open. Thus, our concepts are just as timeless, just the same as Ni conceptualization is, but is our relationship with it timeless? We'll see.

As far as Ni + environment................. I'd say ultimately no. However, I get the gist of what you are saying. We induct concepts quickly, and we see meaning and symbols in a lot of places. Ne wants to engage and work through the dynamics of concept... and, yes, that often leads us to play out what that concept entails in the world. Does that make Ne more connected to the environment? Only when the environment inspires. No more, no less.

I personally find that NJ types live more in the world than NP types do. Experience for it's own sake is an Se thing, and NJ types are always going out to the theatre and opera and art shows and stuff. NP types, I think, are more likely to sit home and philosophize SOCIALLY. And that is the key. Ne socializes concept, Ni socializes sensorily. When I hang out with NJs it is always DOING something.... shooting guns, seeing a play, listening to music, etc, etc. When I socialize with NP types, we just philosophize and conceptualize in some room somewhere. That is what we socialize. Interestingly, this doesn't always appeal to NJ types. (EDIT: Er, that depends. It ALWAYS appeals to Ne types, and is the natural go-to, where I think NJ types are more inclined to socialize through doing or experiencing. It's less natural to sit around brainstorming or philosophizing for fun... but when it happens, they are usually a dynamic and engaged, even excited, participant... but even then, 6 hours on, they are the first to run out of steam - not run out of ideas - just steam - being forced to extravert and induct with N for so long)



PaladinX said:


> I am still trying to formulate a response; however, a preliminary comment that I wish to make is that this sounds like we're bordering the realm of Thinking (and possibly Feeling to some degree). Especially when we're talking about the "idea." Which Jung had a definition for and was tied to Thinking. There is something about the thought of purity or any other abstract concept that still somehow feels too tangible. Regardless of my indicated type, I believe myself to be intuitive in nature. Seeing the big picture seems like something more than an idea or concept. I like how Jung called it the precursor of ideas. That is somehow more apt, in my opinion.





ElectricSparkle said:


> How is this different from the deriving of pure concept that Ti is known for?


I was going to answer this, and thought a long time about it.. but then @_Moonrise_ did it better than I would have. Here:



Moonrise said:


> Imo, Ti is a judging process. That means two things: it's articulate and it's logical.
> 
> Ni is a _*sense*_ of abstract concept, a truth beyond words. It's also more instinctual, it's a process and way of experiencing life that cannot be ignored. It's not necessarily logical, Ni conclusions differ according to an individual's individual connotations and personal history. Ni may be beyond explanation, or make sense to the user only.
> Ti is a _*process *_of concept, it is concept articulate. It's conscious, it is something that one _does_, not something one _experiences_. It depends on a personal sense of logic, this can always be explained. Even if the thread of logic becomes tangled, it's a tangible, explainable thing.


Exactly. The development of the atomic concept into a molecular framework is Ti. The conceptualization itself is perception... is N. 



BronyCraft said:


> So... is N just about the concept, idea and T is about realizating it, using it (or actually checking if it makes sense at all)?


Yes. Developing it and piecing it together with others.



HKitty said:


> Well, N is split into Ne and Ni, which from my understanding aren't the same. With Ne (again from my understanding) it expands outward, it multiplies, it searches for what could be. I think Ni (esp. when coupled with Te) cuts out the unnecessary, "the noise", if you will. I think of Ni as related to time in that it concerns itself with what was, what is, and what will be.


Ti cuts out stuff too... so, that can get a bit complicated. The key, as above, is what is perception and which is logic.... 'irrational' (I prefer 'non-rational' or arational! lol) or 'rational' as I've heard socionics state it... but, perception and manipulation work too... which are non-rational and rational, respectively.



HKitty said:


> I have Ne as my creative function. I use it to search for alternative reasons why someone or some situation is the way it is/ or was. It is looking outside, at something tangible, combing through possibilities. And it doesn't stop when it's hit upon one possibility. Because there _could be_ another possibility. Facts help to reduce possibilities, but I'm always willing to accept new facts/information, so the possibilities can also multiply again. With Ne, as certain as I can seem sometimes, deep down at my innermost core I'm never quite sure that I am right. It's very much a "maybe this or maybe that or _hey, maybe that's it_".


It does not sound like you are describing Ne. Ne is concept, just as Ni is. Uncreate and intangible, just as Ni is. Perhaps you are describing Se here? Te?


------------------


Thanks to all the great responses, btw.


----------



## HKitty (Oct 11, 2013)

arkigos said:


> When I hang out with NJs it is always DOING something.... shooting guns, seeing a play, listening to music, etc, etc. When I socialize with NP types, we just philosophize and conceptualize in some room somewhere. That is what we socialize. Interestingly, this doesn't always appeal to NJ types. (EDIT: Er, that depends. It ALWAYS appeals to Ne types, and is the natural go-to, where I think NJ types are more inclined to socialize through doing or experiencing. It's less natural to sit around brainstorming or philosophizing for fun... but when it happens, they are usually a dynamic and engaged, even excited, participant... but even then, 6 hours on, they are the first to run out of steam - not run out of ideas - just steam - being forced to extravert and induct with N for so long)


That's interesting... 'cause whenever I socialize with an ENFp(NeFi) we're like always partying and drinking somewhere, in some room.

(Sorry, I .. just.. couldn't... help...it)


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

HKitty said:


> Well, I come from a socionics background/ and if I'm correct, the Introverted types don't correspond the same way. Also, sometimes I read posts from INTPs or INTJs, etc. and it seems like INTPs have both INTps and INTjs typing themselves as such and vice versa.
> I was hoping that people would know that by putting the last letter as lowercase, I meant the socionics INTp which is NiTe. In the future I'll simply add the leading function at the end so its clearer as to which type I'm referring to.
> Perdóname!


The mistype makes sense, because INTj (Ti-Ne) has Te as ignoring, which more or less means that they're good at using it but prefer not to and INTp has Ti as demonstrative, which means they may be just as adept at using it as they are at their dominant function.
In addition INTp has Ne as ignoring and INTj have Ni as demonstrative. 

*Warning, ranting beyond this point* 

This is the reason why it annoys me so much when we have our own rendition of "member that cried mistype" on these boards, because with some knowledge and experience people create their own idea of what a function looks like and then they apply that function to people's posts without understanding how the models work. 

This leads to people "seeing" functions, yet not considering alternative placements in Model A. Is this person an INTj (Ti - Ne), a shy ENTp (Ne-Ti), an ENTp-Ne, or an INTj-Ne, is this an INTp using their demonstrative or ignoring for some reason, or could it even be an LIE doing much of the same. 

What is the person's motivation for using a given collection of functions, could someone who prefers extraverted logic be used to have his or her posts picked apart by people who prefer introverted logic decide to try and "introverted logic"-proof their posts motivated by a need for efficiency (extraverted logic).


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I think that Ne is timeless because concept is timeless... however, since we bond fast with a concept but are unwilling to marry her, when talk of marriage comes up, we start to get fidgety.... we like to keep our options open. Thus, our concepts are just as timeless, just the same as Ni conceptualization is, but is our relationship with it timeless? We'll see.
> 
> As far as Ni + environment................. I'd say ultimately no. However, I get the gist of what you are saying. We induct concepts quickly, and we see meaning and symbols in a lot of places. Ne wants to engage and work through the dynamics of concept... and, yes, that often leads us to play out what that concept entails in the world. Does that make Ne more connected to the environment? Only when the environment inspires. No more, no less.


YES! This is what I've been trying to get across. To simplify: Ni perceives eternal simple concept (enabled by Se), Ne observes momentary expansive concept (fuelled by Si connotations). Or something like that, it's not phrased elegantly to my liking.

I didn't mean to imply that Ne was more in tune with the environment (I think the opposite: Ni has Se which makes it more objective as opposed to subjective?). I meant to get across what your first paragraph explained.



arkigos said:


> I personally find that NJ types live more in the world than NP types do. Experience for it's own sake is an Se thing, and NJ types are always going out to the theatre and opera and art shows and stuff. NP types, I think, are more likely to sit home and philosophize SOCIALLY. And that is the key. Ne socializes concept, Ni socializes sensorily. When I hang out with NJs it is always DOING something.... shooting guns, seeing a play, listening to music, etc, etc. When I socialize with NP types, we just philosophize and conceptualize in some room somewhere. That is what we socialize. Interestingly, this doesn't always appeal to NJ types. (EDIT: Er, that depends. It ALWAYS appeals to Ne types, and is the natural go-to, where I think NJ types are more inclined to socialize through doing or experiencing. It's less natural to sit around brainstorming or philosophizing for fun... but when it happens, they are usually a dynamic and engaged, even excited, participant... but even then, 6 hours on, they are the first to run out of steam - not run out of ideas - just steam - being forced to extravert and induct with N


That makes sense. I can definitely see this in my life. I need to mull it over though


----------



## HKitty (Oct 11, 2013)

arkigos said:


> It does not sound like you are describing Ne. Ne is concept, just as Ni is. Uncreate and intangible, just as Ni is. Perhaps you are describing Se here? Te?
> 
> 
> ------------------
> ...


Perhaps not as a general concept BUT that is how _I_ use Ne.

from wikisocion.org:


> as a creative (2nd) function (LII and EII) The individual likes to apply his insight to specific situations, relating them to the bigger picture. He also enjoys discussing idealized circumstances or what could be rather than what is. Consequently, he usually has high standards, even unreasonably so, for those around him.
> 
> He does not pursue ideas or new opportunities merely for their own sake, but for their application to specific questions and issues that he feels are important.


Underlining is mine.

As for _what could be_, here is a another example:
A girl is upset because every time she goes to a party if her boyfriend is there, he doesn't talk to her and shortly thereafter leaves the party.
Immediately, I begin to form questions (Ne). To be brief, what are all reasons (possibilities) for his actions? I wouldn't make any conclusions until I had additional information. (This makes ppl think I don't care. Not true. I prefer to be correct rather than decisive. This seems to piss off a lot of Se-types. But for me, more information = better understanding = better advice.)

Se would immediately begin to form a conclusion. Examples, boyfriend is cheating on her. Or, another Se might tell the girl she has cheated him and he has found out. All of these conclusions (assumptions) could be wrong, but Se does not care. Se needs very little additional information to reach a conclusion or decision. Se = more errors, but more decisive.


IOW, what I have described in my first reply is not Se.


And honestly, everything you've described sounds like Ni.

Ne (again from wikisocion.org)



> *Extroverted intuition* ()
> 
> is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others.
> 
> ...


Does (outer)space exist? Yes. Do elevators exist? Yes. What happens when you put them together and come up with a new idea? Ne.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

HKitty said:


> I wouldn't make any conclusions until I had additional information. (This makes ppl think I don't care. Not true. I prefer to be correct rather than decisive. This seems to piss off a lot of Se-types. But for me, more information = better understanding = better advice.)


That could equally just be an example of process over result, because I don't like making conclusions or offer such suggestions either, especially when I feel I have no answer to give. 



> Se would immediately begin to form a conclusion. Examples, boyfriend is cheating on her. Or, another Se might tell the girl she has cheated him and he has found out. All of these conclusions (assumptions) could be wrong, but Se does not care. Se needs very little additional information to reach a conclusion or decision. Se = more errors, but more decisive.


I could also see it as an example of farsighted over carefree. You are definitely describing a preference towards farsighted thinking here. 


> And honestly, everything you've described sounds like Ni.
> 
> Ne (again from wikisocion.org)


Arkigos is definitely not an Ni type lol. In either system. If he is he must be an IEI and I don't think he is an IEI. 



> Does (outer)space exist? Yes. Do elevators exist? Yes. What happens when you put them together and come up with a new idea? Ne.


Explain to me how this is Ne? I think Ne would be more concerned about understanding the potential of outer space rather than declaring that outer space exists factually. That's something I think relates more to Te and to a degree, Se. And putting them together to come up with a new idea honestly sounds like Ni as a process here that you are describing. What you are doing is that you are synthesizing into a new idea in relation to the original idea, kind of like taking two ideas together and creating a dish. New type don't create dishes with what they got. They see how an idea can lead them to a bunch of other dishes they never tasted before rather than trying to boil it down into one dish. 

Out of curiosity, what types did you consider aside EII?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

HKitty said:


> As for _what could be_, here is a another example:
> A girl is upset because every time she goes to a party if her boyfriend is there, he doesn't talk to her and shortly thereafter leaves the party.


Ne is going to help not at all here. This will be handled by judging functions and Si - the only thing Ne will do here is allow her to reframe the situation in a conceptual or essential level... to theorize about it on an essential level. 



HKitty said:


> Immediately, I begin to form questions (Ne).


Ne is just perception. It only allows you to swap out the conceptual aspects of the situation. You might be able to form questions out of that, but Ne only provides the perception. 'New angles', as they call it. 



HKitty said:


> To be brief, what are all reasons (possibilities) for his actions? I wouldn't make any conclusions until I had additional information. (This makes ppl think I don't care. Not true. I prefer to be correct rather than decisive. This seems to piss off a lot of Se-types. But for me, more information = better understanding = better advice.)


Interestingly, no. Ne types are actually rather notorious for NOT getting enough information. Ne is very quick at getting to the conceptual essence of things, and thus is less interested in details. Ne will see the situation as a type, or a rendering, of some concept.. and then speak from that concept. Details muddy that. It is actually much more likely the Se types that will want more and more sensory data - they will need a lot of sensory soup to pull some Ni patterns out of. Ne is much more likely to cut you off and begin speaking just from an archetypal perspective. I know this is true. 



HKitty said:


> Se would immediately begin to form a conclusion. Examples, boyfriend is cheating on her. Or, another Se might tell the girl she has cheated him and he has found out. All of these conclusions (assumptions) could be wrong, but Se does not care. Se needs very little additional information to reach a conclusion or decision. Se = more errors, but more decisive.


The formation of a conclusion requires a rational function. A too-quick, externally oriented conclusion would be Te. Te does this, leading outward with a quick assumption. I've seen this called 'pre-emptive' in descriptions of inferior Te. More typical of lower order Te for sure... and if derived from an objective sensory perception (what you saw, what you experienced) it's Se/Te... and also great for reality television when done without other functions to put it in check.



HKitty said:


> And honestly, everything you've described sounds like Ni.


By your definitions, certainly. The question is, which definitions are accurate?



HKitty said:


> Does (outer)space exist? Yes. Do elevators exist? Yes. What happens when you put them together and come up with a new idea? Ne.


Not Ne because it isn't conceptual. It's more like this:

How could we get to the moon? Well, conceptually speaking, an elevator lifts up. I can imagine an elevator that goes all the way to the moon. Space elevator. Any type can think this. I really doubt that any type couldn't or wouldn't imagine or be able to imagine a space elevator. When I think Space Elevator, I think ISTP, honestly. Space is awesome, elevators are awesome. Space Elevator.

Ne types can also think like this... but what does that have to do with Ne? You think Einstein was, like, "Hey! Space Elevators! ... no, no, no, I'll reconceive space and time instead..."

He must have been an Ni? The INTP-est INTP ever, that is.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Any type can think this.


WTF did I just read. No, not any type can think like that lol.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> WTF did I just read. No, not any type can think like that lol.


LOL, yeah, okay fine. I do that sometimes. I have a hard time imagining that someone wouldn't be imaginative. I think more than once I have embarrassed someone by saying something like, "Well, you've no doubt already considered and rejected the idea of the space elevator..." ...and from their face you realize that, no, they rather had not. 

But, I don't know, if I asked some random type to think of something random... they might pick something like that, right? Surely.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> LOL, yeah, okay fine. I do that sometimes. I have a hard time imagining that someone wouldn't be imaginative. I think more than once I have embarrassed someone by saying something like, "Well, you've no doubt already considered and rejected the idea of the space elevator..." ...and from their face you realize that, no, they rather had not.
> 
> But, I don't know, if I asked some random type to think of something random... they might pick something like that, right? Surely.


If we go back to the original examples offered meaning space and elevator, I think I am far more likely to think what space is, which leads me to laws of physics, which leads to gravity and thermodynamics since gravity and energy determine the ability to move elevators up and down. Elevator in space is not something I _would_ think of however. 

And one thing both me and my ESFP friend have in common that we just recently discussed is how we rarely think of or are capable of brainstorming/think of random things. That kind of randomness isn't inherent to Ni-Se.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> If we go back to the original examples offered meaning space and elevator, I think I am far more likely to think what space is, which leads me to laws of physics, which leads to gravity and thermodynamics since gravity and energy determine the ability to move elevators up and down. Elevator in space is not something I _would_ think of however.
> 
> And one thing both me and my ESFP friend have in common that we just recently discussed is how we rarely think of or are capable of brainstorming/think of random things. That kind of randomness isn't inherent to Ni-Se.


That is genuinely fascinating! I think I am going to poll some Ni types on that one. It only now suddenly occurs to me that what you describe may indeed be the case... at least in some respect. I never considered that it wouldn't just be dispreferred but indeed difficult for an Ni type to think of random things.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

To recap:


* *






me said:


> I am still trying to formulate a response; however, a preliminary comment that i wish to make is that this sounds like we're bordering the realm of thinking (and possibly feeling to some degree). Especially when we're talking about the "idea." which Jung had a definition for and was tied to thinking. There is something about the thought of purity or any other abstract concept that still somehow feels too tangible. Regardless of my indicated type, I believe myself to be intuitive in nature. Seeing the big picture seems like something more than an idea or concept. I like how Jung called it the precursor of ideas. That is somehow more apt, in my opinion.





arkigos said:


> I was going to answer this, and thought a long time about it.. But then @_Moonrise_ did it better than i would have. Here:





moonrise said:


> imo, ti is a judging process. That means two things: It's articulate and it's logical.
> 
> Ni is a _*sense*_ of abstract concept, a truth beyond words. It's also more instinctual, it's a process and way of experiencing life that cannot be ignored. It's not necessarily logical, ni conclusions differ according to an individual's individual connotations and personal history. Ni may be beyond explanation, or make sense to the user only.
> Ti is a _*process *_of concept, it is concept articulate. It's conscious, it is something that one _does_, not something one _experiences_. It depends on a personal sense of logic, this can always be explained. Even if the thread of logic becomes tangled, it's a tangible, explainable thing.





arkigos said:


> exactly. The development of the atomic concept into a molecular framework is ti. The conceptualization itself is perception... Is n.





There are a couple of things that I have issue with. First, there is a comparison being made of Ni and Ti specifically. How does this relate to Ne, N in general, Te, and T in general? Furthermore, the Ni description sounds oddly like Jung's definition of apperception. How does this description of Ni differ from thinking or feeling apperception?

How does this concept of concept differ from an intuitive feeling of knowing? Prediction? 

How and why does it differ from Jung's definition? Or even from Jung's simplified explanation:



> Sensation (i.e. sense perception) tells us that something exists; thinking tells you what it is; feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and* intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going*


How is that the same or different from "concept?"

What about Kant?



> *concept:* the active species of representation, by means of which our under*standing enables us to think. By requiring perceptions to conform to the categories, concepts serve as 'rules' allowing us to perceive general relations be*tween representations. (Cf. intuition.)





> *intuition:* the passive species of representation, by means of which our sen*sibility enables to have sensations. By requiring appearances to be given in space and time, intuitions allow us to perceive particular relations between representations, thereby limiting empirical knowledge to the sensible realm. (Cf. concept.)


[HR][/HR]


> If you can picture it in your mind, it isn't N. At least not directly.


I disagree with this statement as well, unless you are picturing a specific thing from experience. When I picture a car, for example, I picture a general notion of a car. I do not recall a specific one from experience or create a vivid one with specific measurements. This latter point is more the realm of sensation than the former. My girlfriend is a dyslexic ENFJ. She thinks in pictures. Are we to infer that because she thinks in pictures she is a sensor? She is quite adept at manoeuvring the realm of abstraction and falls short on the concrete observable world, however.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

And this is why the discussion of intuition ultimately falls so flat because intuition is just not that one can fully capture within words. At least not as an phenomenological experience, which it must be, being perception and thus observation, thus experience of reality. I also find there is a specific difficulty when I must translate Ni into something rational because words do not quite suffice. It is experience beyond experience though not a priori. If I have to call it something, I think I would refer it as a prior posteriori or such, but I bet hardcore Kantians might want to behead me for this. Ah well. What he successfully did the most when I studied his philosophy was to give me a headache.


----------



## HKitty (Oct 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Arkigos is definitely not an Ni type lol. In either system. If he is he must be an IEI and I don't think he is an IEI.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The reason I wrote 


> Does (outer)space exist? Yes. Do elevators exist? Yes. What happens when you put them together and come up with a new idea? Ne.


is because the OP wrote this


> If you can picture it in your mind, it isn't N.


The point is space elevators _is_ something you can picture in your mind. Though it is something that _does not_ exist, it can be imagined, and it sprung from two objects that already exist.
His explanation of N is that it is just concept. Like purity. or Truth. or whatever. Concept = an abstract idea; a general notion. I think that is more Ni.


Don't doubt that I'm an EII. I've been looking at this shit for almost a decade. What else have I considered? Initally EII, then everything else, then narrowed it down to SEE or ESE or LII or IEE. And back to EII. I'm an EII through and through. If you want to know why I think this, we can discuss it in another thread, or through messaging.

I'm not typing Arkigos. Just pointing out that much of what he has written about N, sounds like Ni.



> And putting them together to come up with a new idea honestly sounds like Ni as a process here that you are describing. What you are doing is that you are synthesizing into a new idea in relation to the original idea, kind of like taking two ideas together and creating a dish.  _Ne type don't create dishes with what they got._


Explain to me space elevators then.
(For reference: )


> They (Ne) enjoy discussing unusual insights into the nature of the world and crazy out-there ideas, like *space elevators*.







> *Extroverted intuition* ()
> 
> is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, _create new opportunities _and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, _rapidly generate ideas_, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others.


At it's simplest, Ne = newness, originality, possibilities. * How a person uses Ne differs in each type*. Ne doesn't function by itself. Thre are other IEs that it has to work with. 



> They (NE-types) see how an idea can lead them to a bunch of other dishes they never tasted before rather than trying to boil it down into one dish.


ARGH... to repost: 


> * as a creative (2nd) function (LII and EII)*
> 
> The individual likes to apply his insight to specific situations, relating them to the bigger picture. He also enjoys discussing idealized circumstances or what could be rather than what is. Consequently, he usually has high standards, even unreasonably so, for those around him.
> 
> He does not pursue ideas or new opportunities merely for their own sake, but for their application to specific questions and issues that he feels are important.


I leave you with another example of how I would use Ne . Today I was looking at a girl who was wearing earmuffs indoors. As we were talking, I said "wouldn't it be cool if you put a music player inside of ear muffs?". Ne. Doesn't exist, but _could_ exist. Again, from something that ALREADY exists.

More often though, I apply Ne to people. Ne is not _just_ ideas, and more ideas, and more ideas ad nauesum for me. It springs forth ideas, what-could-be's. But since I have Fi as my leading function, most of the time Ne is applied to people, their problems, their interactions with other people, how to get other people to get along. Possibilites of why they took certain actions, made certain desicions, how to interact with them in the future. Why they like certain people, but dislike others. ETC.


----------

