# If Ni-users are future-oriented, Se are present, and Si are past then what about the Ne?



## Wyrmspirit (Sep 19, 2020)

Red Panda said:


> I think it comes from socionics


It doesn't.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Wyrmspirit said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> View attachment 869393


If you pay attention to the description of Ni, it says is "development over time, historicity, past-future forecasting" etc. They tie Ni to time, I've seen many socionists do this, and sensation is focused on the present.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Astrida88 said:


> If you want to set it in time then Ne lives in the present like Se does but makes connections to past and future. It actually turns past and future into the present
> 
> Nor me as Ne dom time seems to be irrelevant. Past, Present, Future - everything I think about feels like NOW. I can get lost in memories and forget what year it is, I can imagine the future and fail to realize what I imagined isn't yet possible. My sense of time is fluid. I constantly get in trouble in my work because I was supposed to do something "in 2 weeks" but 4 weeks already passed and it still sits on my desk with "to do in 2 weeks" written on it and I believe I still have time, lol. If I need to do something at specific time I need to set a timer or write it down as an exact date, else I won't know.


This accurately describes my general experience with Dominant Ne as well. You'll find I posted similar sentiments above. I see NOW as pregnant with possibilities and potential outcomes both in how one got to NOW and how one goes forth from NOW. Both have equal meaning in the bigger picture of patterns and possibilities. I believe there is something almost akin to Quantum Mechanics involved in how my mind tends to look upon what is around me: They exist as a swirling mass of potentials, some have fallen apart, others have come to fruition, still others are yet to be realized.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Wyrmspirit said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> View attachment 869393


And yet I can extrapolate from these Se/Si and Ni/Ne discriptions different appreciations for time, space, possibility, and history. Can you not?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Clare_Bare said:


> Ne is the equivalent of Schrodinger’s quantum wave theory.
> Ne is recognising the ‘superposition’ of ‘potential’ - everything is included until it is excluded.
> A timeline of ‘past, present, future’ does not apply to Ne because time is inherently connected to potential.
> 
> ...


I am so in tune with your description! Thanks for your contribution!


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Kitsune Love said:


> It is none of those.
> Time is but a concept created by man. Ne is transcendent of time.
> Ne is all of them, yet none of them.


Very much in line with my thoughts and feelings as well. I like how @Clare_Bare put it: 



> Ne is the equivalent of Schrodinger’s quantum wave theory.
> Ne is recognising the ‘superposition’ of ‘potential’ - everything is included until it is excluded.
> A timeline of ‘past, present, future’ does not apply to Ne because time is inherently connected to potential.
> 
> ...


This resonates well with my own understanding. It also explains my constant attraction to Quantum Mechanics, even though it seems always just on the edges of my ability to comprehend.


----------



## Wyrmspirit (Sep 19, 2020)

Red Panda said:


> If you pay attention to the description of Ni, it says is "development over time, historicity, past-future forecasting" etc. They tie Ni to time, I've seen many socionists do this, and sensation is focused on the present.


That's one interpretation of it, and yes, many do. You could say the same of Ne, since "potential" implies a temporal context for something to "develop", which implies a process unfolding through time that has simply not yet occurred. It's all up to the person who does the interpretation to decide what they think it means, and so you get a lot of different opinions. My point was that Socionics is not explicit about it, and so it really can't be blamed here. Rather, if you really feel you need to blame someone, blame the people who interpreted Socionics the way you're describing and pushed that point of view to the point that everyone just accepted it. People have done the exact same thing with MBTI over the years as well, and then newcomers discard MBTI entirely because of the few weak additions it's been given by forumites that are strongly vocal about their personal beliefs.


----------



## Wyrmspirit (Sep 19, 2020)

tanstaafl28 said:


> And yet I can extrapolate from these Se/Si and Ni/Ne discriptions different appreciations for time, space, possibility, and history. Can you not?


I can, but consider the response I gave to Red Panda above. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here to Socionics as a system, because I think it's essential not to get caught up in the belief structure of existing users who have (from my perspective) "polluted" these personality theories with a lot of their own egotism.


----------



## Wyrmspirit (Sep 19, 2020)

@tanstaafl28 

Sorry to double post, I also found this article (I was trying to remember it but I couldn't at the time), which I had tucked away somewhere in the back of my mind. I had to go digging, but it talks about the "dimensionality" of each function. It's important to note, that Socionics actually predicts the lead function of _every single type_ is "4th dimensional" and thus has some sort of temporal axis to it. I don't fully grasp the implications of this information myself, but here it is for what it's worth:










Granted, this is also the contribution of people interpreting the system, so it's another step removed from the source. It's up to you if you think it makes sense or not. I haven't made up my mind yet.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Wyrmspirit said:


> I can, but consider the response I gave to Red Panda above. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here to Socionics as a system, because I think it's essential not to get caught up in the belief structure of existing users who have (from my perspective) "polluted" these personality theories with a lot of their own egotism.


I can relate to that. I just PMed someone with similar sentiments earlier today. I made the analogy that MBTI is a useful tool, but it is sometimes used when another tool would be more appropriate. It would be like using a wrench when one really needs a hammer, or a screwdriver, when one really needs a chisel. It is important to use it for the situations for which it was specifically designed.


----------



## Wyrmspirit (Sep 19, 2020)

There's also a rather interesting study done by Dario Nardi where he did "brain scans" of various types and observed the neurological activity associated with each function. When Ne was supposedly in "use", you see a kind of erratic christmas tree light flickering pattern all over the brain, across both hemispheres that happens very rapidly, leading him to believe that Ne is some sort of free-association mode where you are receiving information from normally disassociated parts of the brain. (Sorry I can't seem to find the exact article right now, but I know it's out there somewhere).


----------



## Clare_Bare (Apr 6, 2015)

Wyrmspirit said:


> When Ne was supposedly in "use", you see a kind of erratic christmas tree light flickering pattern all over the brain, across both hemispheres that happens very rapidly, leading him to believe that Ne is some sort of free-association mode


That is a very apt description of what it 'feels' like in my head.
I would have used the phrase 'fireworks display', but i'm so with this observation!


----------



## melloi (Jul 14, 2019)

DOGSOUP said:


> Ni looks at the time continuum and sees what will _likely_ be (picking up on repetition, similar to Si but less so in terms of anything tangible, which is the reason it comes off as 'strange' at times).


So Ni is trying to predict the inevitable fate, while Ne is the devils advocate against Ni's predictions.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

defenseless said:


> So Ni is trying to predict the inevitable fate, while Ne is the devils advocate against Ni's predictions.


At least, that is what Ni doms and Ne doms like to think


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

I find Ne can be somewhat past focused, because of Si. I know a lot of Ne's who can be very nostalgic and sentimental people. Maybe a mixture of past and present focus. It seems like Ne operates similar to Se, except Se focuses on the tangible aspects of objective realities, whereas Ne seeks to abstract and thus will look at events and abstract them to patterns, ideas and possibilities. 
I have this suspicion that a lot of Ne dom type descriptions are wrong, because they correlate Ne=possibilties to correlate to sensory possibilities, and for Ne doms it's more looking at the same thing from different perspectives, but when it comes to the sensory, I believe Ne's want to keep that aspect of things simple and consistent. As in, an Ne dom might try something new if it seems interesting for any given reason, but might not try a new food, clothing style, or arrangement of furniture for instance, for the sake of trying out something new. Seems like for someone who's only connection to the sensory is introverted, such arbitrary changes could create unecessary complication which would take energy away from the preferred intuitive mode...


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Kitsune Love said:


> It is none of those.
> Time is but a concept created by man. Ne is transcendent of time.
> Ne is all of them, yet none of them.


I like this.
I mean, it was a Ne aux (Albert Einstein)who realized time and space and intertwined into spacetime...

And it was an Ne dom (Douglas Adams) who in his famous novel wrote "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so."


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

I have read that:

Ni-Se are past and future oriented (either thinking about the past or future)

Ne-Si are present and future oriented (thinking about the present and future)

Se-Ni are present oriented (thinking mainly about what's going on and what to do in the present)

Si-Ne are past and present oriented (thinking about the past and how it relates to the present situation)


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

dulcinea said:


> I find Ne can be somewhat past focused, because of Si. I know a lot of Ne's who can be very nostalgic and sentimental people. Maybe a mixture of past and present focus. It seems like Ne operates similar to Se, except Se focuses on the tangible aspects of objective realities, whereas Ne seeks to abstract and thus will look at events and abstract them to patterns, ideas and possibilities.
> I have this suspicion that a lot of Ne dom type descriptions are wrong, because they correlate Ne=possibilties to correlate to sensory possibilities, and for Ne doms it's more looking at the same thing from different perspectives, but when it comes to the sensory, I believe Ne's want to keep that aspect of things simple and consistent. As in, an Ne dom might try something new if it seems interesting for any given reason, but might not try a new food, clothing style, or arrangement of furniture for instance, for the sake of trying out something new. Seems like for someone who's only connection to the sensory is introverted, such arbitrary changes could create unecessary complication which would take energy away from the preferred intuitive mode...


SI is not focused on the past, SI is about interpreting sensory input subjectively, as impressions. Looking at a thing and not seeing the whole of it at once. Jung described how SI types would perceive things that never even happened because they're so invested in their own impression of external situations. 
Nostalgia and sentimentality are emotional decisions about those things that evoke them, and imo people who are stuck/invested on those, if anything are F. But those emotions on their own can happen to anyone.
I agree about Ne and different perspectives, it's a very important aspect of it often overlooked, possibly because of the many mistyped people..
I don't agree with you with the rest though, mainly because the "sensory" is not just S, N is also based on the sensory. The difference between S and N is that N gives attention to, and to quote Jung "dimly conscious stimuli", meaning it gives greater importance to the subtler characteristics of what the senses pick up. This might mean that avoidance of a certain food can happen exactly because of N and not because of "SI". Certain textures are pretty hard for me to eat, while my SI dom mother doesn't even notice (and will eat almost anything).
In the examples you give, trying something new or w/e is something we might skip because we can already imagine how it's gonna be and extrapolate from there. That being said, I think Ne doms are very likely to do those things to begin with because our judging preference is weaker rather than having anything to do with Si. In Jungian theory SE and NE are not 2 preferences apart, but 1 meaning, the E attitude connects us and makes us very similar. Therefore, if a NE type is going to access S, it's gonna happen primarily in SE mode first.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Wyrmspirit said:


> That's one interpretation of it, and yes, many do. You could say the same of Ne, since "potential" implies a temporal context for something to "develop", which implies a process unfolding through time that has simply not yet occurred. It's all up to the person who does the interpretation to decide what they think it means, and so you get a lot of different opinions. My point was that Socionics is not explicit about it, and so it really can't be blamed here. Rather, if you really feel you need to blame someone, blame the people who interpreted Socionics the way you're describing and pushed that point of view to the point that everyone just accepted it. People have done the exact same thing with MBTI over the years as well, and then newcomers discard MBTI entirely because of the few weak additions it's been given by forumites that are strongly vocal about their personal beliefs.


how do you think it should be interpreted instead?


----------



## Wyrmspirit (Sep 19, 2020)

Red Panda said:


> how do you think it should be interpreted instead?


I'm not going to answer that.


----------



## Wyrmspirit (Sep 19, 2020)

dulcinea said:


> I have this suspicion that a lot of Ne dom type descriptions are wrong, because they correlate Ne=possibilties to correlate to sensory possibilities, and for Ne doms it's more looking at the same thing from different perspectives, but when it comes to the sensory, I believe Ne's want to keep that aspect of things simple and consistent. As in, an Ne dom might try something new if it seems interesting for any given reason, but might not try a new food, clothing style, or arrangement of furniture for instance, for the sake of trying out something new. Seems like for someone who's only connection to the sensory is introverted, such arbitrary changes could create unecessary complication which would take energy away from the preferred intuitive mode...


This would describe how I experience it, yes. I don't seek out new physical data just to experience new physical data. It has to have an intellectual purpose behind it, although I don't need a lot of conviction beyond the initial honeymoon interest. That interest wears off fast, as I can absorb all the new information quickly, model it, and then I get bored and it's time to move on.

Sensation for me is experienced as a desire for feeling safe, comfortable, and undisturbed. However, that's the ideal case. In practice, sensation is experienced as avoidance of hostile, uncomfortable, and disruptive experiences, when they are either unfamiliar or nonsensical. Those experiences can even be memories with no connection to the present circumstance, and I spend a lot of energy trying not to ruminate about past mistakes because doing so is draining, distracting, and usually leads nowhere but into depression. Instead of engaging these experiences I feel trapped by them and seek escape by embracing something new or something I haven't finished exploring.

The best summary of it is to say that there is no difference between myself and an INTP at first glance. We both spend all our time free thinking about theories and forming new ideas or opinions. The difference is that, when insight strikes, the INTP will retreat to nurture and cherish those insights, cultivating them into really deep understanding of something. The ENTP rushes to the nearest person with excitement ready to spread the insight all around, only developing a flimsy generalization that will do just the job of getting the gist across, hopefully.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

The conditional, of course. _''What if?''_

That's the main difference between Ne and Ni, Ne sees the intuition world as a playground to be explored, Ni sees it as a sacred land where you and pick and choose something that you commit to.

Same thing with Se and Si in the sensory world.


----------



## HolyMoony (Mar 11, 2021)

Alunsina said:


> I was thinking if introverted intuitives are mind travelling to the future; extraverted sensors are internal present; and introverted sensors are mind travelling back and forth to their past, then the extraverted intuitives are like mind travellers opening out several alternate realities from their three-dimensional space.
> 
> Any better description about the Ne? It felt like this is too chaotic to even fit with the other three cognitive functions (judging or perceiving). I tried narrowing their definition down except the Ne just doesn't make sense like the other three.


First of all, all introverted functions travel between past and future (yes Si as well) but all extroverted functions are grounded in present (Ne, too). I would say Ne is present-oriented but not in here and now way like Se, Se is like "doing now" while Ne is like "imagining now". Ne is not oriented to several years later instead tends to leave future uncertain but high Ni and Si users are certain about future.


----------



## HolyMoony (Mar 11, 2021)

Kitsune Love said:


> It is none of those.
> Time is but a concept created by man. Ne is transcendent of time.
> Ne is all of them, yet none of them.


I also think that relating functions to limited time periods is a mistake. Si is not stuck in past it can stretch to future. Ni users are not future-freaks, it can look back to historical trends for insights. I would say Ne is originated in present but not stuck in time.


----------



## Avie (May 14, 2021)

The best explanation I’ve heard is this.

Si lives in the past.
Se lives in the present.
Ni lives in the future.
Ne lives in a pineapple under the sea.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Ne looks at the environment and finds possible meaning(s) in what it sees. Se looks at the environment and sees the environment.

So, in some ways, Ne is present in that it looks for environmental stimulation. But when it translates the environment, it's absent the time element.


----------



## HolyMoony (Mar 11, 2021)

Avie said:


> The best explanation I’ve heard is this.
> 
> Si lives in the past.
> Se lives in the present.
> ...


LMAO I 100% live in a pineapple under the sea, I feel like my mind lives in multiple fantasy universes.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Time is a belief system to which we collectively adhere, it has nothing to do with cognitive functions. Before history was created, people were constantly in a state of being, whereas now they're in a constant state of becoming(or resist becoming). Julius Evola says that this is just a window of time which will at some point end due to its in-eternal nature and we'll get back to being in a state of being, where one merges and perfects what could be(N) with what is(S) into synchronicity.


----------



## rvgidhf (8 mo ago)

Napoleptic said:


> I think of both as future-oriented, but Ni is focused on probability while Ne is oriented toward possibility, what will be vs. what could be. No idea whether that's even remotely accurate though.


Explain your reasoning


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Si - see truth by looking at the past 
Ni - see truth by looking at the future 
Se - sew truth by making waves in the present
Ne - sew truth by changing perspectives 

Ne is just trying to replace things with new things. There's a prophecy that says it's the end of the world? Ne steps in and replaces the doomsday story with a sequel. Someone suffer from trauma in their past? Ne steps in and replaces those memories with a distraction. People in the present are doing fucked up things that you don't want to participate in? Ne will pretend it's somewhere else. 

It's nice knowing there are people out there who look for solutions to problems by creating alternate choices for you using Ne. You don't have to eat what's on your plate.


----------



## YourFavoriteTroll (3 mo ago)

Napoleptic said:


> I think of both as future-oriented, but Ni is focused on probability while Ne is oriented toward possibility, what will be vs. what could be. No idea whether that's even remotely accurate though.


That’s a very accurate description.


----------

